Aaaaaa !!! Impossible !!! [Archive]

KL_72_TR

October 23rd, 2011, 07:27 PM

DUE TO THE GRAPHIC NATURE
OF THIS VIDEO VIEWER
DISCRETION IS ADVISED:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68wjjYzNmUk
What is going on?
Ubuntu need almost a minute to boot?!
I tried Ubuntu 11.04 in March when it was in beta phase and nothing like this never happened.

Flymo

October 23rd, 2011, 07:59 PM

Oh my, that's so sad....

Not surprised though.

We've put Bodhi Linux on the partitions that would normally have Oneiric on them. Natty was a big disappointment so was prematurely wiped, and Oneiric is not a big enough improvement for us. Wish it was.

Lucradia

October 23rd, 2011, 08:07 PM

It's the update to the boot manager and unity. :V

The GDM theme was also severely updated, it's heavier, slightly. I shouldn't call it gdm, because you can't stop gdm if you go to a TTY from TTY7.

xaronic

October 23rd, 2011, 08:07 PM

Windows as per ever will take forever to become stable.

The Windows 8 Developer Preview actually drops you into the WIN 7 desktop that takes a while to load.

Lucradia

October 23rd, 2011, 08:09 PM

The Windows 8 Developer Preview actually drops you into the WIN 7 desktop that takes a while to load.

I hope I can change it so it defaults to the classic desktop, to be honest, I don't like the metro UI, since I'm on a gaming desktop.

Old_Grey_Wolf

October 23rd, 2011, 08:25 PM

DoktorSeven

October 23rd, 2011, 08:34 PM

Windows is faster to boot because you need to reboot it so much :)

Seriously, most of my stuff is always on, even a netbook I use. Boot speeds aren't important to me. Besides, I'm sure that if you take into account Windows loading everything in the background after it "boots" to make it even somewhat usable, the load times would be about the same. I know after I boot Win7 that even though it boots fairly quickly, it still has to grind the disk for a minute or so afterwards until it settles down and becomes usable, unlike Ubuntu where it is pretty much done when it gets to the desktop.

3Miro

October 23rd, 2011, 09:18 PM

Why was the video blurred? Are you sure one laptop wasn't hibernated as opposed to shutdown? Besides, if Windows doesn't come with all features yet, then it will boot faster.

Any comparison before the final release is fake. Also, any comparison between standard Ubuntu and modified Windows (modified to match the hardware) is also fake.

Tibuda

October 23rd, 2011, 09:28 PM

Why was the video blurred?
Because he was typing his password to login in Windows.

Are you sure one laptop wasn't hibernated as opposed to shutdown?
Yes, you can see the Dell BIOS logo.

Besides, if Windows doesn't come with all features yet, then it will boot faster.
Do Ubuntu load at boot LibreOffice, GIMP or any of the features you would install on Windows? No.

3Miro

October 23rd, 2011, 09:51 PM

Because he was typing his password to login in Windows.

He could have left the screen visible (blur the keyboard) or changed his password for the purpose of the video.

Yes, you can see the Dell BIOS logo.

I said Hibernate, not Suspend. Hibernation goes through post and BIOS the same as regular boot, except it is 10 times faster as an image of the RAM state is written to the HDD and only needs to be loaded. With Hibernation the OS doesn't go through the same hardware detection or booting of all the services.

Do Ubuntu load at boot LibreOffice, GIMP or any of the features you would install on Windows? No.

You didn't understand me, I am not talking about Gimp or LibreOffice. Go to Ubuntu (or Windows 7) and open the system monitor to see all the processes working. Without having any programs open, you will still have quite a list. Those are services that are running all the time and providing various features, like index the HDD or keep track of updates or log system messages or power configuration or sync different apps ... If windows 8 doesn't have the full set of such features implemented yet, then it will boot much faster than Ubuntu.

ubupirate

October 23rd, 2011, 09:55 PM

[delete me]

Tibuda

October 23rd, 2011, 10:29 PM

If windows 8 doesn't have the full set of such features implemented yet, then it will boot much faster than Ubuntu.
Why Win 8 would not have such features that even XP had?

