Laptops w/ "3 second windows bootup", how will linux compete?

[fpgdu]

The title says it all. How will linux be able to compete with some of the systems out that can boot into windows in 3 seconds?:popcorn:

[Grenage]

Such systems are either using an SSD raid (even then...), or are waking up rather than booting. The same could be done for any other OS, but I'm sure you know that.

[Bachstelze]

Simple: I boot my laptop only once per day, so a boot time of 3 or 30 seconds is completely insignificant compared to the time I spend using it. I'm not going to spend several hours using an inferior OS just because it boots a couple seconds faster.

[el_koraco]

Chrome OS boots in 8 seconds. I really don't see how an "operating system" can "boot into Windows" in 3.

[Bachstelze]

how an "operating system" can "boot into Windows"

Wait, what?

[el_koraco]

That's what it says in the OP. i have no idea what it means, for sure.

[vehemoth]

It says systems meaning computers. I don't think the boot time matters that much that it's going to affect peoples choice of os.

[Bachstelze]

That's what it says in the OP. i have no idea what it means, for sure.

No, that's not what it says in the OP. You added a word out of nowhere, and that's what makes it nonsensical.

[el_koraco]

You're right. Still, I don't get that either. What is a system that boots into Windows? A computer that boots into Windows or what?

[Grenage]

You're right. Still, I don't get that either. What is a system that boots into Windows? A computer that boots into Windows or what?

Yes, people often mean computer system when they say system.

[sammiev]

I read something about a year a go that they have tested a computer with the bios flashed with a Windows OS. If I remember correctly the boot time was in seconds. GL :)

[disabledaccount]

oh, yes every new windows is faster and better.... :LOL:.

I belive that win95 or some light Linux distro could boot in several seconds off SSD or RAM drive connected to PCI-E x16 *(SATA is deadly slow in comparison), assuming that there's enough RAM and not too much hardware to initialize. Otherwise, such short time can only be rached by loading snapshot of the OS.

[Paqman]

Such systems are either using an SSD raid (even then...), or are waking up rather than booting. The same could be done for any other OS, but I'm sure you know that.

Or a bit of both. I know the Eee PCs used a bit of a kludge with hibernation so that they were continually hibernating and waking up. It worked alright, but I don't know if never shutting XP down was such a good idea.

Lots of people never reboot their machine anyway, don't know how well that works on Windows these days.

[ugm6hr]

Simple: I boot my laptop only once per day, so a boot time of 3 or 30 seconds is completely insignificant compared to the time I spend using it. I'm not going to spend several hours using an inferior OS just because it boots a couple seconds faster.

That is entirely sensible for you.
However, I would very much like a quicker booting OS on my netbook. 11.04 is slower than 10.10 (but only marginally).

[Grenage]

Or a bit of both. I know the Eee PCs used a bit of a kludge with hibernation so that they were continually hibernating and waking up. It worked alright, but I don't know if never shutting XP down was such a good idea.

Lots of people never reboot their machine anyway, don't know how well that works on Windows these days.

Windows Vista+ seems to handle it rather well, but updates will usually prompt a restart before any problems might occur. I had an old XP machine which was never restarted, and that rarely seemed to have any problems; luck of the draw, I guess!

[shad0w_walker]

Unless the OP can provide a source saying otherwise, I'm gonna assume this is a 'boot' in the sense that the normal user would see it, AKA 'press button, windows is there' and timed from suspend or hibernation on an SSD.
Most BIOSes take more than 3 seconds just to do their part of the boot, let alone getting the OS up and running.

[Bachstelze]

That is entirely sensible for you.
However, I would very much like a quicker booting OS on my netbook. 11.04 is slower than 10.10 (but only marginally).

On my laptop I mostly use OS X, because for what I do, it offers mostly the same functionality as Linux (I mostly use the UNIXy parts), but with the advantages of fast sleep/wakeup times and less overheating. If my only choices were Linux and Windows, however, I would have to endure the heat and slow wakeup, because I absolutely cannot work in Windows.

[del_diablo]

For those of you who say "meh, i rarely turn on the computer", here is the thing: How can there not be a large difference in user perception of the computer if it has the desktop fully loaded by 3 seconds, compared to you do something else around the house while waiting for it to start?
Nevermind that you also have 20sec-3 min time before the desktop is finally finished with loading.

