I am sorry but Vista boots faster than 9.10

[MIH1406]

Hello,

I have tried booting Vista (Only vista installed) and it boots on 58 seconds. While Ubuntu (Only Ubuntu installed) and it boots on 1 minutes and 8 seconds. Although it was on 9.04 less than 30 seconds.

Why Karmic? Are you angry with me?

[dragos240]

Hello,

I have tried booting Vista (Only vista installed) and it boots on 58 seconds. While Ubuntu (Only Ubuntu installed) and it boots on 1 minutes and 8 seconds. Although it was on 9.04 less than 30 seconds.

Why Karmic? Are you angry with me?

It's new. It has bugs. Wait for a bit. They'll be fixed!

[issih]

There have been lots of new things thrown at the boot process for karmic...

grub2, xsplash, kms, etc

As a result there have been regressions in boot time for some hardware combinations (it takes forever to get grub up on my box because it handles multiple hard drives awfully at the moment)

It should improve again as these new bits are optimised.

I wouldn't worry about it unduly.

[froggyswamp]

On some setups it indeed takes longer. The devs couldn't get everything they wanted into Karmic and some things are half-baked, but the devs (and me) are pretty sure all these issues get fixed & implemented in time for Lucid Lynx.

[Digikid]

There are guides for making Ubuntu and its variants faster.

[NoaHall]

How are you timing your vista boot ups?
I've made a little script, if you want to test it properly.

[Arup]

Every tests done show otherwise, Ubuntu managed times better than Win7 as well.

[Bachstelze]

This has got to be a joke.

[-grubby]

I never got why people cared about this. Unless you have a 10 minute boot time, what does 20 seconds more matter?

[michaeldt]

Don't look as boot times. Look at how long it takes from pressing the power button to loading your web browser and loading these forums.

Windows lies to people by "loading" before it's actually loaded. I can't start programs in vista the moment my desktop is loaded. I have to wait for everything in the background to finish first.

In Ubuntu (which btw still boots to desktop quicker than vista) I can run programs as soon as my desktop is loaded with no delay.

[CharlesA]

I never got why people cared about this. Unless you have a 10 minute boot time, what does 20 seconds more matter?

This.

Of all the machines I have used, running Windows or Ubuntu (since it's the only flavor of Linux I've been running as of late) boot in about a minute or two. (from turning it on to desktop, on modern hardware)

I can understand that people want to be able to use the computer as soon as possible, but can they not wait an extra 30 seconds for it to start up? What huge difference does it make it a computer takes 60 seconds to boot up instead of 30 seconds?

[timsdeepsky]

My 9.10 boots in 45 seconds....This is with 2 hard drives....Fastest i have ever had....

[dragos240]

I've had a 30 second boot time. Minus the bios. It takes roughly 10 seconds for my bios to start up.

[SuperSonic4]

I never got why people cared about this. Unless you have a 10 minute boot time, what does 20 seconds more matter?

This

Who really gives a **** about 10s extra boot time?

[jwbrase]

Windows lies to people by "loading" before it's actually loaded. I can't start programs in vista the moment my desktop is loaded. I have to wait for everything in the background to finish first.

In Ubuntu (which btw still boots to desktop quicker than vista) I can run programs as soon as my desktop is loaded with no delay.

Definitely.

I don't make a big fuss about boot times, but this is the *big* difference I notice about Windows vs. Ubuntu.

On Ubuntu, I can launch Opera as soon as the panel loads and have it ready to go within seconds. I've sometimes even gotten 404 errors because I navigated to a site and the wireless hadn't negotiated a connection yet (I don't count that towards boot time since it's influenced by environmental conditions and the hardware and software of the router on the other end).

On Windows, the bottleneck to getting onto the internet is that the machine is still booting after it displays the panel, and just getting a web browser to launch while that's going on takes *forever*.

[Dimitriid]

It's new. It has bugs. Wait for a bit. They'll be fixed!

When this happens in a Microsoft OS you guys nail them all day long, but when its on Ubuntu its all apologies.

Releases can go wrong, if mistakes are to be learned from they have to be acknowledged: stop minimizing them.

[wojox]

My karmic mini.iso boots in fifteen sec. So tell Vista to put that in it's | and smoke it.

[supermelon928]

This seems like an okay time to ask if any of you can advise me on how to use terminal to set the preconditions for startup processes in ubuntu?

[ticopelp]

I am sorry but Vista boots faster than 9.10

Well, I'll forgive you this time, but don't let it happen again...

