Is it normal

[tatteredpotato]

Just installed FC5 on my laptop, and i was wondering if it should take longer to boot Linux than Windows? Also does FC or Ubuntu (i'm planning on switching) support a hibernate function?

 

[RamIt]

I think so. My suse 10.1 takes a bit longer than xp. ~20 seconds longer.

 

[kingpinskinnypimp]

Ubutnu is my OS of choice but it does boot about 30 seconds slower than XP Pro on the same system. Have not installed the others.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes it usually is longer... using the OS defaults. You could probably pare it down with a recompiled custom Kernel and get rid of all the default crap that you don't need.

Remember you can't measure an OS by the boot time. It is what happens after the boot that counts.

pcgeek11

 

[supernov]

It also depends on what you're calling the OS. Linux itself boots up much faster, but the X-window system (which needs a real recoding-process I think) is slow.

It also depends on the system, I have Gentoo-Linux, which I tweaked into booting only what is neccessary for my system specifically. That helps a bit as well. But XP isn't bad in boot-time I must say, just everything else.

 

[sourceninja]

the new version of ubuntu boots in about 10 seconds on my laptop.

 

[Smilin]

Smilin's windows centric perspective:
MS has gone to a great deal of trouble to shave time off of boot and also initial load time of your most commonly used apps. It loads many things simultaneously that are not interdependent. The optimizations are really geared towards the consumer since IT guys often leave the box running all the time.

When it all boils down to it though ... as long as the boot time isn't obscene it's not a big deal. Leave the box running all the time. Put on standby instead of shutdown if needed.

(PCGeek11 actually said the elegantly above).

 

[tatteredpotato]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Smilin's windows centric perspective:
MS has gone to a great deal of trouble to shave time off of boot and also initial load time of your most commonly used apps. It loads many things simultaneously that are not interdependent. The optimizations are really geared towards the consumer since IT guys often leave the box running all the time.

When it all boils down to it though ... as long as the boot time isn't obscene it's not a big deal. Leave the box running all the time. Put on standby instead of shutdown if needed.

(PCGeek11 actually said the elegantly above).

Well thats really not an option (its a laptop) but the load time i can deal with, i was just making sure that i didn't have anything abnormal going on.

 

[greylica]

Sometimes you are running services that do not interest for you specifically, FC5 loads too many services and those are services very interdependent.
I sugest you to try running Ubuntu Dapper instead of this. is very fast, and if you do not turn on all the eye candy features,it will be extremelly fast.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Smilin's windows centric perspective:
MS has gone to a great deal of trouble to shave time off of boot and also initial load time of your most commonly used apps. It loads many things simultaneously that are not interdependent. The optimizations are really geared towards the consumer since IT guys often leave the box running all the time.

When it all boils down to it though ... as long as the boot time isn't obscene it's not a big deal. Leave the box running all the time. Put on standby instead of shutdown if needed.

(PCGeek11 actually said the elegantly above).

Maybe it's just my being unlucky, but it seems that for however much XP shaves off boot time, the user has to wait 15-30 seconds before a login session becomes usable. This is probably not MS's fault, since it's usually all the extra crap that gets loaded on login; you could argue that the task scheduler is at fault for making the wrong choice in the trade-off between throughput and latency (which I do make, and for more cases than just login), but that is a normative argument.

As for Linux boot times, you can always try to replace the default /sbin/init with one of the other implementations out there that can run tasks in parallel (e.g., initng).

You can also mess with the boot scripts. For instance, in the boot scripts for Slackware, ldconfig, a highly I/O-intensive program, is run for every boot. Now, this is not a problem for most machines, but on my laptop (with the 4200 RPM hard drive) it takes 15-20 seconds. So I simply background the task so I don't have to wait for it to finish before moving on with the rest of the boot process. This can cause problems in a few rare cases, but since I understand what ldconfig does and how it affects the rest of the system, it's not a problem.

 

[stash]

Well thats really not an option (its a laptop)

Sure it is. I never actually reboot my laptops, except when installing security updates. In XP I used hibernation, and in Vista I use sleep. Just close the lid and you're done. Crack open the lid and you're back where you left off.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: bersl2
Maybe it's just my being unlucky, but it seems that for however much XP shaves off boot time, the user has to wait 15-30 seconds before a login session becomes usable. This is probably not MS's fault, since it's usually all the extra crap that gets loaded on login; you could argue that the task scheduler is at fault for making the wrong choice in the trade-off between throughput and latency (which I do make, and for more cases than just login), but that is a normative argument.

No not really an MS thing It's the junk users load. Check your startup items. Specifically the startup folder & hkcu startup items. MSconfig is the easiest way to check. The only thing loading after your logon screen has passed is residual start type type 3 (automatic) drivers and services that are not listed as a dependency for winlogon and that haven't yet completed. The task scheduler?? wouldn't have anything to do with this sequence. The start type and class in the registry determines the sequence. Although it is a background process getting prefetch out of the way will cause massive drive activity but not actually interrupt anything you are doing. First time you launch something that's prefetched it's snappy though.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: bersl2
Maybe it's just my being unlucky, but it seems that for however much XP shaves off boot time, the user has to wait 15-30 seconds before a login session becomes usable. This is probably not MS's fault, since it's usually all the extra crap that gets loaded on login; you could argue that the task scheduler is at fault for making the wrong choice in the trade-off between throughput and latency (which I do make, and for more cases than just login), but that is a normative argument.

No not really an MS thing It's the junk users load. Check your startup items. Specifically the startup folder & hkcu startup items. MSconfig is the easiest way to check. The only thing loading after your logon screen has passed is residual start type type 3 (automatic) drivers and services that are not listed as a dependency for winlogon and that haven't yet completed. The task scheduler?? wouldn't have anything to do with this sequence. The start type and class in the registry determines the sequence. Although it is a background process getting prefetch out of the way will cause massive drive activity but not actually interrupt anything you are doing. First time you launch something that's prefetched it's snappy though.

Perhaps instead of "task scheduler" I should have said what I meant: the CPU scheduler, the I/O scheduling, the VM system in general, and so on---and as I said, I have other situations where processes (including, but not limited to, explorer.exe, or whatever the shell runs from) were (and this is an assumption, but given the accompanying hard drive activity...) blocking on I/O in a way that was really pissing me off. As I said, this is a subjective argument. Which is a good reason why I should stop now, before I start some kind of flamefest.

Actually, now that I reflect on it, I think I've been flamebaiting for nearly 24 hours. Yay me!

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: bersl2
Maybe it's just my being unlucky, but it seems that for however much XP shaves off boot time, the user has to wait 15-30 seconds before a login session becomes usable. This is probably not MS's fault, since it's usually all the extra crap that gets loaded on login; you could argue that the task scheduler is at fault for making the wrong choice in the trade-off between throughput and latency (which I do make, and for more cases than just login), but that is a normative argument.

No not really an MS thing It's the junk users load. Check your startup items. Specifically the startup folder & hkcu startup items. MSconfig is the easiest way to check. The only thing loading after your logon screen has passed is residual start type type 3 (automatic) drivers and services that are not listed as a dependency for winlogon and that haven't yet completed. The task scheduler?? wouldn't have anything to do with this sequence. The start type and class in the registry determines the sequence. Although it is a background process getting prefetch out of the way will cause massive drive activity but not actually interrupt anything you are doing. First time you launch something that's prefetched it's snappy though.

Perhaps instead of "task scheduler" I should have said what I meant: the CPU scheduler, the I/O scheduling, the VM system in general, and so on---and as I said, I have other situations where processes (including, but not limited to, explorer.exe, or whatever the shell runs from) were (and this is an assumption, but given the accompanying hard drive activity...) blocking on I/O in a way that was really pissing me off. As I said, this is a subjective argument. Which is a good reason why I should stop now, before I start some kind of flamefest.

Actually, now that I reflect on it, I think I've been flamebaiting for nearly 24 hours. Yay me!

There is a certain amount of friction expected between MS and *nix guys. So the level that counts as flamebait is naturally higher. As long as everyone keeps it intelligent it's all good.

Your overall subjective observation is correct though (in my subjective opinion ). Windows will make it to the desktop while some things are still booting. Even with this, as a whole it boots pretty fast considering. If you launch one of your commonly used apps during this "still booting" period it should pop right up. If you try to launch something off the wall it may take a sec.

 

[Noema]

I believe MS has been striving for shorter boot times since the Win ME days, not true? My dad still used Win Me in his old P4 before I turned him into Xubuntu and it always sported a blazing-fast boot.

I believe prefetching started in ME as well? Correct me if I'm wrong MS guys