XP vs Linux boot time on OLPC

[cknight]

According to Unlimited Potential's Bohdan Raciborski (paid by Microsoft), the newly tweaked XP operating system to fit on the OLPC laptop can boot in 50 seconds. He is claiming that this is 4 times faster than the Linux alternative.

That's rather impressive. Is anyone with one of the Linux versions able to verify this claim (e.g. that Linux boots in 200 seconds?). Can anyone offer any insight into why this is so much faster? If Linux had access to the extra memory that the Microsoft install requires, could it too increase its boot speed time?

This man also claims that the XP system offers up to 20 hours of battery life. How does this compare to Linux?

Please, I'm really not interested in Microsoft bashing here, just a reasoned argument on the above.

You can see the full article here:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2751728126.html

[Ub1476]

20 hours battery life... What a joke.

[Tundro Walker]

Not to side-track, but this is sort of a big reason why developers like fixed-spec systems. Original XP had to include all kinds of code & drivers for every setup under the sun. But, OLPC being like a game console, where it's a fixed spec system, they can fine tune the sucker to run really smooth.

However, MS has a lot of resources to toss at this project if they so choose, where-as the OLPC/Linux crowd may not. I sort of doubt the Linux version is as optimized as it could be. But, then again, maybe it is, and that's the best they can do.

However, boot time is really a trivial measurement. It's like comparing how fast you can get in and out of different cars, and using that as a primary metric to judge whether the cars are any good.

To be blunt, who gives a crap about boot time. That's like so low on the list of priorities it shouldn't even be a consideration of quality. They can strip tons of stuff out of an OS, leaving minimal functionality, and perhaps making it hardly usable with what OLPC is trying to do (EG: mesh networking, etc), but that lets it boot 5x faster.

If it can boot 5x faster and still meet all the goals of the project, then bravo for them. However, I have a feeling Microsoft flexed their muscles and re-wrote the goals of the project when it came to their OS. I can't verify that statement, but I would say it has a high probability based on past MS performance indicators.

I apologize if I got this started on a bit of a passionate / flaming note.

*toot*toot*

[madjr]

According to Unlimited Potential's Bohdan Raciborski (paid by Microsoft), the newly tweaked XP operating system to fit on the OLPC laptop can boot in 50 seconds. He is claiming that this is 4 times faster than the Linux alternative.

That's rather impressive. Is anyone with one of the Linux versions able to verify this claim (e.g. that Linux boots in 200 seconds?). Can anyone offer any insight into why this is so much faster? If Linux had access to the extra memory that the Microsoft install requires, could it too increase its boot speed time?

This man also claims that the XP system offers up to 20 hours of battery life. How does this compare to Linux?

Please, I'm really not interested in Microsoft bashing here, just a reasoned argument on the above.

You can see the full article here:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2751728126.html

this video shows the difference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ_66F42JNE


contenders:

eeePC xandros (tweaked)

cloudbook gOS (untweak, normal)

[smoker]

once you add an antivirus, and a few other apps to the xp verison, it'll slow it to a crawl. plus, hope these kids in all these remote villages have access to a phone when activation fails, or some driver changes system files and xp decides it is now non-genuine :-)