:KS

[NoaHall]

Is it a fresh install, or a upgrade? You should do a fresh install.

[Raiju]

when this happens in a microsoft os you guys nail them all day long, but when its on ubuntu its all apologies.


lol.

[Falc7]

I have a fresh install, ubuntu takes longer than i would like to start up, its a bit annoying :/ Definately takes longer than w7

[timsdeepsky]

With all my past experiences with Windows,,,,I find it hard to believe that with proper full virus and internet protection,,,,that any windows system would boot faster than Ubuntu....Seems like in the past the anti-virus took well longer to load and be ready than the rest of the operating system....I don't care,,,,I do not have to deal with that expensive issue anymore....

[Prodigal Son]

My karmic mini.iso boots in fifteen sec. So tell Vista to put that in it's | and smoke it.

Ubuntu mini.iso ( Minimal CD ) is pretty much the same as Windows 95/98 so comparison with Vista is ridiculous.

[wojox]

Ubuntu mini.iso ( Minimal CD ) is pretty much the same as Windows 95/98 so comparing it with Vista is ridiculous.

WTF? I can pull in what ever packages I want. It's nothing like Win 95/98

[NoaHall]

Ubuntu mini.iso ( Minimal CD ) is pretty much the same as Windows 95/98 so comparison with Vista is ridiculous.

What on earth are you talking about? It's the same version of Ubuntu.

[Prodigal Son]

WTF? I can pull in what ever packages I want. It's nothing like Win 95/98


What on earth are you talking about? It's the same version of Ubuntu.

:lolflag:

[speedwell68]

I have never actually been sad enough to time how long a machine takes to boot.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

It's 10.04 that will be booting really quickly; 9.10 really just boots more smoothly. I witnessed an Ubuntu system boot in about 8 seconds last week. It was really amazing. (Granted, I don't know the hardware specs).

[toupeiro]

I'm sorry, OP, but no it doesn't. I think it has slowed down from the prettiness they added, from bios to usable desktop, I've never, once, seen this to be true.

[clanky]

Is it a fresh install, or a upgrade? You should do a fresh install.

Facepalm.

1. Why is it really bad when you have to re-install Windows every so often to make it run faster, but re-installing linux every six months is the "approved" way.

2. Why have an upgrade option if you should do a fresh install every time.

3. Why in every thread where someone has a problem is there at least one post which blames it on not doing a fresh install or on a faulty CD burn?

4. Why does anyone care about boot time anyway, it is not an indicator of how useful or productive an OS is, the only question about which is the right OS to use should be "does it do everything i need to do reliably and easily"

[renkinjutsu]

my siggy.

[quinnten83]

i never got why people cared about this. Unless you have a 10 minute boot time, what does 20 seconds more matter?

+1

[supermelon928]

Facepalm.

1. Why is it really bad when you have to re-install Windows every so often to make it run faster, but re-installing linux every six months is the "approved" way.

2. Why have an upgrade option if you should do a fresh install every time.

3. Why in every thread where someone has a problem is there at least one post which blames it on not doing a fresh install or on a faulty CD burn?

4. Why does anyone care about boot time anyway, it is not an indicator of how useful or productive an OS is, the only question about which is the right OS to use should be "does it do everything i need to do reliably and easily"

this is now a BAWWWWWW thread.

:-({|=

[quinnten83]

When this happens in a Microsoft OS you guys nail them all day long, but when its on Ubuntu its all apologies.

Releases can go wrong, if mistakes are to be learned from they have to be acknowledged: stop minimizing them.

You guys???
Who exactly is "you guys"?
I have been very critical of Ubuntu where I think it is deserved. But in this case, I don't see the problem.
Also, the issues with this were acknowledged even before the launch of this version. We are merely stating what the Devs have said themselves.

[timsdeepsky]

I'm moving on....Me love Ubuntu....

[speedwell68]

Ok, I am sad enough to time how long it takes my computer to boot. From the time it starts Grub to the time the little wheel stops spinning,the wifi is connected and the destop is loaded and usable is 59.44 seconds. This IMHO is pretty damn quick. I have never timed it before and I have no other OS to compare it to. I might time my laptop and the wifes netbook later. The machine I used is the Acer Aspire x3200 listed in my sig.

[Tipped OuT]

This.

Of all the machines I have used, running Windows or Ubuntu (since it's the only flavor of Linux I've been running as of late) boot in about a minute or two. (from turning it on to desktop, on modern hardware)

I can understand that people want to be able to use the computer as soon as possible, but can they not wait an extra 30 seconds for it to start up? What huge difference does it make it a computer takes 60 seconds to boot up instead of 30 seconds?