3Miro

October 23rd, 2011, 10:43 PM

Why Win 8 would not have such features that even XP had?

Because it is not even in a beta stage of development yet!

Spice Weasel

October 23rd, 2011, 11:22 PM

I think it's a fair comparison, after all, Unity is alpha-quality. :)

Thewhistlingwind

October 23rd, 2011, 11:32 PM

More interesting than the actual video is the master troll commenting on it.

This in particular is a gem:

"@MarkJr92892 What a dumb nerd. Get out of your mom's basement and find a job out there, f***tard. Your useless LiEnucks code ain't gonna get you anywhere, moron."

1. I'm not sure what "Linux code" is, besides maybe bash. Most of the Linux dev tools have been ported to other OSes.

2. He appears to be focusing on desktop Linux. (Which is a fair point since it's an Ubuntu video.)

3. "Dumb Nerd" makes no sense...at all.

4. LIEnucks, and I thought micro$oft was cheesy.

5. I'm sure theres a job for a Linux sysadmin somewhere, maybe that argument would make more sense against BSD.

So he's making contradictory statements about a class of code that doesn't exist and there IS in fact, jobs for.

Perfection.

Ctrl-Alt-F1

October 23rd, 2011, 11:32 PM

The GDM theme was also severely updated, it's heavier, slightly. I shouldn't call it gdm, because you can't stop gdm if you go to a TTY from TTY7.

That's because it's not GDM it's LightDM.

Ctrl-Alt-F1

October 23rd, 2011, 11:35 PM

Is Windows 8 like Windows 7 in the way it boots. I was impressed with the boot time of a netbook I bought with Windows 7 on it. That was until I realized that you get a desktop quickly; however, it takes a while longer before you can actually use it without significant delay in apps loading, etc. I've only tried Ubuntu 11.04 and 11.10 in a VM so I can't compare Ubuntu 11.XX to Windows 7 or 8. With Ubuntu 10.04, once you have a desktop you can use it immediately.

I can't notice a difference in load times between Ubuntu 11.10 and Windows 7 on this machine, which is dual booting. Ubuntu is ready to go the instant I see the desktop though, which is not true of Windows 7. I can open Google Chrome immediately (see also: instantly). If anything Ubuntu should load slower because it's on the second partition, but this doesn't really seem to be the case.

krapp

October 23rd, 2011, 11:40 PM

Who cares about boot times seriously! I wish FLOSS writers would stop promoting this as a desired object. People tend to leave their computers, especially laptops, on for extended periods of time. What's important is that a system remain stable, and not lock up in a BSOD as Windows 7 still does for me rather regularly.

Spice Weasel

October 23rd, 2011, 11:42 PM

Who cares about boot times seriously! I wish FLOSS writers would stop promoting this as a desired object. People tend to leave their computers, especially laptops, on for extended periods of time. What's important is that a system remain stable

Pretty much agree with this. Besides, who seriously turns off their computer on a regular basis? Everyone uses suspend/hibernate/sleep now.

Ctrl-Alt-F1

October 23rd, 2011, 11:44 PM

What's important is that a system remain stable, and not lock up in a BSOD as Windows 7 still does for me rather regularly.

My Windows 7 OS and My Ubuntu OS have been equally stable. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that post, but I believe it's a slam against Windows stability, which I haven't had problems with on any of my machines at home or at work (Windows 7).

Individual results mean nothing.

Thewhistlingwind

October 23rd, 2011, 11:46 PM

Individual results mean nothing.

Until collected into a larger data set.

There is no excuse for a machine "Designed for windows" to run poorly.

krapp

October 23rd, 2011, 11:46 PM

Hmm, YMMV obviously, but my i7 Asus laptop, which is well-ventilated, dual-boots Windows 7 and Debian, and the former has about 1 BSOD for every 100-200 hours of use I'd say.

ilovelinux33467

October 23rd, 2011, 11:47 PM

What's important is that a system remain stable, and not lock up in a BSOD as Windows 7 still does for me rather regularly.