Compare a instant device, like a old GBA, or a NES, with a computer. They would never have caught on in the first place if they did not start instantly.

[Bandit]

The title says it all. How will linux be able to compete with some of the systems out that can boot into windows in 3 seconds?:popcorn:

Linux can boot that fast. But regardless even if linux took 2mins on a SSD I wouldn't switch as boot speeds have nothing to do why I use Linux.

[alexan]

Windows... booting without proprietary driver to load? :lol:


Give it a try, really: windows lags when moved, no audio, webcam not working etc...etc...

Please, when comparing OS... don't put Linux gorgeousness (all the decent hardware compatible always ready) with obsolete stuff from Microsoft (hardware manufacturer placing their logos and s***t all around your desktop)

[Dragonbite]

The title says it all. How will linux be able to compete with some of the systems out that can boot into windows in 3 seconds?:popcorn:

Well, first off... it's still just Windows, so you get to reach boredom faster (it's like the "Highway to H***" :guitar:

I just timed my work computer and it isn't as bad as I thought... it only took 5 min (7:50-7:55) before it was able to do anything. This is a BIG improvement from when I clocked it (same machine) at 15 minutes!


True Story:

I was once trying to get a clip off the video camera so I had this work computer (2 GHZ dual core, 2 GB ram) next to my home computer (1.4GHz Pentium M, 512 MB ram).

I started my work computer and then started my linux laptop.
I logged in, updated the repositories, downloaded Kino and it's requirements, installed Kino (all through synaptic), modified the /dev/1394raw permissions, and started the program before Windows finished booting up & logging in.

I also have the slowest DSL connection available, and even THAT didn't make a difference!

What about the 10 second boot Ubuntu and Fedora aimed for?

[Grenage]

I clocked it (same machine) at 15 minutes!

My God; there must have been some underlying problem, surely.

[Dragonbite]

My God; there must have been some underlying problem, surely.

It had something to do with the system trying to update or log something and it was erroneously going to our remote (backup) server instead of the primary, and I think it had to timeout before it could continue. I don't remember the details.

I know once he got that straightened out, it cut the time down in half to 7 minutes. Since then I've been trying to "trim the fat" (and keep asking him "are you SURE I can't install Linux on it?")

Considering our development environments include the tools (Visual Studio, SQL Server Management Studio, etc.) are available via remote desktops to virtual machines, the requirements of the local system is significantly reduced!

No dice yet, though.

[pimentel28]

My Ubuntu 11.04 system boots in around 7-10 seconds :) A little longer every 20 boots, of course. Running a dual core Athlon clocked at 2.8ghz, 4GB's of RAM.

Windows Vista was dreadfully slow. Took at least 3 minutes. And even then the desktop took another 10 minutes to load completely.

Vista was riddled with issues on my PC, Aero crashed half the time..

Even if Windows boots in 3 seconds, I've love to see that number after 2 years.

[neu5eeCh]

I remember reading about this elsewhere. Essentially, the system takes a snapshot of its working environment before it shuts down. When it reboots, Windows goes straight to the snapshot; then finishes loading other services. So... the OS isn't fully functional in 3 seconds, but (I think) the relevant parts (pertaining to whatever app you were using) *are*. All in all, seemed like a variation on hibernating...

[jimrz]

simple: I boot my laptop only once per day, so a boot time of 3 or 30 seconds is completely insignificant compared to the time i spend using it. I'm not going to spend several hours using an inferior os just because it boots a couple seconds faster.

+1

[Dragonbite]

I remember reading about this elsewhere. Essentially, the system takes a snapshot of its working environment before it shuts down. When it reboots, Windows goes straight to the snapshot; then finishes loading other services. So... the OS isn't fully functional in 3 seconds, but (I think) the relevant parts (pertaining to whatever app you were using) *are*. All in all, seemed like a variation on hibernating...

Even regular Windows bootup, it's "booted" (wallpaper shows up and desktop icons) but still not functional for a little longer.

Booting up today it took 3 whole minutes from logging in until I could do anything and as-is it was another minute before I could start interacting with it.

[sffvba[e0rt]

Linux boots plenty fast... and comes out of hibernation and sleep plenty fast... If Windows now does it too well done...