+1

I agree, who gives a crap about the boot time. As long as it's fast and responsive when I'm actually using the operating system, I'm fine.

[pwnst*r]

I never got why people cared about this. Unless you have a 10 minute boot time, what does 20 seconds more matter?

hey, some people microwave their pop-tarts because the minute and a half for the toaster is just too much. OP may be one of them!

[Uncle Spellbinder]

I am sorry but Vista boots faster than 9.10

For you.


Everyone's system is different. My Vista boots in a little over a minute. My Ubuntu Karmic boots in a little over 45 seconds.

[murderslastcrow]

I'm running a computer that can't even support Vista, and mine starts up in 21 seconds (to full desktop).

Soooo... I can only imagine what would make your computer start up so slow. But my family's computer starts up Ubuntu 5 seconds faster than Windows 7, which they're playing around with for a few days.

So yeah, I would suggest waiting until later in the release and get all the updates at once. Another good idea is to buy a computer made for Linux, like a Dell XPS or system76 PC. But really, if it can run Vista, I can only imagine.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Facepalm.

1. Why is it really bad when you have to re-install Windows every so often to make it run faster, but re-installing linux every six months is the "approved" way.

Because it can take forever to install windows, then add time for updates... Ubuntu takes a much shorter time installing in my experience, with a fresh windows install it can take 3 hours to install, then update.
The longest I have seen Ubuntu take to install and update is 1 and a half hours.


2. Why have an upgrade option if you should do a fresh install every time.

Its not mandatory to do a fresh install, but it does help fix some possible issues of jumping from version to version.



3. Why in every thread where someone has a problem is there at least one post which blames it on not doing a fresh install or on a faulty CD burn?

Well this is a lot of the times the reason why stuff dont work, both not doing fresh installs and bad burns can cause serious issues.

[zagz]

You all just got trolled. :popcorn:

[clanky]

OK, I wasn't going to answer this, but I really feel that this sort of attitude does need to be challenged.

Firstly I really don't care about boot times, to me it's entirely irrelevant whether Windows boots faster than Ubuntu, what does annoy me is that there are people who are so determined to paint a picture of everything being rosy in the garden that it actually harms Linux development.

Even on a non-issue like boot time, people are jumping in to say that there can't possibly be anything wrong with linux and if someone is having a problem then it must be down to the fact that they are not doing it right (was it a fresh install?)

Whenever this attitude is questioned the result is a post about how it's OK to re-install Linux every six months because it doesn't take as long (which in my experience is not the case anyway).

The result is that you end up with a situation like "The King's New Clothes" where people are afraid to say that they have problems and start shouting fanboy jingoisms at anyone else who does have problems and the devs are surrounded by a ring of fanboys who deflect all criticism away from them and they live in a world where sound is not an issue in ubuntu because anyone who comes on here and says they have a problem with sound gets told that "it's not linux fault" / "did you do a fresh install" / "maybe you had a faulty CD" / <insert inane babble here> by someone trying to look 1337.

[clanky]

You all just got trolled. :popcorn:

I hope that wasn't at me, because noting I have posted was intended to be trolling, If everyone posts "on message" then there would be no discussion.

[youbuntu]

My 1999 350Mhz G3 B&W PowerMac running Tiger, boots faster than Vista. :D

[squilookle]

Facepalm.

1. Why is it really bad when you have to re-install Windows every so often to make it run faster, but re-installing linux every six months is the "approved" way.

You don't have to re-install every six months if you don't want to: you can stick with the LTS releases, or even go to Debian stable if you want and your system will run absolutely fine for a lot longer than a Windows system will.

However, you have the option to re-install new software every six months if you want, and if you want to have the most up to date software. Best of both :)

[lisati]

Hello,

I have tried booting Vista (Only vista installed) and it boots on 58 seconds.
Don't worry, this can be fixed: just install one or two programs that load at startup, e.g. AV software and drivers/multimedia managers for a couple of different cameras. Before you know it, Vista will be slower to boot than Ubuntu :)

But seriously, I think I need to do some homework on fine-tuning my Vista installation. It usually seems to take longer to complete its start-up stuff than I'd like.

[clanky]

You don't have to re-install every six months if you don't want to: you can stick with the LTS releases, or even go to Debian stable if you want and your system will run absolutely fine for a lot longer than a Windows system will.

However, you have the option to re-install new software every six months if you want, and if you want to have the most up to date software. Best of both :)

Yeah, fair point I guess.

Although for me the whole reason I still use Linux is as a learning curve, seriously looked at it as an alternative to Windows when i first got interested and then realised that it would never work as a single OS for me. I do most of my work stuff in Windows because I need CAD and because of that I use Windows for e-mail and pretty much everything "productive" that I do, Linux for me is just something that I tinker with to learn a bit more so I generally go for all the latest upgrades jus to see what they are like working on the thery that if an upgrade breaks my Linux I won't have lost anything useful because all of my useful stuff is in Windows (and on a back-up hard drive!)

[castrojo]

ureadahead is in -proposed and should come as an update soon which should fix many of the "omg it got slower" boot cases.

[jwbrase]

Now this is neither Ubuntu nor Vista, but my Dad has just commented to me that it took him *eleven minutes* to reboot his XP laptop the other day. There have been times when windows boot performance has irritated me before, but... wow. And he says that virus scan after virus scan has come up empty.

[squilookle]

My work computer (running xp) takes about 6 minutes to boot and I thought that was bad.

I think my xp install on my computer at home takes about 90 seconds (estimate) and my Crunchbang install (which I am using right right now) takes about 30 seconds to get to the desktop.

I'm not too bothered about the boot time, but the xp computer at work bugs me, as did my old SUSE install that took about 2 and a half to three minutes to start: but that was about 5 years ago and things have come along way since then. :)

[Warpnow]

My AA1 on 9.10 boots in under 10 seconds.

I doubt vista could do that.

[Rainstride]

This has got to be a joke.

+1

I boot in about 30 seconds, and my system is setup with full disk encryption. and thats counting the time it takes me type my boot password, and login password.

[doorknob60]

Don't look as boot times. Look at how long it takes from pressing the power button to loading your web browser and loading these forums.

Windows lies to people by "loading" before it's actually loaded. I can't start programs in vista the moment my desktop is loaded. I have to wait for everything in the background to finish first.

In Ubuntu (which btw still boots to desktop quicker than vista) I can run programs as soon as my desktop is loaded with no delay.

This. Especially if you also have Anti-virus, IM programs, and all the other programs that most people have on startup (most people have quite a lot). The second my KDE desktop is loaded I click on Chromium and 2-3 seconds later, there it is. Can't say the same about any version of Windows.

[hobo14]

I'm running 8.10 and and 9.04, they both boot in about 30 sec on my 3-4 year old machines, w/out any improvements made.

I've had XP boot in 25 sec, a fresh install, and following some "faster boot guides" online (from pushing the button, to Firefox displayed).

If 9.10 really does take a minute to boot, I think I'll hold off on the upgrade, and wait for 10.04.

[Arup]

I'm running 8.10 and and 9.04, they both boot in about 30 sec on my 3-4 year old machines, w/out any improvements made.

I've had XP boot in 25 sec, a fresh install, and following some "faster boot guides" online (from pushing the button, to Firefox displayed).

If 9.10 really does take a minute to boot, I think I'll hold off on the upgrade, and wait for 10.04.

9.10 is quicker to boot than both 9.04 and 8.10, try it out for yourself before basing your decision on other's opinion.

[TopEnder]

Why worry about boot time, I need about 1min 30 sec to make my coffee before I settle down and enjoy Ubuntu, no waiting fore the anti-virus program to run to see if it's safe to use and when the session is over it only takes 5.5sec to shut down completely. There is more to life that worrying about boot-up & shut down times.

[Uncle Spellbinder]

why worry about boot time, i need about 1min 30 sec to make my coffee before i settle down and enjoy ubuntu, no waiting fore the anti-virus program to run to see if it's safe to use and when the session is over it only takes 5.5sec to shut down completely. There is more to life that worrying about boot-up & shut down times.

+1

[hobo14]

9.10 is quicker to boot than both 9.04 and 8.10, try it out for yourself before basing your decision on other's opinion.

What opinion?
I haven't made a decision anyway, but I am being influenced by someone else's experience (which may or may not have really occurred), not their opinion of that experience.

[Tipped OuT]

What opinion?
I haven't made a decision anyway, but I am being influenced by someone else's experience (which may or may not have really occurred), not their opinion of that experience.

Why? Why not do some benchmarks or research of your own. Instead of being influenced by someone else's experience... "which may or may not have really occurred".

[wilee-nilee]

I never got why people cared about this. Unless you have a 10 minute boot time, what does 20 seconds more matter?

Why is it that your always correct, how do you do that.;)

[steveneddy]

Hello,

I have tried booting Vista (Only vista installed) and it boots on 58 seconds. While Ubuntu (Only Ubuntu installed) and it boots on 1 minutes and 8 seconds. Although it was on 9.04 less than 30 seconds.

Why Karmic? Are you angry with me?

So?

[hobo14]

Why? Why not do some benchmarks or research of your own. Instead of being influenced by someone else's experience... "which may or may not have really occurred".

The point of my last post was that other people's opinions were irrelevant.


As for "If 9.10 really does take a minute to boot, I think I'll hold off on the upgrade, and wait for 10.04.", that was to see whether some indignant Karmic users would pipe up and share their much faster boot times with the thread, or not.

The only comment I have read on Karmic boot times is the one in the OP. If I never see any Karmic users with a much better experience, then no, I won't bother "researching" Karmic myself.
Or, to be more accurate, if Arup hadn't said that Karmic booted faster, and no-one else had either, I wouldn't bother.

[SirBismuth]

ureadahead is in -proposed and should come as an update soon which should fix many of the "omg it got slower" boot cases.

I felt that a default 9.10 installation was booting quicker than 9.04, but then added the Ubuntu Boot PPA to my software sources, and installed ureadahead. Now it boots even quicker than before. The original boot time didn't concern me, but when I saw this referenced somewhere, I thought I would give it a go.

My XP takes longer to boot in VBox, but that's due to the script that runs and sometimes updates the AV via the network. Don't think much else loads at boot time, except for the normal Windows stuff.

B

[Ylon]

Hello,

I have tried booting Vista (Only vista installed) and it boots on 58 seconds. While Ubuntu (Only Ubuntu installed) and it boots on 1 minutes and 8 seconds. Although it was on 9.04 less than 30 seconds.

Why Karmic? Are you angry with me?

Ubuntu will boot in 1 and 8 second (or slighty more) even with HD full of software/documents.


Will be the same for Windows Vista? :popcorn:

[youbuntu]

Why worry about boot time, I need about 1min 30 sec to make my coffee before I settle down and enjoy Ubuntu, no waiting fore the anti-virus program to run to see if it's safe to use and when the session is over it only takes 5.5sec to shut down completely. There is more to life that worrying about boot-up & shut down times.

Exactly!. Who cares if your PC boots 10 secs slower?. :rolleyes:


Solution: start your PC a minute earlier :D

[alphaniner]

So tell Vista to put that in it's | and smoke it.

I lol'ed.

[Cathhsmom]

Does your Vista time include the time to load all your start up programs that load up your system tray? I find my Vista not available to start working until the system tray fills totally up with all the start up programs, but my 9.10 is available to start immediately after boot. So in my opinion, 9.10 is faster.

[Grenage]

My 9.04 install was not the fastest loader, but 9.10 is much quicker; a few seconds longer than XP (and XP is an old, well-ironed OS).

[BuffaloX]

This should probably have been posted in a support section, and most likely there already is a solution to this.


You all just got trolled. :popcorn:

And you know this how?


This

Who really gives a **** about 10s extra boot time?

I care about boot times, because I actually turn off my PC when I'm not using it, which means that I turn it on about 3 times per day on average, and in general I wait for the boot to finish.
If you dual boot multiple OS's for testing or gaming, boot times can be a big issue.

I read a review, that claimed the preloader for Ubuntu 9.10 is optimized for SSD, and that it in rare cases slow down the boot process for ordinary hard drives.

I congratulate the Ubuntu team for working to shorten boot times, from what I understand further improvements are in the horizon.

For me Ubuntu 9.04 booted faster than 9.10, but 9.10 is still decent on my systems.

[kpholmes]

Don't look as boot times. Look at how long it takes from pressing the power button to loading your web browser and loading these forums.

Windows lies to people by "loading" before it's actually loaded. I can't start programs in vista the moment my desktop is loaded. I have to wait for everything in the background to finish first.

In Ubuntu (which btw still boots to desktop quicker than vista) I can run programs as soon as my desktop is loaded with no delay.

i was just about to say that. but then i read your post, so now all i have to do is

+1:P

[Eisenwinter]

I think the real question here is why are you sorry? What do you have to be sorry for?

"I'm sorry, Vista boots faster than Ubuntu 9.10"

Why apologize for this?

[zagz]

And you know this how?


I have them both.

[BuffaloX]

I have them both.

I think most people here have heard about how awful slow Vista boot up is, and experience that Karmic is reasonably fast?

Still ***** happens sometimes.

[init1]

I never got why people cared about this. Unless you have a 10 minute boot time, what does 20 seconds more matter?
It's 20 seconds less you have to wait.

[MiCK.ca]

Well...Just leave the thing on all the time and you won't need to worry about how long it takes to boot up. a PC running 24/7 takes less power than a refrigerator. Frankly if 20 seconds makes all the difference in the world than simply leave it running!

Believe me; i have been a bachelor and money tight. it doesn't make that much difference in the hydro bill to just leave it on. Besides waiting for your monitor to power back on only takes 7-9 seconds.

[renkinjutsu]

Yeah, fair point I guess.

Although for me the whole reason I still use Linux is as a learning curve, seriously looked at it as an alternative to Windows when i first got interested and then realised that it would never work as a single OS for me. I do most of my work stuff in Windows because I need CAD and because of that I use Windows for e-mail and pretty much everything "productive" that I do, Linux for me is just something that I tinker with to learn a bit more so I generally go for all the latest upgrades jus to see what they are like working on the thery that if an upgrade breaks my Linux I won't have lost anything useful because all of my useful stuff is in Windows (and on a back-up hard drive!)

If you want all the goodies in Karmic, you'll have to do a fresh install to ensure everything works.. Because:
Karmic comes with ext4 as its default filesystem
Comes with Grub2 as default bootloader


I can't think of anything else at the moment that would require a fresh install (actually, the two i named above can be done manually, but it's risky)

If you're already using Grub2, i know that by default, it is set so that the menu is available for X amount of seconds before the kernel is actually loaded.. You can reduce this to 1 or 2 seconds in the config, if you really can't wait that long..

also, karmic comes with a lot of eyecandy at boot time.. I personally, don't care for them, so i disabled them (10 second boot time!)

oh, and you might want to look up "short stroking" for harddrives.. basically, what it means is that the content on the beginning of the drive loads faster than the content near the end (the beginning being the outer edge of the spinning disk) because the head doesn't have to move as much to read big files (So, it's only natural for windows to have an advantage if it's at the beginning of the drive)



That being said.. i hope boot times will be sorted out by Mighty Mantis (do we get to vote for the name?)
sorted out = everyone is able to get 10 second boot times

[ciborium]

i'm not usually worried about boot times, but i have noticed that karmic boots in about the same as jaunty on my desktop, and about twice as long on my netbook. I wish it were the other way around, as I rarely shut off or reboot my desktop, but always shut off my netbook when not in use.

[Khakilang]

I am sorry my Ubuntu 9.10 on my old notebook with Intel Pentium M 1.6GHz processor and 512mb RAM boot slower than my Window XP with Intel Dual Core processor and 1.5gb RAM. Any solution I can make my Ubuntu boot faster? Boo hoo hoo.....

[ElSlunko]

I installed the boot ppa and it shaved off 15-20 or so seconds off my boot time.

[blueturtl]

Hello,

I have tried booting Vista (Only vista installed) and it boots on 58 seconds. While Ubuntu (Only Ubuntu installed) and it boots on 1 minutes and 8 seconds. Although it was on 9.04 less than 30 seconds.

Why Karmic? Are you angry with me?

Karmic on my Pentium III 1 GHz boots in 38 seconds from a single 7200 rpm disk, and 50 seconds from my RAID array. Your computer has to have superior specifications since it can run Vista. I'd say you have a problem in there!

[RabbitWho]

Let's see if Vista still boots in under 5 minutes after you've been using it a year or two.

[Arup]

Acutally I managed to keep my Windows XPx64 quite clean and defgragmented regularly with Perfect Disk. In that case it was the snappiest to boot, not as fast as Ubuntu but still quite quick for Windows. I only installed what was needed and didnt do much frequent install/uninstall. Thats where the registry bloats up and then slows Widnows down big time.

[realzippy]

Boottime?

My system never crashes.

[witeshark17]

Let's see if Vista still boots in under 5 minutes after you've been using it a year or two. We all know the truth about this! My friends are Vista power users, and they still have the occasional glitch! Reboot time for Karmic (just timed it): 53 seconds to log in screen. So 49 if you allow for the BIOS delay. :popcorn:

[jcckid]

where are these digikid?

[Deicider]

bs,when vista loads to desktop you have to wait +2(i needed 5 minutes) minutes to ACTUALLY load.
When buntu loads ,it loads for GOOD,you can start immediately a program or two normally.
Not only buntu is faster but its ALOT faster.
And beside that karmic is new,it will get faster as time passes.