Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison

Robin T Cox · External Since: Oct 29, 2006 Posts: 55

Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison

http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-boot-
speed-comparison
http://bit.ly/3whaa6

--
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

Wintrolls Lie · External Since: Aug 07, 2009 Posts: 8

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:15:09 +0000, Robin T Cox wrote:

> Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison
>
> http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-boot-
> speed-comparison
> http://bit.ly/3whaa6

As I said in another thread ubuntu 9.10 feels very snappy. So far it is a
delight to use. Even pan works (including spell checker) with no
problems!!!

amicus_curious · External Since: Mar 06, 2007 Posts: 60

"Robin T Cox" <nomail.TakeThisOut@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:f7UGm.8858$Cq1.8483@newsfe12.ams2...
> Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison
>
> http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-boot-
> speed-comparison
> http://bit.ly/3whaa6
>
Do you think that this will have any effect towards improving the terrible
commercial acceptance of Ubuntu? Given the overwhelming interest in Windows
7 to date, do you perhaps think that a longer, more introspective boot time
for Windows 7 has proven to actually be an advantage? It is not enough to
simply measure, it is still necessary to understand the implications of the
measurement and nothing to this end is presented here.

bbgruff · External Since: May 26, 2005 Posts: 60

John Fuhrer wrote:

>> Perhaps the problem is your own lack of intelligence, general arrogance
>> and an overwhelming hatrid of people in this group, flatfish.
>
> Yea...
> And Terry discovered his cock up and posted that video in a seperate
> message.

Better look at the Original Post of this thread, flatfish - the one that
linked to the video. That was posted by Robin T Cox, and Terry's post was
directly threaded to it.

Now how about stopping blowing smoke, and getting a grip?
You're losing it.

As for your "It was a fake, prove that it wasn't", don't (even) you agree
that that is rather a pathetic and lame response? A bit like saying "All
those Ubuntu problem posts are fakes - prove that they're not", in fact.

Do try to get your act together.

John Fuhrer · External Since: Oct 31, 2009 Posts: 5

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:38:46 +0000, bbgruff wrote:

> John Fuhrer wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps the problem is your own lack of intelligence, general
>>> arrogance and an overwhelming hatrid of people in this group,
>>> flatfish.
>>
>> Yea...
>> And Terry discovered his cock up and posted that video in a seperate
>> message.
>
> Better look at the Original Post of this thread, flatfish - the one that
> linked to the video. That was posted by Robin T Cox, and Terry's post
> was directly threaded to it.

I was talking about terry's post, not Robins.

> Now how about stopping blowing smoke, and getting a grip? You're losing
> it.
>
> As for your "It was a fake, prove that it wasn't", don't (even) you
> agree that that is rather a pathetic and lame response? A bit like
> saying "All those Ubuntu problem posts are fakes - prove that they're
> not", in fact.
>
> Do try to get your act together.

I've always been together.
It's you and Linux, Ubuntu Linux in particular that seem to be unraveling.

You guys are nothing more than a collection of liars, half truth tellers,
cultists and vermin.
No wonder COLA is despised on Usenet.

Sorry for all the typos.
If I enable spell checking in gedit pan crashes.

John Fuhrer · External Since: Oct 31, 2009 Posts: 5

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:18:52 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:18:22 +0000, bbgruff wrote:

>> 1. Terry evidently watched the video to which the OP linked. This
>> showed Windows 7 taking 72 seconds to boot, and Ubuntu 9.10 taking 40
>> seconds.
>
> Correct. The URL is right above my comments in my followup.

Upon reading this it appears that you are indeed correct Terry.
You did quote the thread.
I got my threads mixed up with the other one where you talk about install/
boot speed.

My bad Sad

My apologies for accusing you....

AZ Nomad · External Since: Jan 09, 2009 Posts: 20

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:15:09 +0000, Robin T Cox <nomail.RemoveThis@nomail.net> wrote:
>Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison

>http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-boot-
>speed-comparison
>http://bit.ly/3whaa6

What is especially amusing is that windows 7, microsoft answer to
vista's insane bloat, is no faster.

Running W7 on a network book would be like putting XP on an 2MB 80386sx.

AZ Nomad · External Since: Jan 09, 2009 Posts: 20

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:50:24 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc RemoveThis @sti.net> wrote:

>"Robin T Cox" <nomail RemoveThis @nomail.net> wrote in message
>news:f7UGm.8858$Cq1.8483@newsfe12.ams2...
>> Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison
>>
>> http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-boot-
>> speed-comparison
>> http://bit.ly/3whaa6
>>
>Do you think that this will have any effect towards improving the terrible
>commercial acceptance of Ubuntu? Given the overwhelming interest in Windows
>7 to date, do you perhaps think that a longer, more introspective boot time
>for Windows 7 has proven to actually be an advantage? It is not enough to
>simply measure, it is still necessary to understand the implications of the
>measurement and nothing to this end is presented here.

Hype does not equal acceptance.

DFS · External Since: Jun 07, 2005 Posts: 3577

AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:15:09 +0000, Robin T Cox <nomail RemoveThis @nomail.net>
> wrote:
>> Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison
>
>> http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-boot-
>> speed-comparison
>> http://bit.ly/3whaa6
>
> What is especially amusing is that windows 7, microsoft answer to
> vista's insane bloat, is no faster.
>
> Running W7 on a network book would be like putting XP on an 2MB
> 80386sx.

Another stupid lie by Nonad.

Why do you even post to cola?

John Fuhrer · External Since: Oct 31, 2009 Posts: 5

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:31:46 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:50:24 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc.DeleteThis@sti.net> wrote:
>
>>"Robin T Cox" <nomail.DeleteThis@nomail.net> wrote in message
>>news:f7UGm.8858$Cq1.8483@newsfe12.ams2...
>>> Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison
>>>
>>> http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-
boot-
>>> speed-comparison
>>> http://bit.ly/3whaa6
>>>
>>Do you think that this will have any effect towards improving the
>>terrible commercial acceptance of Ubuntu? Given the overwhelming
>>interest in Windows 7 to date, do you perhaps think that a longer, more
>>introspective boot time for Windows 7 has proven to actually be an
>>advantage? It is not enough to simply measure, it is still necessary to
>>understand the implications of the measurement and nothing to this end
>>is presented here.
>
> Hype does not equal acceptance.

Hype is only a short term "solution".
See Vista for details.

IMHO Vista was not that great, and the complaints were streaming in even
during the beta phase. Despite the hype by Microsoft, Vista was very much
ignored compared to what could have happened.

Windows 7 is a different animal. It's been very well received by the beta
testers and has gotten great reviews, unlike Vista.

However, if it all turns out to be hype, Windows 7 will tank like Vista
did because the truth will overcome the hype.

Much like it does in the Linux community as well.

bbgruff · External Since: May 26, 2005 Posts: 60

amicus_curious wrote:

> do you perhaps think that a longer, more introspective boot time
> for Windows 7 has proven to actually be an advantage?

....er... I don't know.
Could you explain, perhaps in non-technical terms for the sake of simple
souls such as myself, what a "more introspective boot" is?

John Fuhrer · External Since: Oct 31, 2009 Posts: 5

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:29:29 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:15:09 +0000, Robin T Cox <nomail RemoveThis @nomail.net>
> wrote:
>>Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison
>
>>http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-boot-
>>speed-comparison
>>http://bit.ly/3whaa6
>
> What is especially amusing is that windows 7, microsoft answer to
> vista's insane bloat, is no faster.
>
> Running W7 on a network book would be like putting XP on an 2MB 80386sx.

Use the correct software for the job.

