Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Software

Quick Boot Linux Hopes To Win Over Windows Users 440

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the how-about-just-never-boot dept.
Al writes "A company called Presto hopes to exploit the painful amount of time it takes for Windows computers to start up by offering a streamlined version of Linux that boots in just seconds. Presto's distro comes with Firefox, Skype and other goodies pre-installed and the company has also created an app store so that users can install only what they really need. The software was demonstrated at this year's Demo conference in Palm Desert, CA. Interestingly, the company barely mentions the name Linux on its website. Is this a clever stealth-marketing ploy for converting Windows users to Linux?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Quick Boot Linux Hopes To Win Over Windows Users

Comments Filter:
  • Hibernation? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09, 2009 @11:42AM (#27121947)
    Who boots up anymore unless to fix/install something? Just hibernate. I know, I'm over generalising but still, I rarely reboot/boot my machine perhaps once a fortnight I just hibernate it. * Windows XP
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I can see this working well for netbooks. One of the main reasons the idea of a netbook has been ruined for me is the boot time.

      Here, I've got a small little machine that could be more useful than my phone- only catch, I'd rather txt google with my phone than power up the acer-one, since it's going to take forever to boot.

      On my main machines I'll stick with xp and ubuntu. But this might be a great netbook os, finally making a netbook useful..
      • Re:Hibernation? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by IANAAC (692242) on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:12PM (#27122481)

        One of the main reasons the idea of a netbook has been ruined for me is the boot time.

        I really don't get this mentality. My first gen Asus 701 took all of 30 seconds to fully boot. I've since put UbuntuEee on it an it now takes about 40 seconds. IS your life that full that you just can't wait less than a minute?

        Netbooks aren't meant to be whipped out for quick searches. They're meant to be an ultra portable that surfs, does email, word processing and other work. Pretty much what you would use a back breaking laptop for.

        • by jetsci (1470207) on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:22PM (#27122643) Homepage Journal
          Back breaking? I carry around a 17" HP DV9000 fully loaded laptop and barely notice it. Perhaps you should get some exercise. Certainly beats carrying around my old kit, 70lbs ruck-sack, 16lbs rifle, and ammo. Sissy.
          • by IANAAC (692242)
            You're looking at 15 pounds with your accessories and power brick. Sorry, but that's too much to schlepp around, particularly if you're in and out of airports the better part of your work week.
        • Every time (Score:3, Insightful)

          by caitsith01 (606117)

          Every time there is a discussion about boot times, someone very much like yourself comes out with the old chestnut of "are you so important and impatient that you can't wait 30 seconds for a PC to boot". I assume you guys have a secret clubhouse somewhere where you meet to discuss your strategy for defending the indefensible, but anyway...

          Could this logic not be applied to any situation? E.g. you double click on an icon to start a program and your computer needlessly pauses for 15-30 seconds - but don't g

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Krneki (1192201)

        This is why you use Standby + Hibernate.

        My Asus EEE - Win XP comes from Standby in 1 sec and Hibernate take 15sec to boot, counting also the bios boot time.

        Under battery it goes into Standby in 5 min or when I put down the cover. After 15min in standby it goes into Hibernate, so I don't have to think if I need it in the next minute or the next day.

        Linux is not very friendly when it comes to Standby + Hibernate.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by PitaBred (632671)
          ACPI isn't friendly. Since all mobo manufacturers make their own quirky implementations that they provide drivers for Windows [computerpoweruser.com] for, so things tend to work better on XP. Linux is stuck reverse-engineering that stuff. Some machines work well, some don't. The worse your machine works, the further from ACPI specs you know it is.
        • Re:Hibernation? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jaavaaguru (261551) on Monday March 09, 2009 @01:02PM (#27123325) Homepage

          I've had nothing but good experiences with Ubuntu and the Dell Mini 9 when it comes to standby. Works perfectly. I would guess it's the hardware vendors that aren't very friendly when it comes to standby + hibernate.

      • Re:Hibernation? (Score:5, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:29PM (#27122787) Journal
        Why on earth would you regularly boot a netbook? Doesn't it sleep when you close the lid and wake when you open it?
        • Re:Hibernation? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by djtack (545324) on Monday March 09, 2009 @01:45PM (#27123841)
          Two reasons, I think:
          • Many of my coworkers running Ubuntu (and I've occasionally seen this with XP also) can't reliably sleep and wake without crashing.
          • Badly designed hardware, with short battery life when sleeping. My older PowerBook G4 could sleep for 2 weeks on a single charge; my newer MacBook gets about 1 week on sleep. Again, I've seen a lot of wintel hardware who's battery won't survive an overnight nap.

          I'm not saying this is a problem for everyone; just that there's enough issues that I think a lot of people are afraid or unable to use sleep.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by ender06 (913978)
            Many of my coworkers running Ubuntu (and I've occasionally seen this with XP also) can't reliably sleep and wake without crashing.

            I read that as "Many of my coworkers can't reliably sleep and wake without crashing." I thought sleeping wasn't allowed at work. Can I have their job?
      • Re:Hibernation? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by KillerBob (217953) on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:34PM (#27122863)

        As everybody else has said... why bother rebooting it? My XP-based laptop is effectively instant-on and instant-off with sleep mode, and it really only gets rebooted after I've been playing video games all day, or after a system update.

        And don't gripe about battery life... sleep mode uses *very* little power. I have, quite literally, put my laptop in sleep mode, gone on vacation, and come back 3 weeks later to a laptop with a battery that still had enough juice to run for 3.5h before it needed to be plugged in. (The laptop in question has a Core 2 Duo T5450 @ 1.66GHz, 2GB of RAM, 120GB 7200rpm HDD, DVD, 15.4" LCD @ 1680x1050).

        Even with netbooks, battery life in sleep mode is very long. I have a Dell Mini 9 (64GB SSD, 2GB RAM) running OS/X (thanks to http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook [gizmodo.com]), and that one is also pretty much instant-on and instant-off with sleep mode, and hasn't needed to be plugged in in 3 days.

        So... why are you actually bothering to power-down and reboot from cold your acer-one?

    • Re:Hibernation? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ArhcAngel (247594) on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:07PM (#27122381)

      Perhaps I am the exception to the rule but every machine I have ever used (and I've used a bunch) boots faster than it comes out of hibernation.

      • But one of the major points of using hibernation & standby is that you don't have to re-start the apps you use most, for example browsers that remember the tabs you last had open are nice but if you have a dozen or so tabs open it can take a while for the pages to all reload when maybe you only want to refresh one or two.
      • yes. hibernation is kinda useless IMO for that very reason. Standby is very quick though.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mahlerfan999 (1077021)
      I turn off my laptop because I will not have it running on battery when I move it around. When I go home for the weekend I turn my work station off. Why waste electricity when you're not going to use it for awhile? I doubt that I'm far from alone in turning off computers when they won't be needed for long amounts of time.
      • by exploder (196936)

        I turn off my laptop because I will not have it running on battery when I move it around.

        Is this a hardware-safety thing, or a saving-energy thing? I've carried my Dell XPS m1210 around in a backpack on standby nearly every day for two and a half years now, with no problems. And the amount of juice it takes to maintain standby is completely negligible--maybe 1 or 2 percent of the battery if you standby overnight.

        Once you factor in the stress and extra power required to cold boot and reload every app you use, standby may even be safer and cheaper.

        • I agree that it makes sense that standby and hibernate too probably puts less wear on the disk. Coming out of standby just probes the peripherals again. I never notice much of any I/O when waking back up. Hibernate is probably not as pleasant either, but since all that has to happen is reading the RAM back off the disk (which is hopefully more or less contiguous) there probably is less disk activity than reading all the disparate binaries to start services.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Yeah that makes sense for desktops, but the amount of energy a sleeping laptop uses is equivalent to a power brick plugged in but not being used. So unless you unplug all your bricked devices while they're off (and turn off that PC at the switch on the PSU), I wouldn't worry much about that sleeping laptop.
    • Re:Hibernation? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wfstanle (1188751) on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:31PM (#27122821)

      There are several reasons why you shouldn't always hibernate. Hibernate preserves the state of memory. If there is something wrong with the state of the memory such as a program has a bad memory leak, that problem persists. Also for computers with a large amount of memory, hibernation might not be the best alternative. The hibernation file must be at least as large as the RAM. If your computer has a large amount of RAM then it will take longer to backup/restore the state of the memory.

      At the very least, occasionally do a full shutdown to get a "clean slate".

    • Re:Hibernation? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by izomiac (815208) on Monday March 09, 2009 @01:05PM (#27123353) Homepage
      I never use hibernation for a few reasons.

      1) It's a recipe for data loss on shared partitions if you dual boot.
      2) I use an SSD and prefer 4 GB of space over saving ~20 seconds by hibernating instead of booting normally.
      3) The OS gets a fresh start. This *shouldn't* matter, but often slightly affects speed and memory consumption.
      4) Slowed boot time is an indicator of general performance issues. I might not notice a gradual doubling of application start up time, but boot times are more obvious.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Ihmhi (1206036)

      You turn your computer off?

  • Who reboots? (Score:5, Informative)

    by qoncept (599709) on Monday March 09, 2009 @11:43AM (#27121957) Homepage
    I feel like this is too minor of a feature and too late to do any good. Windows 7 is apparently making huge strides toward reducing boot time, and I never hear anyone complain about boot time anyway. Including people who don't use the computer that much. Most of the people I know that aren't "computer people" leave their computer on or in standby/hibernate, so boot time is hardly an issue.
    • I don't have any issues with boot time in windows 7. It's up and running in about 20 seconds ... of course this is on an i7 proc w/ 6GB or ram and 15k Velocerapter drives
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by RMH101 (636144)
        Bet your battery life sucks, though.

        It's a joke, laugh
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by George Beech (870844)
          No no ... i have great battery life, i get a full 2 mins and 42 seconds ! you can't beat that!
        • by Anpheus (908711)

          That i7 sips down more juice than my Lenovo X60 laptop (screen and all,) so what I do is I just sleep my computer and then carry it UPS and all.

          Kinda sucks that the battery weighs 20 pounds and only lasts five minutes.

      • Re:Who reboots? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by InlawBiker (1124825) on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:06PM (#27122367)

        Even Vista boots pretty quickly, at least to the login prompt. The excruciating delay comes from loading all of the apps - virus checker, printer/scanner tools, laptop vendor "helpful tools" that don't seem to do anything, etc. It's ridiculous.

        • by nmg196 (184961)

          You must be using Norton/Symantec. Try using a GOOD virus scanner like NOD32 (about the most lightweight one on the market, but also has the highest detection rate) and disabling things like Office Fast Start (and similar).

        • Re:Who reboots? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:23PM (#27122661) Homepage

          My XP box that I'm using now at work (2 core 2.33 GHz Xeon) boot Windows REALLY fast. It is under 30 seconds to get to the "Ctrl-Alt-Del to login" screen. It's great.

          Then you log in.

          Then you wait 5 minutes or so for it to finish loading everything and settle down enough to be usable (the desktop comes up nearly instantly but can't be used). If you open Outlook (as I have to), you're waiting another 5 minutes for that too.

          I'm disk limited (a faster disk would help things) but it's just terrible. I can get in quick, but I can't do anything for minutes afterwords (like a simple Firefox open and search).

          My Mac (MBP, 2.4GHz) doesn't boot as fast, maybe a minute to get to the desktop? But when the desktop comes up the computer is usable. It feels slow as it finishes loading stuff, but as soon as I get to the desktop I can start issuing commands (open Safari, etc.) and they happen. I doesn't feel "stuck" like XP does just after start-up.

          As others have said, there is a simple solution to all this. My Mac is almost never off, it sleeps when I move it. It comes up and ready in like 3 seconds. By the time I finish opening the display, it's ready. My XP box is never turned off or logged off, I lock it. It unlocks in 2-3 seconds. If it were to hibernate, it'd only take a few seconds longer, still light years ahead of a boot.

          I can tell you that these kind of things (little fast OSes) can get obnoxious. As soon as you run into a limitation (say you want to access something you don't have setup it in, or a program like Quicken) you have to suffer the full reboot. When you want to transition there is no easy way. You can't take your surfing from the fast-boot environment with you into Windows. All that rebooting gets really annoying. Now that I have a phone that can do a quick look-up on the 'net, I have even less reason to boot into this to see that "one quick thing".

          • Re:Who reboots? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by iangoldby (552781) on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:54PM (#27123197) Homepage

            My XP box that I'm using now at work (2 core 2.33 GHz Xeon) boot Windows REALLY fast. It is under 30 seconds to get to the "Ctrl-Alt-Del to login" screen. It's great.

            How long does it take your transistor radio to switch on? What about your television? (Unless it is decades old, it is probably two seconds or less.) When you turn on your kitchen tap, how long is it before water starts coming out? What about when you turn the ignition key in your car? Does it churn for 30 seconds before it is ready to drive off? (Well I know some cars do...)

            If you think that 30 seconds is fast just because it is a computer, then I think you have really low standards.

            (I know this wasn't the main point of your post.)

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by HetMes (1074585)
              Or you could ask:
              How long does it take to get on the highway?
              How long does it take to get dressed?
              How long does it take to get the shower temperature right?

              The questions you ask refer more to delay times in starting applications, and overall responsiveness.
            • Re:Who reboots? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09, 2009 @01:24PM (#27123561)

              How long does it take your oven to pre-heat? Honestly this is all apples to oranges. Most people simply don't care about the fact that their computers take a bit of time before they're ready to use.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Chabo (880571)

              My answers to some of your questions:

              What about your television? (Unless it is decades old, it is probably two seconds or less.)

              LG 37LC7D, less than a year old. From hitting the power button to when it shows a picture is about 5-7 seconds for cable TV or composite inputs, and about 5-7 seconds more than that for HDMI input.

              What about when you turn the ignition key in your car? Does it churn for 30 seconds before it is ready to drive off? (Well I know some cars do...)

              If you have a performance car (or you live in a cold region), you'll want to let it warm up a bit before you move it. One motorcycle owned by a guy I know won't even get in gear (even in a hot climate) unless you've had the engine running for several minutes, so he starts the e

        • So run msconfig and turn the cruft off. Then install a regmon utility and stop the taskbars before they take over your computer.
        • Re:Who reboots? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by BlueWomble (36835) on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:38PM (#27122931)

          I'm not sure it's the apps. I think what actually happens is that Vista puts up a login prompt well before it has truly finished booting. i.e. before all the services have started.

          The result is that you can login but the machine runs like a dog with no legs for the next 5 minutes as it tries to complete the boot process and deal with you trying to use it all at once.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by David Gerard (12369)
      Bollocks it's making huge strides toward reducing boot time. You wouldn't be saying that if you'd actually tried the beta (I'm presuming you haven't from "apparently," which implies you don't actually know hands-on). It's responsive and usable once booted, but takes bloody forever to actually get there.
    • by Korin43 (881732)
      It takes my laptop longer to hibernate than to shut down. Having a bunch of memory does have its downsides.
  • Just use suspend/resume. Even on my aging windows-XP notebook, it takes just a few seconds to resume from where I left.

    • by jedidiah (1196)

      On my XP laptop, it takes long enough to resume (XP) from suspend that I'd rather just hit the power and start up Ubuntu.

  • by jellomizer (103300) on Monday March 09, 2009 @11:44AM (#27121979)

    I am fairly sure faster boot times wont cause most people to switch. For most people it comes down to being able to run their apps, and not the sometimes poor GNU replacements of their apps.

    • by mr_mischief (456295) on Monday March 09, 2009 @11:56AM (#27122187) Journal

      If you had looked at the site for about 45 seconds, you could have noticed that the product installs in a dual-boot setup and gives the option to boot into Windows. It's not a new company called PResto, BTW. It's a product called Presto from Xandros, which has been putting out their own Linux distro for years.

      • by Vectronic (1221470) on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:02PM (#27122287)

        "If you had looked at the site for about 45 seconds..."

        Who has time for that?... Apparently 30 seconds is too long to boot a computer these days, who has 45 seconds for reading?

        Someone should build a site called 'Presume', which strips out 2/3rds of the words, knock the reading time down to 15 seconds.

      • by fm6 (162816)

        You're right, but it's still kind of pointless. The product seems to be somebody who regularly boots up their computer to do one thing, then shuts it down again. Plus when they fire up the computer to run Word, they don't need to access any of the bookmarks they created when they booted it just to check a web site. Not a common use case!

        This is kind of similar to those initiatives to allow you to run some apps from the BIOS without booting the OS. Those didn't catch on either.

    • The point is that the app most people want to run is likely on the web, so you're dealing with mozilla, not GNU.

  • Just a seconds?

  • Making Linux Work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Useful Wheat (1488675) on Monday March 09, 2009 @11:49AM (#27122065)
    Although I agree that a shorter boot time would be attractive, I doubt this will increase the number of people using Linux. A lot of the resistance to using Linux is tied up in the number of applications that don't port to the operating system, not the boot time. It doesn't matter how quickly the OS is available if you can't do anything once it turns on. If you could make it so that the majority of windows applications ran without resistance, I think that almost no boot time could make Linux revolutionary. Until then, I think you're wasting man hours on the wrong problem.
    • But if the app is available on both system (eg. Firefox) then boot time is the determining factor.

      My wife now boots into Ubuntu more often than Win XP on her dual boot desktop simply because it's faster.

      She still boots into windows to work with her photos though.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by arth1 (260657)

      There are certain killer apps that prevent people from running Linux. If the user has to jump through hoops and install emulators or similar to get it to install, or it doesn't work fully, that counts as "doesn't work":

      Microsoft Outlook. As long as an average user can't even get the company address book to show in Evolution, it's not a viable replacement.

      Adobe Photoshop. Don't even think Gimp -- it's not a substitute for Photoshop users.

      World of Warcraft and other popular games. The average Joe won't k

  • A company called Presto hopes to exploit the painful amount of time it takes for Windows computers to start up by offering a streamlined version of Linux that boots in just a seconds.

    Wow!! Who would have thunk this would be the killer feature which is going to cause mass
    migration to Linux. I have another idea - when Windows boots, the screen is in black &
    while & rather dull looking. Maybe Presto could exploit this by offering a version of
    Linux which prints boot messages in colour.

  • Xandros (Score:4, Informative)

    by CannonballHead (842625) on Monday March 09, 2009 @11:55AM (#27122169)
    Based on the copyright ("Copyright (c) 2009 Xandros Incorporated") I would venture to guess that Presto Linux comes out of Xandros Linux. [xandros.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09, 2009 @11:57AM (#27122189)

    Speaking as someone who owns a relatively new PC, XP, Vista, and 7 boot faster than the 'flasghip' Ubuntu. Not that it matters really.

    • by Qbertino (265505)

      And Linux/Xorg/Fluxbox boots faster than all of them. The important thing with Linux is, that you can choose how much you system takes to boot up. It's allways a tradeoff between features, bling-bling and speed. You did a nice stab at ignoring that though.

    • Likewise, same with Mandriva, OpenSUSE, and RedHat, the only one that I use that comes close, and usually beats Windows is Slackware.

      But, like you said, it doesn't matter, as I think all the main Linux distros, and all versions of Windows have Hibernate/Suspend, and what does 25 to 45 seconds matter when you only really need to reboot every couple weeks, or monthly.

      Having a cold-boot of a couple seconds, still means you lose the state of all your apps, you'll have to spend the time launching them, loading f

  • TFA Almost burns. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Useful Wheat (1488675) on Monday March 09, 2009 @11:58AM (#27122217)
    From TFA

    One of the main reasons why modern operating systems take so long to boot is that they are very bulky: a huge amount of code needs to be read when a computer is first turned on. Consisting of far fewer lines of code than Windows, Presto needs just a few hundred megabytes of memory, says Jordan Smith, product marketing manager at Xandros. Microsoft's Vista operating system, in contrast, recommends at least 15 gigabytes of free disk space to install.

    I don't think the reviewer really understands what's happening here. Recommended amount of hard drive space is not installed space (although I'm aware that Vista is a beast). And the reviewer has apparently compared RAM to HD space.

  • BIOS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tx (96709) on Monday March 09, 2009 @11:59AM (#27122221) Journal

    Several companies offer such functionality in their computer BIOSes. Sony's stupidly named XrossMediaBar that they install on everything from PS3s to televisions as well as some laptops being a prime example. These people are probably out of luck as if anybody actually wants this kind of feature, it will start to be provided in more and more BIOSes. Sure, the BIOS mini-OSes don't have the "app store" extensibility (although there's no reason why they couldn't), but, well good luck with that. And if (as I suspect) nobody is really interested because suspend/hibernate is plenty fast enough, then they're still buggered.

  • Odd that they're showing off this new feature on a MacBook Pro front and center on their website. OS X has always been the 'holy grail' of quick starts for me. With SmartSleep [www.jinx.de] I can configure it to do what I want depending on battery level.

    For those that haven't had the opportunity to use OS X, it does a 'dual path' of both sleep and hibernation most of the time. Say you close your lid and the machine goes to sleep with 40% battery left. You forget about your laptop for a week and come back to a completely

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by AndrewNeo (979708)

      it does a 'dual path' of both sleep and hibernation most of the time.

      Windows so intelligently will run the battery dead in sleep and then lose everything.

      So does Windows Vista. It's called hybrid sleep [microsoft.com].

    • by Anpheus (908711)

      Vista and Win 7 does this too by default. Called Hybrid Sleep.

  • ...basically Xandros (with CNR) with a Wubi installer? (since it's windows only at the moment) Why not just ship them an Ubuntu disk, it's cheaper... :D
  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:12PM (#27122487)

    This will only impress the type of douchebag who lists his RAM timings in his tweaker forum sig. People aren't using Windows because it boots fast, they use it because it came with their PC, and they can bootleg Office from work, and play Snood.

  • I had a fast boot time on Xandros. But the packages in the repositories weren't up to date and there were very few applications to install without breaking the system. Yes I enjoyed the fast boot times but what's the point of having fast boot times if your computer is completely useless. Installing Ubuntu was pretty easy and gave me access to some more up to date software but then then the Ubuntu repositories are barely up to date. The next netbook I get will be a windows one with a bigger hard disk so I
  • I have an asus mobo with the quickboot environment, I can browse the web and use skype (though i have yet to actually USE it), however, what would be more interesting to me would be to have this environment be persistent while windows boots in the background, install a driver in windows that sends a message over to the preboot/quickboot environment that says "Finished booting, would you like to move this browsing session over to windows?" I'd click yes, enter my username/password to be passed as login cred
  • how many people who arnt already aware of linux will read this article? Im sure its still so that the reason the majority of (non-commercial) users havent tried linux, let alone switched is because theyve never herd of it
  • On an old Pentium 4 system I had, it took 18 seconds to reach fully-ready desktop from a cold boot. This was a five-year-old installation, in constant use as my main computer.

    Anybody browsing this article probably has the technical competence and interest needed to maintain the OS so it never takes any longer than 30 seconds.

    Unless you've got McAfee installed, of course, in which case it'll take a significant fraction of your lifespan...

    Aside: PEBKAC is tongue in cheek for alliterative goodness.
  • This is silly. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tjstork (137384) <todd.bandrowsky@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Monday March 09, 2009 @12:34PM (#27122865) Homepage Journal

    Ok, you could probably somebody an operating system that boots in 2 seconds and does nothing. But, I guarantee you that within a month the vast majority of people will load up their computers with a bunch of crap such that they will still take a minute to boot.

  • It's all the OTHER crap that has to get done before you can use your computer. If you have only windows, no net connection, no 'SlowestNotes', no 'Norton-Nork anitvirius' software etc in your startup folder windows starts pretty quickly.

    The problems start when you have a net login script on a bloated server that holds you back, then SlowestNotes starts and takes a few minutes to log you in and open your inbox, even longer to show your first new email. Then Norton-Nork anti-virus takes another few minutes

  • Increasing boot times by 300% when the average OS boots in under 3 minutes is about as useful as the average driver discovering that his quarter-mile top speed increased to 115 from 105 when they bought a new car.

    In other words, who gives a shit anymore? I've got 5-year old laptops still running XP that I never shut down and always hibernate them. Same goes for my new Macbook.

    Want to give me something useful? How about a browser that starts up in 1 second or less. Now THAT is something that we all use e

    • by Shados (741919)

      Especially now with Sleep mode, which, even for Vista, gets the computer ready to use in less than 2 seconds.

  • Really, for a long time it's been acknowledged that few non-geeks know that Linux exists, what it is, what an Operating System is, or that there are alternatives to Windows (other than Mac). Probably most people who use Windows do get annoyed with how slow it is to boot, and especially how unresponsive the interface is for the first few minutes upon logging in. But I don't know that many would see this as THE reason to switch to Linux. People care about using their apps and being able to open their files
  • First, and second (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted AT slashdot DOT org> on Monday March 09, 2009 @03:06PM (#27125009)

    First: Who gives a shit if it's booting in half the time?

    I press power once between standing up and breakfast (on). And once before going to bed (off).

    It already boots faster than my brain. ^^

    Second: This is very old news. This quick-boot "technique" (aka horrible hack). Exists for a long time now.

    Besides: If I wanted to boot fast, I'd do it right, and use hibernation for the power button and long times of inactivity, and sleep for short times. With an optional real reboot (in case of kernel updates) between pressing the power button and going to hibernate (after being booted up again).

  • by AP31R0N (723649) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @09:06AM (#27133299)

    If you want to win over windows users:

    Make ONE distro - Part of what make Windows so useful is that i know how to use every windows machine i see. They're all pretty damn similar. Instead of making a bunch of distros that can't compete, make ONE that can. All the flavors are confusing. Windows has 3 basic flavors, home, domain and server. Aim for that.

    Make it run Halo, Planetside, MS Office and the games that don't work on consoles. FPS and RTS games just aren't the same with console controls. What this really means is: driver support for video cards. And NO, i don't want OO.o. i use it when i can, but it just isn't a competitor for MSO. So either get OO.o ready for prime time, or work with MS.

    i'd love to not pay 100$ to 200$ for the OS, but i'd rather have a system that can DO THINGS. That can run my games and interact with the rest of the world.

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Working...