Doesn't happen here. Windows 7 has been super fast and stable for me.

Ctrl-Alt-F1

October 23rd, 2011, 11:48 PM

Until collected into a larger data set.

There is no excuse for a machine "Designed for windows" to run poorly.

Yes, I WOULD like to see the data set for users with recommmended system requirements for BOTH Windows 7 and Ubuntu 11.10 who's machines actually work ootb.

krapp

October 23rd, 2011, 11:56 PM

Doesn't happen here. Windows 7 has been super fast and stable for me.

I'm glad to hear that it is. BSODs are annoying as they have ever been. But Windows still leaves much to be desired in terms of stability and uptime. I've had it turn blue during computer games, while plugging and unplugging the power cord, waking it up, etc.

Rasa1111

October 24th, 2011, 12:04 AM

My Ubuntu 11.10 doesnt take that long to boot. lol
and Im on a 5 year old thinkpad. :rolleyes:

TheNosh

October 24th, 2011, 12:48 AM

As a current user of the Windows 8 Developer Preview, I can say that this looks accurate. I've been using it since September 14th, I've installed my office suite and all the other applications I need, and it still starts that fast.

I don't use sleep any more on my laptop. No sense having even the slightest draw on my battery if booting up only takes a few seconds.

nerdopolis

October 24th, 2011, 01:06 AM

I think Windows 8 uses some hibernate trick, I think they call it hybrid boot, where it has a hibernated session for just the kernel...

Rasa1111

October 24th, 2011, 01:17 AM

I think..
I wouldnt care if Ubuntu took 2 minutes to boot and windows took 10 seconds..
I still wouldn't use windows. :)

Rodney9

October 24th, 2011, 01:20 AM

i think..
I wouldnt care if ubuntu took 2 minutes to boot and windows took 10 seconds..
I still wouldn't use windows. :)

+1

TheNosh

October 24th, 2011, 01:21 AM

I think Windows 8 uses some hibernate trick, I think they call it hybrid boot, where it has a hibernated session for just the kernel...

It does use a hybrid boot. However, even with that disabled I've only seen it take about 2 more seconds.

More importantly, is there any reason a hybrid boot isn't a good idea? It still shuts down and clears user space. Kernel space is all that's hibernated.

Pithikos

October 24th, 2011, 01:59 AM

I think it's a conspiracy!! [-(

cariboo

October 24th, 2011, 03:12 AM

I have Precise and Windows 8 on the system I'm using at the moment, they both take about the same amount of time to get to a usable desktop.

If anything Precise is quicker to boot to a login prompt than Windows 8.

krapp

October 24th, 2011, 07:50 AM

[posted to wrong thread]

TheNosh

October 24th, 2011, 10:13 AM

Looks like Microsoft has been busy with these antics for some time now. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi_Flora_Prius

Wait, what does that have to do with this thread?

alexan

October 24th, 2011, 04:24 PM

Ubuntu is developed to deliver with continuity the same (fast) speed boot, stability and ease of use... no matter which software do you load/upload/install/remove.

Windows is developed to sell shiny new packages of hardware: this is why often windows need to be "renewed" with formats.

If you need "all the resources" and/or fast boot.. you can switch to several options
Puppy Linux, Chruncbag, Archlinux, lubuntu, DSL etc.etc.

Also Linux could boot in 5 seconds (http://lwn.net/Articles/299483/)... Linux kernel was able to deliver this without to having to agree with hardware manufacturer (don't forget that Microsoft is the one who set the rules for hardware dekstop PC). They only used what was already available in 2008

krapp

October 24th, 2011, 04:43 PM

Wait, what does that have to do with this thread?

Whoops wrong thread!

F.G.

