Windows 7 Seems Slower to Sleep and Wake Up

[drmike]

A quick comparison I did today between nearly identical machines reveals that Windows 7 might take longer to sleep and wake (unless I've got a hardware issue).

A recently purchased refurbished HP computer running Vista with 8GB DDR3 RAM, an AMD Phenom II X4 910 processor, and a 1TB hard drive. Sleep mode activates fast -- about 6 seconds. The computer wakes in less than 5 seconds.

Today, we got essentially the same computer (same specs), but the newest version with Windows 7 preinstalled (long story about why we needed another one). Sleep mode on this unit takes more than three times as long -- 20 seconds, while waking takes just over 10 seconds. (Plus, both sleep and wake are "louder").

I'm very curious to know what might account for this. I expected basic Windows 7 functions to be faster, or at least equally quick. (By the way, I compared both with the same program running -- just Windows itself and Firefox.) A slower sleep time isn't necesssarily an issue, but just something I noticed and am curious about (as I tend to keep my PCs in sleep mode and don't shut them down).

 

[Osiris]

32 or 64 bit?

 

[drmike]

Both Vista and Windows 7 are the 64 bit versions.

 

[KSoD]

Today, we got essentially the same computer (same specs), but the newest version with Windows 7 preinstalled (long story about why we needed another one). Sleep mode on this unit takes more than three times as long -- 20 seconds, while waking takes just over 10 seconds. (Plus, both sleep and wake are "louder").

Essentially and Exact same specs are 2 different things. Trying to compare systems that are not EXACTLY the same will get you no where. As even the slightest difference in hardware can have a profound difference on your issues.

2nd, Win7 came pre-installed. Right there tells me that the OEM had their hand in it and installed their crapware. Which it is a known fact that once OEM's get their junk on a PC, like the trials of McAfee and/or Norton that issues come up.

Remove the crapware, get matching machines then compare. Till then you can't compare what 1 system does opposed to the other. It is like comparing Peaches to Prunes. It jsut cant be done.

 

[Hefemeister]

I can tell you from running Vista x64 and Win7 x64 on the same system that the times were close enough that I did not notice a difference.

I never timed them but both would sleep and wake very fast. Win7 may be a hair faster.

 

[drmike]

Remove the crapware, get matching machines then compare. Till then you can't compare what 1 system does opposed to the other. It is like comparing Peaches to Prunes. It jsut cant be done.

I completely hear you on that -- a good point. And I didn't compare to see how many processes were running. Having said that, the difference in sleep time just made me curious if, generally speaking, Windows 7 might be a bit slower ... though so far, what I've read said the new OS should be much snappier.

I never timed them but both would sleep and wake very fast. Win7 may be a hair faster.

Hefemeister, thanks for replying. Running both on the exact same system should be a fairly reliable indication of speeds.

I noticed that, on my brand new system (Windows 7), the DVI signal to the monitor, the wireless connection, etc. suspend after 5 seconds, but the fans keep going for another 15 seconds; then the hard-drive indicator flashes briefly and the system finally goes to sleep. On the Vista system, everything suspends/goes "off" at the same time.

 

[KSoD]

Well the thing is also, do you have the Cool 'N Quiet on for the AMD CPU? That can cause issues. It slows down the CPU and when in sleep it will take it longer since the CPU will be operating at very minimal speed. So that could have a effect.

It could be that the response is slower due to the input not being captured right away. I mean i can just touch my mouse and my system wakes from sleep in like 5-8 seconds. I get my monitor back on and i see my pointer. So it could also be the monitor not showing the response as well.

So there are many factors that can affect this. Win7 is snappier than Vista. But it is also very dependent on the machine as well. Using a machine with 1GB of RAM you will see how snappy Win7 is. But if the machine has 8GB of RAM you wont see a major difference as even Vista is snappy with that amount.

 

[drmike]

Mak213, forgive the basic question, but could you tell me how to turn the Cool 'N Quiet on and off? Do you know if this is done through the Device Manager or through Power Options? I see something in Power Options for processor cooling activity, but I'm not certain if that's an AMD-specific thing or just a general Windows option that works regardless of chip manufacturer.

I was thinking about what you said about the bloatware -- while I can't confirm this without doing a close inspection of both systems, my suspicion is that the bloatware might be the same on both (e.g. HP's stupid "Advisor" software, Norton Anti-Virus 2010, etc.). (OEM systems certainly aren't ideal -- if I weren't so exhaustingly busy and had the resources, I'd build a system, provided I could build a quiet one.)

I can see what you mean about Windows being machine-dependent, and that all sorts of variables come into play. I think I found the slow sleep time to be odd just given the same hardware components, minus a Blu-Ray player in the newest machine.

By the way, I've noticed somewhat slower load times on basic software (Firefox, Word), though perhaps that's not necessarily due to Windows -- for example, perhaps the hard drives in each machine, despite the same size, are different.

 

[turbogtstang]

Here is a pretty cool article comparing Vista and 7. Like everyone is saying, it all depends on everything else that is going on, hardware, software, processes, etc.

So, how does Windows 7 perform? - PC World- msnbc.com

One thing to understand is that Windows 7 is not that much different than Vista. They skimmed down on some features. Stopped some processes from not running at startup, but overall Windows 7 is not that much "snappier" than Vista. By complaining so much about Vista's response time microsoft thought that they could get away with selling us the same product with a few minor changes.

I know there are some new features so dont everyone beat me up at once, but honestly if you have Vista, you will notice very little change in speed after all things are considered.

 

[KSoD]

Cool 'N Quiet is controlled by the BIOS not Windows. You will have to find that setting in there.

Again unless they are running the exact same programs at the exact same time using the exact same resources with the exact same processes, then there is not going to be any way to effectively compare. As any discrempency in anything, be it number of processes, amount of resources used, can attribute to the change.

The Blu-Ray player is a PERFECT example. That is new. That requires different drivers. Are the drivers used created by Microsoft or the Manufacturer or the drive? Cause that right there is a MAJOR factor. The drivers can be faulty and can easily account for the discremptency. The drive could already require a driver update, possibly a firmware update. Who knows? That drive alone can be the single factor that is causing this.

The hard drives can be the factor as one could be 5400 RPM and the other 7200 RPM. Could also be that the newest install has not gotten all of your preferences loaded into Superfetch to load them faster. It takes Windows at least a week to learn your habits and most used programs to pre-load them. Which can easily explain that part.