|
Description
I don't know if it's possible, but it would be GREAT!
Gutsy boots in ~50 seconds, Hardy boots in ~2 minutes (but it's a beta release so probably the final release will be faster), "probably" ubuntu can boot faster...so why not?
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Endperform wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 16:26
|
What's this going to accomplish? Seriously? ZOMG I can boot in 20 seconds!!!!one!1!
What is a savings of 30 seconds of startup time going to help? I never could understand this.
|
|
bigdufstuff wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 17:04
| |
Fast boot up times are nice, but how often are you people booting your computer? You do it once at the beginning of the day, go get coffee, come back, and then be done with it.
|
|
Warbo wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 17:06
|
Endperform: I like to use my laptop to get stuff done, not to watch a pretty orange bar fill up. If I want to do some quick little thing the overhead of booting up makes it take much longer. Plus if I need to reboot (for example my wifi and graphics are unreliable and I have a tendancy to fill my swap) I want to be back up and running ASAP.
(Suspend/hibernate don't work for me BTW)
|
|
bret.kuhns wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 17:43
|
aye, Endperform and bigdufstuff have obviously never heard of laptops. I could get to a working environment when I had XP on my laptop in under 30 seconds thanks to hibernations, which was great. Now with Ubuntu, my biggest gripe is that it takes over one minute to boot.
When something pops in your head and you want to just grab your laptop and check something out on the internet, you don't want to spend more time booting the OS than you spend doing that quick little task.
(Suspend/Hibernate also don't work correctly for me in Gutsy)
|
|
Linux.user wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 18:20
|
MAC OSX BOOTS IN LESS Than 20 SECONDS!!!
Vista boots in two minutes and a half... -_-
My Mac classic boots in 15 seconds!
What's the better?
|
|
Endperform wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 18:26
|
@Warbo:
I like using mine to get things done too, but do you really think 15-30 seconds is going to make a huge difference in your productivity during the day? I'd rather see developers focus on other areas which actually need attention.
@bret.kuhns:
No, I've never heard of a laptop, ever. Nevermind I have two of them. If your issue is hibernation, perhaps asking about getting that fixed. Ubuntu doesn't take 30 seconds on my laptop... :P
|
|
Kivutar wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 18:45
|
It's true that MacOSX boots in less than 20 seconds.
Switching on a mac is like switching on a TV.
|
|
XSP wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 20:04
| |
I have a box that boots in 2 seconds. I use coreboot. A hell of a lot of the boot time is in loading kernel modules that you may never even use. This is the bad thing in using a generic kernel. If you build your own, you can reduce boot times dramatically.
|
|
bryhoyt wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 20:05
|
If you switch OS's frequently, this would be a big productivity hit. I switch OS's a lot; I use a windows-only microchip programmer for my work.
Also, it's not _just_ about productivity. Sometimes it's nice to have things work quickly to give a nice warm feeling at the bottom of our fuzzy hearts. Even at boot-time, responsiveness is a factor. It just gives the OS a feeling of efficiency, quality, wow-factor.
When a human does things sluggishly, it says to people "I don't enjoy what I'm doing." If an OS does things sluggishly, it makes the same statement, subconsciously. (That's different from doing things _carefully_, of course, which can take time, but is a good thing.)
|
|
px33 wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 20:46
| |
My Ubuntu boots in 23-26 seconds but that's only because upstart scripts. I think that it's high time we started to use upstart instead of old sysvinit.
|
|
Eldmannen wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 21:03
| |
I think we should have a competition and comparison of boot time against other desktop operating systems such as Mac OS X and Windows XP and Windows Vista.
|
|
asham wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 21:37
| |
Of course Mac is going to be fast! Apple computers come with compatible hardware. You will not likely get the same performance if you substitute it (if possible).
|
|
bgfeldm wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 21:48
|
the boot time is totally dependent on amount of Hardware, type of hardware and hardware speed.
For example: the fast computer boots faster then a slow computer and the more devices connected to your computer the slower it will boot.
All apple computer use almost the same hardware, there is thousands of different hardware out there. So apple computers are programed to skip much of the hardware checks evolved, and apples hardware database is tiny compared to linux.
|
|
johngunderman wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 21:51
| |
As far as his comment on Hardy goes, I feel his pain. I have notice Hardy to be significantly slower than Guntsy, and not only on bootup. Everything seems to lag a bit, which is disappointing.
|
|
vexorian wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 23:32
|
Don't be comfortable with 15 seconds. Try 5 seconds, really.
