Boot Up Times
Microsoft needs to probe more than this to get out of the skeptical users mode. They have the solution right on their faces with Office but for some reason they do not seee it. Users want better looking GUIs jus give them that and they will be happy.
Other than boot times, I don't see significant differences here. There is too much attention given to boot time anyway. The business user may boot up in the morning, then change applications quite a number of times a day, and they may only perform a reboot once a month or as necessary for some reason. Even a home user may shut down at night and boot-up once during the day......and may only reboot when something goes wrong; very similar to the business user boot pattern. What is much more important is how quickly the machine can switch from one application to another and how quickly it can process information and hand the user a result. And how stable the machine is in doing these tasks. "program not responding" is not acceptable.
Boot up time is an issue, at least a psychological issue, because it is frustrating to sit behind the keyboard waiting for the computer to be available. The real performance issue is how the OS accesses the hard drive, the "boat anchor" to real computer performance. I wrote an app once which ran so slowly as to be useless. I rewrote the app to build a RAM table of record location on the hard drive, to search in RAM for the record of interest, and to pluck the record from the hard disk using DAO (data access objects) in VB6. On a really underpowered 486 PC the app ran apparently instantly. Unless and until slow processing on a hard disk is moved to RAM there will be performance issues on PCs. Solid state hard drives will likely help, but what is needed is a new paradigm for the hard drive by way of clever OS programming. The paradigm is this - use the hard drive as a "clothes closet" where you do - no - searching on the hard drive (or anything else which is inherently slow) but simply use the hard drive to pluck needed information when and where it is absolutely needed. Decades into the evolution of PCs and we still see ridiculously slow performance because of the "boat anchor" drag of slow hard drive involvement in tasks which can be done in a much better way with more clever use of RAM like components. We do - not - need a new OS which will still leave users sitting behind the keyboard waiting for the PC to finish something.
The reason this has not become mainstream is due primarily to cost. Other companies in the past have released 'RAM Hard drives' like Gigabyte: http://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-GC-RAMDISK-i-RAM-Hard-Drive/dp/B000EPM9NC I once even saw an old ISA RAM Drive, I can't imagine what that would have cost at the time. Hopefully the need for storage media with movable parts will be eliminated in the near future!
In the 80's, they put IBM PCs (XTs or ATs I can't remember) out for use in locations that had very high elevations finding that disk drives didn't work. So, they had to replace all these drives with solid state drives at the time. I think 1MB of RAM at the time cost about $900. They must have cost a fortune to implement. That was back in the time when computer programmers weren't so fearful of surprises in a project and everyone didn't sitaround and play the blame game. Those were the good ole days.
Pretty meaningless really, by the time you have added all your software and start-up services and everything else, your boot-time is minutes..!
I'd love to see WinXP SP3 graphs thrown in for good measure. We all know XP is a lot faster than Vista, so for those of us holding off until Windows 7 those graphs would be interesting to see.
Right now the MS gold standard is XP, especially in a business environment. Because of this, I would like comparisons to XP to see how it rates, not the DRM bloatware that Vista is.
i use xp pro 64bit edition, boot time is roughly 18-22 secs, can wind. 7 compare with that? In my eyes vista was a waste of time, ours and m.s's.