October 24th, 2011, 07:13 PM

hmm some pretty crazy comments on that video, sounds like the poster has made some ubuntuer enemies. windows 8 does certainly look pretty fast.

i am skeptical however, as I had ubuntu 10.10 on my netbook for ages (i've now got #!) and i'm certain it booted faster than that, i've so got 11.10 on my (low spec) laptop, which definitely boots quicker.

(diclaimer - I've never actually timed them)

KiwiNZ

October 24th, 2011, 08:00 PM

Why is such a lot of people so hooked on this boot time nonsense?

Do they boot their PC twenty,fifty a hundred times a day?

Is the difference between between 27 seconds boot and 37 seconds boot that important.In 70 years there is around 2,208,988,800 seconds.

OMG I must save 10 seconds on my boot time which I do on my Macs about one a fortnight and on my other machines (Windows,Linux) once a day maybe.

CharlesA

October 24th, 2011, 08:09 PM

alexfish

October 24th, 2011, 08:09 PM

tartalo

October 24th, 2011, 08:53 PM

Why is such a lot of people so hooked on this boot time nonsense?

Because it's not a nonsense. In a server it's obviously not important, in a desktop not very, but in a portable device with battery being able to boot "instantaneously" is an ideal that I hope that the developers keep chasing.

KiwiNZ

October 24th, 2011, 09:22 PM

Because it's not a nonsense. In a server it's obviously not important, in a desktop not very, but in a portable device with battery being able to boot "instantaneously" is an ideal that I hope that the developers keep chasing.

When I use my Laptops knowing I will be on battery I put them to sleep.;)

tartalo

October 24th, 2011, 10:08 PM

When I use my Laptops knowing I will be on battery I put them to sleep.;)

Fair enough.

Anyway it has to be admitted that waiting for something to happen with the computer causes frustration, who hasn't told the computer "come on!", who hasn't said "oh, not now!" when it's time for an fsck, who doesn't hate when after telling Windows to shut down it starts configuring the updates....

No one likes waiting, or almost no one:
http://xkcd.com/303/

SharkMonster

October 24th, 2011, 10:18 PM

Windows is developed to sell shiny new packages of hardware: this is why often windows need to be "renewed" with formats.

Do you have a source to backup this claim?

Dale61

October 25th, 2011, 09:34 AM

At least once a week, my 11.10 seems to take an age to boot. My normal start tot he day goes as follows:

Prepare my morning coffee.
Set to microwave for 2mins 30sec
Turn on laptop and boot in to 11.10.
Type in password to access wireless.
Microwave dings, so take coffee out of microwave.
Home page loaded.

So, with the above as a guide, my laptop fully loads 11.10 in less than 2 mins, and it is ready to use. My defacto's W7 laptop would still be loading whilst the toast is being buttered!

When they try it once a release candidate becomes available the result will be different.

Khakilang

October 25th, 2011, 11:35 AM

Boot speed doesn't prove anything. But by looking at the long term usage will determine whether it is stable, no virus attack, no fragmented files, no mess up registary etc. is still a question to be answer.

KL_72_TR

October 25th, 2011, 11:54 AM

Why is such a lot of people so hooked on this boot time nonsense?
I'm saying this based on Windows. Windows are ready for work later than a minute and also during work are slow responsive. Maybe something like that happened in that particular (installation) Ubuntu, and the people got the wrong picture?

Is the difference between between 27 seconds boot and 37 seconds boot that important.In 70 years there is around 2,208,988,800 seconds.

OMG I must save 10 seconds on my boot time
Ha ha ha .... I like this :-D

I don't reboot any of my machines all that often.
Yes you are right. I do the same. Turning on and off very often is not good for the hardware.

trivialpackets

October 25th, 2011, 01:26 PM

I personally think that a low boot time is somewhat important today. With that said,

A) It's not everything
B) On my PCs at home, the difference is nothing like what was on that video, if it were I could possibly see an issue, but not likely.

