Windows 7 Seems Slower to Sleep and Wake Up

[Lexluethar]

While mine is 32 bit, i ran Vista on the same laptop that I just installed 7 on and they are identical in the time it takes to come out of sleep or hibernation. If there is a difference it time it is less than 1 second.

 

[KSoD]

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.

Actually i have to disagree. Win7 is far different. It is much snappier. It is much more responsive.

I ran Vista on a Dell Dimension 8400 with a Pentium 4 @ 3.4GHz with 3GB of RAM. At any time Vista was using 2GB of RAM on my desktop with nothing loaded. Win7 uses 28% of my RAM at the desktop. They have fine tuned it much more than people realize.

The truth of it is this, Win7 started off with the Vista code. From there it was fune tuned and modified. There are plenty of devices out there that you can't use Vista drivers for cause of the changes. There are plenty more in which you can. but the fact is that was done for a reason. Having better driver support allows for integration faster. Which is why XP is still widely used.

To think that Win7 only has a few minor changes is focusing way to much on the visual aspect and not knowing enough of what happened under the hood. Win7 is way different.

 

[Lexluethar]

It is definately faster and it definately uses less ram. I used vista for a year on this laptop, now i put win7 on it and it 'moves' faster and loads faster. I have 2 gig ram and Vista ALWAYS used 40% of my RAM at idle, win7 uses 28% and releases RAM after it is done using it. It seemed like Vista didn't do that as often.

There are some small tweaks that like Mak said average users don't notice, but in just using this OS for 24 hours i've already noticed differences.

 

[drmike]

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.

Actually, the Blu-Ray player is on the Vista machine, which boots up, shuts down, sleeps, and wakes a bit faster. Aside from that, the hardware is the same, although I can't be certain about the hard drive because, while each model is listed as having a 5400 RPM drive, the Vista machine is refurbished, so I can't say for certain if HP swapped out the drive for a faster one.

So, as you note, many variables ... the best thing to do is what others here have done, which is install 7 on a machine that had been running Vista. But, dang, I wish the brand new system was as snappy as the Vista system is. Perhaps I'll try a clean install, though that won't be all that easy since HP doesn't supply system disks. (Cheapskates, like so many manufacturers these days!).

By the way, thanks for the BIOS tip. I'll check it out.

 

[drmike]

turbogtstang, Lexluethar, and Mak213, thanks for the feedback about Windows 7 and the speeds of your machines. It is good to know that 7 is more efficient, as it should be, and that it seems to be as quick, if not more so, than Vista for certain tasks. I suspect my new system is running fine, and I've done a very unscientific comparison across two machines -- but I was hoping for a truly snappy experience, just as I experienced with the Vista system, which is only a month old. I might see if I can tweak 7 a bit, but, if not, I don't mind living with what seems to be a slightly slower interface (on my particular machine), or, perhaps, I could exchange it. I mean, I was eyeing the system with the Intel i7.

 

[KSoD]

What are the specs on the 2 systems. List them for us. We have no way to give any accurate information when all we can say is system1 or system2. Give us some details.

Win7 is snappy and more responsive than Vista on many things. Then again depending on what you are doing it can be slower. You are talking about a system that has been in use for a while to take advantage of Superfetch while the other one has had all of 1 day to try and mimic what Vista already knows. It wont happen.

I bet in the same amount of time, say 1 month, you will see Win7 act and respond better cause it will start to gather the informatin for the proper use of Superfetch and then exceed what your Vista system is doing.

Trying to compare 2 systems that 1 is brand new out of box and 1 that has been in use long enough to use teh Superfetch feature, yeah you will think the new one is slow. Superfetch learns your habits. It learns what programs you like to run so it can pre-load part of them for easy access. A machine that is 24 hours old is not going to know what programs you like to use comapred to a machine that you have been using everday for months.

Reinstall Vista fresh. Then use it for 1 day just like you have Win7. Then compare. You will see Win7 will outperform it on most tasks. But again, everything said is arbitrary. As it may not be true for you cause we have NO idea what programs, software or tasks you are doing. For all we know the programs you are using are not even slated to work properly on Win7. Maybe you have installed something on the Win7 machine that has affected the shut down/sleep aspect. We know nothing other than the fact that your Win7 machine is responding slower. We have no input as to what is/has been done to either machine that could present this.

