Do you consider boot times "system performance?"

[STRMfrmXMN]

I was talking to a friend awhile ago. I was talking about system performance going from Windows 7 to 8. I told him all about my boot times being cut in half and he claimed "boot times are not system performance!"

 

I believe it is system performance. Going from a hard drive to an SSD speeds up boot times and I would consider that a performance gain on it's own. Shorter boot times equate to less waiting = faster.

 

 

Basically, does boot time matter to you?

[CowsGoRoar]

No. Asus has FastBoot and it boots up in 5 seconds with my hard drive.

[Juganog]

No. Asus has FastBoot and it boots up in 5 seconds with my hard drive.

so boot times are important to you but SSD's are not?

[FireofDestruction]

typically i walk away from my computer as it boots to get a drink,food,bathroom etc.. by time im back i need to type in my password so not really

[flibberdipper]

Although boot times are important to me, I don't consider them to be an indicator of system performance. With my 120GB 840 EVO in my netbook, it booted in 10 seconds or less, topping out about 140MB/s max reads/writes. But my netbook isn't very fast. My Dell boots in 30 seconds or less, and it's faster than my netbook, but still not that fast.

[Kyuubixchidori]

do i consider it performance? yes.

do I care? why would I? for the once a month it actually gets shut off? sleep mode is near instant and uses almost no power.

[Briggsy]

when I'm doing overclock testing, being able to boot quickly is the difference between an evening vs many evenings. I would consider boot times to be a feature/convenience, more than an indicator of performance.

[Hans Christian | Teri]

It matters to some degree but as long as I'm not waiting several minutes I couldn't care less. SSD and Windows 8 of course means I have no problem. I would not at all consider it a measure of system performance, other than the first few seconds (where you might as well go make yourself a sandwich) it has no impact what so ever on how your computer performs in applications etc.

[CowsGoRoar]

so boot times are important to you but SSD's are not?

Boot times aren't that important either, as long as it's not ridiculously long.. I'm a patient person. Someone is going to bash on me so I will ignore those posts.

[Juganog]

Boot times aren't that important either, as long as it's not ridiculously long.. I'm a patient person. Someone is going to bash on me so I will ignore those posts.

I'm not trying to be overly rude but if you are going to mention the boot times how you did in your post it must mean something to you

[CowsGoRoar]

I'm not trying to be overly rude but if you are going to mention the boot times how you did in your post it must mean something to you

Why would you even care? I just said as it's not too long. Maybe even 15 seconds I'm fine with that. So to satisfy you, yes I do care about boot times.

[elecxonica]

Fast boot times are nice, but I'd rather faster renders or higher fps

[Darkman]

Although boot times are important to me, I don't consider them to be an indicator of system performance. With my 120GB 840 EVO in my netbook, it booted in 10 seconds or less, topping out about 140MB/s max reads/writes. But my netbook isn't very fast. My Dell boots in 30 seconds or less, and it's faster than my netbook, but still not that fast.

^ This. I did go from 20 second boots from power button to desktop on a HDD that is four years old and loaded all of the programs set to load on boot in about 10 seconds every single boot. Now that the HDD is dying, 45-55 seconds from power button to desktop and about 2 minutes to load all of the programs set to load on boot. May this Seagate Barracuda rest in peace.

Again, I do not think of them as system performance.

[Aniallation]

I don't consider it "system" performance, I consider it disk drive performance. However it's still important to me, since 90% of the time I'm using a computer it's my laptop

[Charger]

84 days up time right now, I rarely see my computer boot so it doesn't really matter to me lol

probably should restart it lol

[Vivilacqua1]

i have noticed about 1 1/2 second faster boot times with my upgraded hardware (not hdd), but for me it means the speed of the hdd/ssd.

[SkilledRebuilds]

My mobo allows me to force turbo on constant.
And to boot with full turbo on makes a difference from 3.5-3.9ghz compared to flatout 3.9ghz.

Makes a small visible difference having it full on for Boot cycle.

[Dreigo42]

I'm kinda mixed on this one. I like a snappy machine and fast boot times tend to come along with it. That's what I'd put under system performance. Boot times by themselves though, I don't particularly care about that much. I tend to push the power button on my machine and then go grab my drink or snack. So as long as it's up and ready for me when I get back, it doesn't bother me.

[QueenDemetria]

Do I consider it performance? Yes, because its something benchmarkable and when comparing PC's, you can say one is better than another with that aspect. 

 

Do I care? as long as my boot times are within a minute, not really. 

[bob345]

no, it doesn't mater to me in the slightest. but it is nice to have a computer that fully boots in a couple seconds.

[xmx1024]

Yes!

[MPX309]

The answer isn't as black and white as yes/no for me . . . I am happy with my boot time, around 20 secs, then once desktop appears everything is good to go. I don't consider it systems performance though.

I

[Wingo Bambino]

nope

[TetraSky]

I like fast boot time, but if I considered it as being "performances", I'd use linux, which boot much faster than windows.

[Jumper118]

boot time are important, but it is more important to have windows 7 rather than windows 8 and it is more important to be able to get into the bios then boot in 2 seconds. as long as its under 30secs i dont care