The ultimate objective for an OS must be no boot time, that should be the ideal, and every new version should try as hard as possible to drop it by 5 seconds and never increase it.
There's a step that synchronizes time, it should be run in pararel, instead it waits till it finishes downloading the new time, it would be good if it could even open the login window before finishing the time update.
|
|
vexorian wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 23:32
| |
johngunderman: I hope you filed it as a bug, instead of complaining about it on forums, you are a beta tester, you know...
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 00:47
| |
Voted down. Generic idea
|
|
HDave wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 01:20
|
Great idea +1 for me. I have a laptop and am constantly traveling around with it. I also don't like the idea of hibernate/suspend/swap due to security concerns.
Ubuntu should switch on like a TV. Lets go for 5 seconds, but I'll take 15.
|
|
johno wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 02:37
|
Why stop at 10 seconds? Why not make it boot in 5 seconds?
I agree the faster the boot time the better though, but they're not long now by choice, but rather that they don't know how to make them that fast.
One big problem with the current boot arrangement is the two-stage nature of it... 1 minute of booting, and then wait for user to login - then another half a minute of booting.
For the sake of convenience, it would be better to have the login either at the start of the boot, or at the end. I'd suggest bringing up a prompt right at the start of the boot, and then let the user log in at any time during the boot, and booting proceeds while waiting for login. The libraries for the default destop environment could be pre-loaded into memory if the user still hasn't logged in by the time the normal boot has started.
|
|
alberge204 wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 02:37
| |
Boot times do matter to a lot of people (myself included). I would favor fixing suspend and hibernate first. I also don't know that a 15-second boot is reconcilable with all the other demands on a Linux system's configuration, but I do support giving faster boot times some thought and effort.
|
|
anabelle wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 04:57
| |
I was wishing today that my laptop booted as fast as my PSP that way it would be really portable!
|
|
Magnes wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 06:50
| |
I saw once an old Amiga 1200 with hard drive which booted to the Workbench before the CRT screen unfaded (1 second maybe). That was awesome.
|
|
salmiak911 wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 07:20
| |
I have laptop and before Hardy Heron it took about 10-20 minutes(!!!) to suspend, now it takes five seconds and in windows it take about 40-50 seconds. I'm travelling around a bit and sometimes I need to quickly fix things.
|
|
krychek wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 08:35
|
"Let Ubuntu boot in 1 sec!!! :P"
Unless you know how to do it, this is not an idea.
-1
|
|
tenplus1 wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 08:35
|
Magnes: oh yeah, my Amiga 1200 Tower was THAT FAST... although to be fair, it didn't have all the neat features that Ubuntu offers, but still, my Ubuntu boot time is 20 seconds...
You just gotta use BUM (Bootup-Manager) and disable the services/sessions you don't really need/use...
|
|
Redrazor39 wrote on the 18 Apr 08 at 22:50
|
Idk if this is possible, but I posted this on my idea blog just in case:
Keep Boot Data in RAM While Off; Fast Access When Started
What I want to know is if it is possible to store data in the RAM of a computer and keep it there while the computer is off. If this is possible in any way (preferably on most hardware today or on DDR2 RAM), then wouldn’t it be great if startup speed could be dramatically increased due to the faster read speeds of RAM compared to Hard Disk Drive read speeds?
I think this should be implemented; store boot up data in the RAM while the computer is off and default to check the RAM for this data first, and if there is something there, access it first. Some people may not have enough RAM to store all of their boot up data, but this can be solved by storing parts of it in the RAM (say, one section of loading instead of randomly scattering it between RAM and HDD, because that would completely defeat the purpose. At least part of the boot-up sequence would be much faster.
The easiest and fastest place to implement this would be in Linux, notably Ubuntu Linux. Because of the Freedom and open-source nature of the OS, it would be easy to put something that was well-coded to good use.
In a dual-boot setup (because there are plenty of people who have to have Windows and decide to dual-boot), the alternate OS can clear the RAM and continue with its normal startup process while that boot data is recopied to the RAM the next time Linux is started up and shut down.
I do not know if this is possible or if it is, has been implemented already, but I wanted to get it out there so at least I know the idea is floating around online.
|
Post your comment
|