Give us some info. We can try to help but with such generic information, you will only get generic answers.

 

[drmike]

Mak213, here are the specs for each system.

1. Vista 64-bit System, HP e9120f:

AMD Phenom II X4 910, 2.6 GHz quad-core processor
NVIDIA GeForce 9100 Chipset
Pegatron M2N78-LA Motherboard
8GB DDR3 PC3-8500 RAM
1 TB hard drive, 5400 RPM, SATA 3G
ATI Radeon 4350, 512 MB video RAM
DVD+/-RW 16X, +/- DL 12 X SATA drive
Blue-Ray read-only drive
801.11 b/g/n wireless PCI express x1 card
8-channel high-def audio
Operating System: Windows Vista Home Premium, 64-bit
software includes: HP Advisor, HP MediaSmart, Norton Anti-Virus, HP Games

2. Windows 7 64-bit System, HP e9220f (brand new system):

AMD Phenom II X4 910, 2.6 GHz quad-core processor
AMD 785G Chipset
Foxconn H-RS780-uATX Motherboard
8GB DDR3 PC3-8500 RAM
1 TB hard drive, 5400 RPM, SATA 3G
ATI Radeon 4350, 512 MB video RAM
DVD+/-RW 16X, +/- DL 12 X SATA drive
801.11 b/g/n wireless PCI express x1 card
8-channel high-def audio
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium, 64-bit
software includes: HP Advisor, HP MediaSmart, HP Games, Norton Anti-Virus, Norton Online Backup

So the specs are the same, except that the new Windows 7 machine has: no Blu-Ray, a different chipset and motherboard, and Norton Online Backup (which I can't find in the start menu or in the "Uninstall Programs" list of the Control Panel -- but I know it's there 'cause I got a pop-message asking if I wanted to use it).

And, as mentioned, it's the new, Windows 7 machine that is slower to sleep and wake -- and also slower to boot up cold and load basic programs, like Firefox.

I've installed the following on both systems:
--Office XP (though I noticed the slower sleep and wake time on the new Windows 7 system *before* installing Office XP)
--Firefox
--iTunes
--WinRar

Aside from that, nothing else. Also, the VIsta machine (which is faster to boot, sleep, etc.) has been in the house for 32 days, but I will say that it was quick to sleep, wake, and cold boot from the very beginning.

At this point, I'm not sure if I'll reinstall Vista fresh, but I'll keep an eye on things and see if the Windows 7 machine starts running some of its basic tasks more quickly.

 

[KSoD]

Yes the different chipset and different mobo are factors.

Again i will state about the fact of Superfetch. Using a system for 1 day compared to a system used for a Month WILL ACCOUNT for the programs loading. That is the whole purpose of superfetch. It has been 1 month, as per your words, that you started to use the Vista system. Of course it will know what programs you will like by now. Win7 which has been used for 24 hours WILL NOT.

That is NOT a issue. It will be corrected once Win7 starts to learn your habits just as Vista did.

1 of the programs you installed i can tell you right now is a big issue. iTunes has been nothing but trouble for Win7 since it started in Beta stages. It has NOT been fixed by Apple yet and can also easily account for your "issues".

The Vista machine is ONLY faster cause it KNOWS YOU. It is not faster cause it is superior. It has been used longer. End of story on that aspect. Unload iTunes and i bet you will notice a increase in sleep, boot and wake times. iTunes does NOT like Win7.

An update is available that allows for a potential power saving in an AMD multicore processor that is running an x64-based version of Windows Vista SP2, of Windows Server 2008 SP2, of Windows 7, or of Windows Server 2008 R2

Also might want to check out that. I have that applied myself. A update from M$ for AMD CPU's for Win7 64 Bit.

 

[drmike]

Mak213, thanks for all that info. I wasn't aware of SuperFetch until I learned about it in this discussion -- interesting to know that an OS can learn a user's habits and then make adjustments based on them. Also, I wasn't aware of conflicts between iTunes and Windows 7 -- a pity, as I rely on iTunes so much. I'll have to keep using it, but I might uninstall it just to see if the system performs better overall. As the days go by, I'll probably keep monitoring system and see if there are performance changes (as partly a curiosity -- I'm interested in learning just how this OS works).

And thanks too for that link the update. I think I'll install that.