404

[DoktorSeven]

By not having to reboot all the time? :)

[doorknob60]

3 seconds? It takes mine like 5 just to get to GRUB :P Whatever, I don't mind boot times, it takes me no more than like 30 seconds, and that's perfect time to go to the bathroom, or get dressed, or whatever. Also, 90% of the time I just suspend it at night, so it takes like a second (my monitor is more of the limiting time factor there).

[Dragonbite]

3 seconds? It takes mine like 5 just to get to GRUB :P Whatever, I don't mind boot times, it takes me no more than like 30 seconds, and that's perfect time to go to the bathroom, or get dressed, or whatever. Also, 90% of the time I just suspend it at night, so it takes like a second (my monitor is more of the limiting time factor there).

Connecting to the network is the slowing factor for my Chromebook. I wonder if this 3-second booting Windows is connected to the network in those 3 seconds as well?

[BrokenKingpin]

That same system running Linux would probably also boot in 3 seconds as well. I have the latest version of Win7 installed on my computer (with an SSD). It takes about 15 seconds to get to the login screen in Windows, Lubuntu takes less than 10.

So what version and what hardware can boot Windows in 3 seconds (cold boot, not resume from sleep)? I really find this hard to believe (for a normal PC anyways).

[Dragonbite]

Any citations? Links? Pictures?

[fpgdu]

Any citations? Links? Pictures?
Sorry guys, I got distracted with some other questions. Here it is, it's the 11th bullet down under "Product Description"

http://cgi.ebay.com/Samsung-RF510-S02-15-6-LED-Laptop-1-6GHz-4-640GB-/350476916744?pt=Laptops_Nov05&hash=item519a0d5808

[fpgdu]

I also remember hearing from a friend that it's impossible to remove windows from his laptop. It's located on some ROM drive or something, but I don't remember the details and I may be wrong about it. Does anyone else know anything about this?

[Marlonsm]

I don't think boot times are that important anymore.
When I'm done using the computer, I just close the lid and it sleeps. To get it running again, I just open the lid, and by the time I swipe my finger in the fingerprint reader to log in and turn my wireless mouse on again, the computer is ready. I'm the slowest part of the process, not the computer.
It's running Windows 7, but with Ubuntu I could do the very same thing (assuming it can reliably get back from sleep).

[disabledaccount]

Sorry guys, I got distracted with some other questions. Here it is, it's the 11th bullet down under "Product Description"

http://cgi.ebay.com/Samsung-RF510-S02-15-6-LED-Laptop-1-6GHz-4-640GB-/350476916744?pt=Laptops_Nov05&hash=item519a0d5808
Fast Start is just stupid app for peoples who are confused about what is the difference between Sleep mode and Hibernation and who are too lazy to read Windows Help on how to use those options. I would be surprised if this laptop can boot win7 in less than 30-40secs after fresh instal of win.



I also remember hearing from a friend that it's impossible to remove windows from his laptop. It's located on some ROM drive or something, but I don't remember the details and I may be wrong about it. Does anyone else know anything about this?
Just run some Linux LiveCD and look at partitions list.

[Dragonbite]

A friend of mine had a quad-(or more) core system with a super-fast SSD hard drive and 8+ GB of RAM and it was running Windows (can't remeber, XP or 7).

Now THAT took 15-30 seconds to boot, but that's waaay more power (and more money) than I would need!

[fpgdu]

...Fast Start is just stupid app for peoples who are confused about what is the difference between Sleep mode and Hibernation and who are too lazy to read Windows Help on how to use those options. ...

:-s ^LOL :roll:

[fpgdu]

Fast Start is just stupid app for peoples who are confused about what is the difference between Sleep mode and Hibernation and who are too lazy to read Windows Help on how to use those options. I would be surprised if this laptop can boot win7 in less than 30-40secs after fresh instal of win.



Just run some Linux LiveCD and look at partitions list.

Thanks for the info. I Googled "Fast Start" to try to see what you were talking about but couldn't find the option, just ways to make windows "start faster".

Does anyone else know more about this?

[pimentel28]

Thanks for the info. I Googled "Fast Start" to try to see what you were talking about but couldn't find the option, just ways to make windows "start faster".

Does anyone else know more about this?

Just an "advanced sleep mode", according to Samsung..

http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/pc-peripherals/notebook-computers/netbooks/NP-N230-JA02UK/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail