OnePlus 5 review
I am talking about fully booted including logging on, and all systems connected and ready.
My Sony Vaio VGN-AR31E (now a little old in the tooth) takes exactly 2 minutes and 7 seconds.
I would be interested in your replies since I was talking a a salesman in John Lewis who had an Apple Mac and he said his loaded in just under 1 minute.
I am in no way disappointed in my time, but I am interested to hear other timings.
Please be honest.
I know much depends on what is scheduled to load, but I will be interested in any replies.
Hmmm, well my Acer Apire 9301 (3.5 year old now, Turion 64 mobile processor) running Vista HP (fully patched with SP2) and with 2GB RAM has the desktop appear after 55 seconds and is all loaded up and on line in 1 min 15 secs on a good day... the figure varies a little.
Why do I know these figures ? Because as a little experiment I am still using NO cleanup tools, no CC etc since clean installing last August. Just inbuilt Windows tools used. Running MSE security too... light on resources.
Who said Vista was slow :)
My Acer laptop takes about 5 minutes! DOH
3.2GHz P4 1.75G ram takes just over two minutes in total.
Reaches desktop pretty quick but slows down because I have the AV loading first which checks all the other files as they load.
Thanks, I am beginning to suspect that discounting the machine itself, the biggest effect on loading is security. I run Kaspersky 2010 which I like and get for free through Barclays online banking. I think the program itself is excellent but not as light as MSE.
As Fruit Bat /\0/\, says his AV checks all other files which is the same as KIS and is bound to take longer
Anyway it will be interesting to see what other users have to say..
It could well KIS. I remember how slow FSecure used to be too, certainly in comparison with MSE. High memory usage and disc thrashing with it.
You probably remember all my problems with FS... that was the real reason for clean installing and ditching it and MSE was in beta, and the rest as they say :) is history.
I did actually try KIS as a trial at the time but found it heavy going slowing things down.
Also my shutdown times are rapid too, a couple of seconds to close the desktop, a second or so with the "logging off" symbol and then around further 8 seconds or so to fully shutdown. Never use sleep/hibernate etc.
Curiosly if shutting down on battery it takes a further 10 ? maybe seconds from the above finishing off with just the power light still lit and the HDD still spinning.
Don't know why that should be be, but it's very consistent anyway.
Compaq Evo, 2.26GHz CPU. 2 GB RAM 80 GB HDD, and with Avast loading and checking it takes about 2.5 mins to up and running.
DESKTOP - 3GHz P4, 1GB, 160GB SATA, WinXP, Avast, Zone Alarm, Uninteruptible Power Supply USB Software Status Monitor, Skype and USB Skype Call Box (so I can use my landline phone on Skype): 1min 15sec
LAPTOP - 1.73Ghz Centrino, 768MB, 60GB IDE, WinXP, Avast, Zone Alarm: 1min 20sec
NETBOOK - 1.6Ghz Atom N270, 1GB, 160GB SATA, WinXP, Avast, Zone Alarm: 1min 15sec
In all cases I have measured the time from hitting the power button upto when BGInfo (see click here) displays various status information on my desktop and all the Systray icons are loaded and stable except for maybe Avast if it is downloading (rather than just checking for) an update (which I don't count as part of the boot process). I have BGInfo to run from the Start menu and it effectively seems to run last of all the startup processes.
Shut down times can be highly variable due to a number of factors. For example, some processes may take a little while to close due to built in timeouts in the software.
From pushing the power on, 50 seconds to the Desktop and 7 seconds to close when finished, using Ubuntu 10.04 AMD Sempron processor and 1G RAM. It never varies.
Just so we are all on the same playing field, I have 11 programs listed in msconfig Statup. These include Acronis Startup Recovery manager which does interupt the normal Start procedure, and gives you time to hit F11 to implement recovery.
From what Batch has said Avast looks light on it's feet.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.