Is Vista slower to boot up - or is it the "crapware" that vendors preload onto the machines? This question came up after a story
by Wall Street Journal write Walter Mossberg about his experiences with a Vista machine. My blog posting
here on the subject and subsequent Computerworld story
about early adopters' perceptions of low bootup times for Vista followed.
Computerworld's Windows expert Scot Finnie weighed in
on the subject, as did blogger Ed Bott. Both think it's the crapware preloaded onto new Vista machines that's giving Vista a bad rap. After initially expressing his doubts about attributing slow bootup times to Vista, Bott tested Vista on three machines in his office by doing a clean install of Vista. The results
ranged from 22% slower than XP to 34% faster.
If it is indeed the crapware that's to blame, how to get rid of it? As if to answer my question, How to zap the crap on a new Windows PC
popped up on the Computerworld Web site last week. I finally got around to reading it and plan on using some of the tips I've picked up in the story to rid my neighbor Kary's new machine of this menace (see Visa experience turns into consumer nightmare