5 seconds boot

[sertse]

Gosh, stop this either one or the other nonsense.

Boot times are important for only to a certain extent, then its only nice to have, but not essential. Personally my systems (Ubuntu and Debian etc) will boot between 15-30 secs and I'm happy with that - it no longer "frustrating" me. Sure a 5 sec boot is great, but that'll only be a bonus.

Like others, I care more whether it is slow during use. How long an app take to open up, whether switching apps is jerky, do I get an quick response from pressing a button etc.

[Phreaker]

How does this work ?

[Pasdar]

I'd have to respectully disagree with boot times not being an important priority. More and more people are using their computers more like appliances, particularly their laptops/netbooks. They turn them off when they aren't using them and turn them on just to check if an email has come, print a document, or get one file. These users are quickly becoming the majority. Shaving boot time off of systems also would help businesses in general. Real world example: I work in a customer service call center. We have to be alotted 10 minutes of our day, everyday, for starting up our computers. That's probably around 3 calls going unanswered per rep. Multiply by a thousand employees, and you are talking a lot of calls kept holding everyday because the reps are busy waiting on the computers.

So the 19 seconds boot up time of Jaunty is still not enough to fit your 10 minutes allotted time to boot up your system and you want Canonical to keep putting boot up time on priority one? Owwwkay.... Even if theoretically the boot up time was 10 minutes in your business it would still fit your boot up allotted time. You could even ask the first person that gets in to walk past all computers and turn them on before everyone else arrives.

What is more important is that once that PC is on and the OS is running, that everything goes fast. People get more annoyed when they have to wait on the phone talking to the helpdesk because it takes him a long time opening closing programs/searching things, rather than they that they can only call you from 8:10 AM and not from 8:00AM, lol. In fact, they couldn't care less.

[Pasdar]

Also check this topic: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1147070

KDE 4.X is definitely much faster than GNOME.

[mips]

Also check this topic: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1147070

KDE 4.X is definitely much faster than GNOME.

It's even faster with QT 4.5.

[LightB]

They need to focus on the DE so when I run the packagae manager in GNOME, it doesn't take me 2+ secs to load, 3-4 seconds to check for updates, 4+ seconds to shut down the updater again.

If you're talking about synaptic, this is ridiculous.

[Kareeser]

They need to focus on the DE so when I run the packagae manager in GNOME, it doesn't take me 2+ secs to load, 3-4 seconds to check for updates, 4+ seconds to shut down the updater again. If Windows ever released something like this for the price they're selling it, they would have lost a significant portion of their market.

Hm. I figured it would be par for the course.

Ever checked out how long it takes for the list of programs in "Add/Remove Programs" to render?

Ironically, it's a very similar example.

[MikeTheC]

Au contraire, folks, boot time is important and significant, even if it's mostly for psychological reasons. Besides, this is the modern age, and there are strategies (heck, Fedora is using some of them) to drop the boot time from Grub to log-in to 20 seconds.

For that matter, on an Intel-based Mac, Mac OS X only take about 25-30 to get to the desktop. It's just a matter of optimizations, people. It's nothing to turn your nose up at.

Likewise, I agree that Gnome, KDE and probably even XFCE all could use some optimizations. They can drag a** and it's within reason and our technological capabilities to do that as well.

[LightB]

The new ubuntu seems to boot for me pretty close to 5 seconds already, so what are people talking about? If ubuntu would boot that fast from now on without regressions, I would say it's good enough. Any further hacking just to speed that up is going to burn out other areas. For instance, it doesn't impress me much that the framebuffer terminals often just don't work right and sometimes even cause the display to blow up (this happens on the new ati driver). It's clearly due to heavy ubuntu hacks that aren't related to debian at all or any other distro. So I say hack away but do it overall not just the showy stuff zealots vote for.

[toupeiro]

There are some people who never reboot their machines (or, only in the rare circumstance that they receive an update which requires them to reboot ..eventually) To those people, boot times are less important. Some people turn their computers off every night for power savings and overall system longivity (point of debate aside). To those people, boot times are a bit more important. I've historically kept my machine on all the time, but with a 10 second POST, and a 4 second boot, I really don't care at all anymore. I move anything I ran that required 24/7 off of my desktop. I don't hybernate because it takes longer to resume from hybernation than it does to boot.. (THIS they should have sped up)

Its important, and people do care, contrary to what post #2 in this thread thinks. Any improvements in boot time or hybernation time should be considered priority improvement.