The thing is, each OS is a tool, if you don't see a use for an OS, just accept that you may not have the same needs. Just like a carpenter may see no use for a jackhammer, it doesn't make it inherently better or worse. Not to mention, the setup time required to use a jackhammer is definitely greater than that of a hammer.

Rasa1111

October 26th, 2011, 02:06 AM

I'm saying this based on Windows. Windows are ready for work later than a minute and also during work are slow responsive. Maybe something like that happened in that particular (installation) Ubuntu, and the people got the wrong picture?

Ha ha ha .... I like this :-D

Yes you are right. I do the same. Turning on and off very often is not good for the hardware.

Same here, I always just put them into 'suspend'.
SOmetimes "Hibernate", but usually just suspend.

KiwiNZ

October 26th, 2011, 02:10 AM

Quadunit404

October 26th, 2011, 02:21 AM

It's been over a year since I experienced Windows taking around a minute to boot. This laptop boots Windows 7 in only 12 seconds, and this is the same Windows installation installed on it when it was built around this time a year ago.

Ubuntu, on the other hand... even on my old laptop, which it worked better with, took around a minute and a half to boot. Hate to break it to ya guys, but Windows has always booted faster than Linux for me.

Also, Canonical's "How fast.ogg" video included with Ubuntu... just spinning around an Ubuntu logo for 10 seconds does not prove anything. Better yet, it has nothing to do with actually booting... as I said, it's just the Ubuntu logo spinning around for 10 seconds.

Rasa1111

October 26th, 2011, 02:41 AM

Hate to break it to ya guys, but Windows has always booted faster than Linux for me.

lol, hate to break it back to ya..
but it's always been the opposite for me.
No matter what computer im on.

wolfen69

October 26th, 2011, 02:58 AM

I'm trying out Win 8 right now, and have to say I'm not impressed. There's gonna be a lot of people ticked off when W8 is released. I think people are going to stay with windows 7 for as long as possible, much like XP.

TheNosh

October 26th, 2011, 03:11 AM

I'm trying out Win 8 right now, and have to say I'm not impressed. There's gonna be a lot of people ticked off when W8 is released. I think people are going to stay windows 7 for as long as possible, much like XP.

Why's that? It boots faster, it has a more informative file transfer dialogue, a far more useful task manager, a ribbon in Explorer, and it has Microsoft Security Essentials by default (re-branded as the latest version of Windows Defender).

Faster + more intuitive + more secure

What part of that isn't good?

The only change you could argue is bad is the Metro user interface. After giving it a chance, I rather like it. However, if you don't you can turn it off and go back to the Windows 7 interface, but with all the other changes in place.

Currently that can only be done by editing the registry, but I'd be willing to bet money that that will change by the time of release. My assumption is that they'll put an option in the Control Panel.

wolfen69

October 26th, 2011, 05:27 AM

Why's that? It boots faster, it has a more informative file transfer dialogue, a far more useful task manager, a ribbon in Explorer, and it has Microsoft Security Essentials by default (re-branded as the latest version of Windows Defender).

Faster + more intuitive + more secure

What part of that isn't good?

The only change you could argue is bad is the Metro user interface. After giving it a chance, I rather like it. However, if you don't you can turn it off and go back to the Windows 7 interface, but with all the other changes in place.

Currently that can only be done by editing the registry, but I'd be willing to bet money that that will change by the time of release. My assumption is that they'll put an option in the Control Panel.

I'm sure windows 8 will be just fine if you like that sort of thing. I don't anymore, and probably never will again. But that's OK, we all can't like the same things. :)

TheNosh

October 26th, 2011, 06:04 AM

I'm sure windows 8 will be just fine if you like that sort of thing. I don't anymore, and probably never will again. But that's OK, we all can't like the same things. :)

I'm not saying you need to like it. I'm just confused as to why someone would stay with 7 as long as possible to avoid it. If you don't like Windows 8, chances are you didn't much care for 7 either, given that you can make it act just like 7, except faster and more secure.

The only change in how it's used is Metro, which can be disabled.