Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Lucid slower boot than Karmic

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    London
    Beans
    355
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Lucid slower than Karmic

    OK. Try uploading the image again, don't bother with the .tar.gz file. We should be able to read it.
    Jonathan Rothwell
    (Still waiting for my cheque from $CORPORATION for shilling)
    HTML5 is not a drop-in replacement for Flash. This does not mean that Flash is A Good Thing.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    UK
    Beans
    16,845
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Lucid slower than Karmic

    Karmic boot was 1min 5 secs. Lucid is 18 seconds and that is to a usable desktop. Clean install.
    See the sticky in general help for boot issues.
    Last edited by philinux; May 9th, 2010 at 08:10 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Beans
    942
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope

    Re: Lucid slower than Karmic

    jrothwell97,

    .tgz and .png files attached

    Sorry the .tgz upload says invalid file, tried the individual files but it's sooo slow as to be silly.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by laidback; May 9th, 2010 at 09:01 PM.
    Athlon 3500+, 1Gb ram, Geforce 6200TC, Gigabyte GA-K8N51GMG-9-RH

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    India
    Beans
    197
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: Lucid slower boot than Karmic

    hii Jrothwell.. thanks for your support.. have uploaded the png file for your reference....hope this would work.. the image is also here on this link

    http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2...ucid201005.png
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by vivek40; May 10th, 2010 at 04:07 AM.

    Follow me on twitter-vivek_40

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    India
    Beans
    197
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: Lucid slower boot than Karmic

    bump!

    Follow me on twitter-vivek_40

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    India
    Beans
    197
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: Lucid slower boot than Karmic

    Bump! someone please help with this.... I use the same CD of Lucid which everyone else has downloaded, why is my boot time higher than others...I agree that hardware plays a major role but then my system does not use much outdated hardware either!

    Follow me on twitter-vivek_40

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South West Scotland
    Beans
    134
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Lucid slower boot than Karmic

    He is my boot-chart .png. Now if you look at my time you will notice that I am only getting 25 Seconds, which is slower than yours. I am quite happy with this as when I had was using Vista & Windows7 they both took about between 1.30 to 2 min's to boot to desktop, then maybe another min to settle down with all the Anit-Virus and Windows network manager and all the other paraphernalia that must start up on boot. So my question would be.

    How have you got 24 seconds and I can only get 25 and that is with a Western Digital Raptor as my main H/Drive..

    No seriously, every computer is in essence different so everyone's times will be different. Lucid has now another couple of years to mature, it's only been out for 13 Days give it some chance to settle and the last few bug's to get ironed out.

    PS: Do what I do bug everyone I know that still runs Windows by asking them how long does it takes to boot Windows. Then Laugh at them and say " try 24 Seconds.. "
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by norm7446; May 12th, 2010 at 07:01 PM. Reason: OPP's forgot to at the .png...
    Three more days to halloween, halloween. Three more days to halloween, Silver Shamrock.........

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    London
    Beans
    355
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Lucid slower boot than Karmic

    Quote Originally Posted by vivek40 View Post
    hii Jrothwell.. thanks for your support.. have uploaded the png file for your reference....hope this would work.. the image is also here on this link

    http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2...ucid201005.png
    Yikes, sorry for not getting back to you sooner...

    This is damned peculiar. I can't see any particular bottleneck in that bootchart (although I'm no expert: perhaps someone else will succeed in spotting something there that is blindingly obvious but I'm missing.) Do you have a concrete figure for your boot time in Karmic? There is a chance (a small chance, I stress) that difference may, in fact, be perceptive rather than real.
    Jonathan Rothwell
    (Still waiting for my cheque from $CORPORATION for shilling)
    HTML5 is not a drop-in replacement for Flash. This does not mean that Flash is A Good Thing.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Beans
    942
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope

    Re: Lucid slower boot than Karmic

    The figure at the top of my chart says 59:38s
    Athlon 3500+, 1Gb ram, Geforce 6200TC, Gigabyte GA-K8N51GMG-9-RH

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    India
    Beans
    197
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: Lucid slower boot than Karmic

    Thanks Jrothwell for looking into this..After I had installed Karmic I used a stop watch to check the boot time , from the system being set on to the login screen(20 seconds) and from login to a functional desktop(4-5 seconds)....

    In lucid my problem here is from start on to the login screen it takes close to 45 seconds(that is a little too much), from the login screen to the desktop it takes very less time(2-3 seconds now.. this is after I uninstalled Gwibber, pulseaudio and the indicator applet)

    Follow me on twitter-vivek_40

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •