PDA

View Full Version : Boot time, really needed?



Speed_arg
February 17th, 2010, 05:17 AM
I have saw that as major improvements from 9.04, the target was BOOT TIME.
Allthough, I don't agree with this at all.

What do you prefer, taking 15 secs to load, but then being slow opening applications and such (like now, ubuntu is much slower opening apps than windows 7)
Or taking 1 min or more but being kick *** fast?

Even, I don't turn on/off the computer often, almost never, whereas I use to suspend to RAM or to HDD when I don't use PC for a long time.

cariboo
February 17th, 2010, 05:34 AM
This really isn't a Lucid support question, more of an opinion. Moved to the Cafe.

Simon17
February 17th, 2010, 05:52 AM
Who cares about boot time? Linux is so stable that you can literally go YEARS without booting.
...
What's that you say? Linux boots fast now?!

Best thing ever!

Warpnow
February 17th, 2010, 08:10 AM
Heh, all us desktop users forgetting about the poor laptop users?

cariboo
February 17th, 2010, 08:28 AM
Laptop users hibernate, no need to reboot. :)

Simon17
February 17th, 2010, 08:37 AM
Laptop users hibernate, no need to reboot. :)

Except to fix your sound after hibernating.

LAWL I WAS JOKING (remember the "tone and tenor")

On a serious note, reduced boot time is nice for dual booters who switch often.

Khakilang
February 17th, 2010, 08:41 AM
I don't care about boot time as long as the Linux is stable and virus free.

hobo14
February 17th, 2010, 09:01 AM
I have saw that as major improvements from 9.04, the target was BOOT TIME.
Allthough, I don't agree with this at all.

What do you prefer, taking 15 secs to load, but then being slow opening applications and such (like now, ubuntu is much slower opening apps than windows 7)
Or taking 1 min or more but being kick *** fast?

Even, I don't turn on/off the computer often, almost never, whereas I use to suspend to RAM or to HDD when I don't use PC for a long time.

So you propose preloading memory with apps? No thanks, I'd prefer to have my memory available for whatever I'm doing right now.

Dies
February 17th, 2010, 09:03 AM
...
(like now, ubuntu is much slower opening apps than windows 7)
...

Maybe on your machine... ;)

audiomick
February 17th, 2010, 09:23 AM
Hi.
Firstly, I don't have the feeling that Ubuntu is slow opening apps, but I don't have a dual boot, so I can't do a direct comparison.

As far as the boot time goes, I welcome a faster boot, because I do shut down the machine completely when I am not using it. The only problem is, I have had to turn off all the BIOS fast boot things because otherwise my cheap Samsung drives aren't spun up in time to boot, so what I gain from Ubuntu coming up faster is lost to the slower BIOS boot...;)

standingwave
February 17th, 2010, 09:46 AM
A ten second boot is is pretty far down my list of requirements. I don't really care if it's ten, twenty or even forty seconds as long as it's not five minutes like my old xp machine used to take (at times).

NightwishFan
February 17th, 2010, 10:01 AM
Ubuntu does open applications slower than some Windows installs. However once they are up they run well and multi-task much better. I always tend to be the host for everything we do since my machine can handle it better. As for startup, I think Karmic actually boots slower than Jaunty for me.

NoaHall
February 17th, 2010, 11:17 AM
Who cares about boot time? Linux is so stable that you can literally go YEARS without booting.
...
What's that you say? Linux boots fast now?!

Best thing ever!

Don't worry, Ubuntu is on the case! Let's rip out vital parts, and put in half-arsed attempts, then be wowed by the boot time! Just ignore the fact the screen has monochrome lines all over it. They'll disappear.

arnab_das
February 17th, 2010, 11:28 AM
i think all OSes should attempt to have a standard acceptable boot time. for ubuntu, that has already been reached. i really dont think a 10 sec boot is what i want. but hey, if the devs are willing to give us that why refuse?

but if it is at the expense of more important stuff, then i guess its not worth it.

sertse
February 17th, 2010, 11:35 AM
Yes, because despite the responses in this thread, every other "what can Ubuntu improve" thread always clamours for better boot time.

So clearly thats want the people want. Damn what happens once you finish booting, that's what the people want!

The Real Dave
February 17th, 2010, 11:48 AM
Hibernation never really worked on my computer, or suspend for that matter. And I often switch between XP and Ubuntu. So for me, a good boot time is critical. I tried 9.10 x86 after Karmic, and it was taking almost two minutes to boot :( So I tried the AMD64 version, and damn, it was fast. It boots in less than the twenty seconds it took Jaunty to boot. And what's this about Ubuntu being slow? It's hugely faster than XP for me, even a fresh install of XP.

bryncoles
February 17th, 2010, 01:27 PM
I bought my laptop with Ubuntu preinstalled, when Dell sold them (Inspiron 1525n) over here, and at the time of my purchase it was cheaper than the windows equivalent! Now, because of that everything works fine (for me) OOTB. But, Hibernate is so painfully slow, I could hibernate for the winter waiting for my laptop to boot again. And don't get me started on recovering from hibernate while on battery!

It's actually better for me to reboot than to hibernate (though suspend is fine).

Who should I petition to get them working on hibernate recovery times?

Seventh Reign
February 17th, 2010, 02:51 PM
I have to agree. They should optimise boot time on the netbook remix/moblin remix, and focus on more important things for the desktop versions.

markp1989
February 17th, 2010, 02:58 PM
Laptop users hibernate, no need to reboot. :)

to use hibernate i would have to have a large swap partition, also my laptop has an ssd, so i dont want a swap partition.

and my desktop gets booted atleas 2 times a day, just because it can stay on all the times, its a waste of power to do tat.

so to me boot time is very important.

MichealH
February 17th, 2010, 03:36 PM
Laptop users hibernate, no need to reboot. :)

Yeah but my laptop doesnt resume!

BrokenKingpin
February 17th, 2010, 04:03 PM
Improving boot time was nice to see, but now I think the focus should be on overall system performance.

ssam
February 17th, 2010, 04:17 PM
install preload.

when the computer is idle, if the is free ram, it caches application files. this makes big apps (openoffice, firefox etc) start much faster.

if a program needs the ram, then the cache gets flushed, so it does not negatively effect running programs. if you system does not have much free ram, then it wont do much at all. it may take sometime to learn which apps you use most, so that it caches those. if you are on battery it may cache files that you never end up needing, so may use slightly more power (but how often do you turn on you laptop and not start firefox?)

MasterNetra
February 17th, 2010, 04:26 PM
Frankly all this hype about boot times, windows 7 does pretty good on booting up but takes forever to shutdown. Lets not ignore the restart/shutdown times either...though I suppose Ubuntu does very good at that anyway.

MichealH
February 17th, 2010, 07:24 PM
Frankly all this hype about boot times, windows 7 does pretty good on booting up but takes forever to shutdown. Lets not ignore the restart/shutdown times either...though I suppose Ubuntu does very good at that anyway.

+1 I always love to restart my computer... On Linux. Windows takes about 10 mins to shutdown I like Ubuntu for its startup time. Ubuntu doesn't have to startup stuff It doesn't need like Windows and some of its services. I have very rarely had a crash on Linux and when I have Its been a simple killall in the Terminal (CTRL+ALT+1).