Chris Ahlstrom · External Since: Jan 08, 2009 Posts: 486

bbgruff pulled this Usenet boner:

> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> do you perhaps think that a longer, more introspective boot time
>> for Windows 7 has proven to actually be an advantage?

<laughter>

An actual, funny joke from amicus!

> ...er... I don't know.
> Could you explain, perhaps in non-technical terms for the sake of simple
> souls such as myself, what a "more introspective boot" is?

--
You have an unusual understanding of the problems of human relationships.

William Poaster · External Since: Oct 30, 2009 Posts: 20

Above the wailing & moaning of the trolls,bbgruff was heard to say:

> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> do you perhaps think that a longer, more introspective boot time
>> for Windows 7 has proven to actually be an advantage?
>
> ...er... I don't know.
> Could you explain, perhaps in non-technical terms for the sake of simple
> souls such as myself, what a "more introspective boot" is?

It means Windoze7 takes longer to get its act together, coping with all the
extra bloatware. HTH. Smile

--
Linux. The Malicious Software Removal
tool which wipes Windows from your PC in
seconds!

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1798

bbgruff wrote:

> rat wrote:
>>
>> do you perhaps think that a longer, more introspective boot time
>> for Windows 7 has proven to actually be an advantage?
>
>...er... I don't know.
>Could you explain, perhaps in non-technical terms for the sake of simple
>souls such as myself, what a "more introspective boot" is?

A time to jerk-off to a framed picture of Billy G?

Kholmann is aka little 'P · External Since: Oct 08, 2009 Posts: 13

John Fuhrer wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:31:46 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:50:24 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc.DeleteThis@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Robin T Cox" <nomail.DeleteThis@nomail.net> wrote in message
>>> news:f7UGm.8858$Cq1.8483@newsfe12.ams2...
>>>> Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison
>>>>
>>>> http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-
> boot-
>>>> speed-comparison
>>>> http://bit.ly/3whaa6
>>>>
>>> Do you think that this will have any effect towards improving the
>>> terrible commercial acceptance of Ubuntu? Given the overwhelming
>>> interest in Windows 7 to date, do you perhaps think that a longer, more
>>> introspective boot time for Windows 7 has proven to actually be an
>>> advantage? It is not enough to simply measure, it is still necessary to
>>> understand the implications of the measurement and nothing to this end
>>> is presented here.
>> Hype does not equal acceptance.
>
> Hype is only a short term "solution".
> See Vista for details.
>
> IMHO Vista was not that great, and the complaints were streaming in even
> during the beta phase. Despite the hype by Microsoft, Vista was very much
> ignored compared to what could have happened.
>
> Windows 7 is a different animal. It's been very well received by the beta
> testers and has gotten great reviews, unlike Vista.
>
> However, if it all turns out to be hype, Windows 7 will tank like Vista
> did because the truth will overcome the hype.
>
> Much like it does in the Linux community as well.
>

Boot up speed is much ado about nothing. And Vista still out paced all
of Linux's desktops combined in usage. If anything, it's Lunux that's
not being accepted. There is a lot of hype about Linux too, mainly in
this no count NG. Where has the hype gotten Linux?

Kholmann is aka little 'P · External Since: Oct 08, 2009 Posts: 13

DFS wrote:
> AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:15:09 +0000, Robin T Cox <nomail.TakeThisOut@nomail.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison
>>> http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-boot-
>>> speed-comparison
>>> http://bit.ly/3whaa6
>> What is especially amusing is that windows 7, microsoft answer to
>> vista's insane bloat, is no faster.
>>
>> Running W7 on a network book would be like putting XP on an 2MB
>> 80386sx.
>
>
> Another stupid lie by Nonad.
>
> Why do you even post to cola?
>

So that he can do his tap dance routine about nothing like a clown. His
usual MO it seems.

Kholmann is aka little 'P · External Since: Oct 08, 2009 Posts: 13

William Poaster wrote:
> Above the wailing & moaning of the trolls,bbgruff was heard to say:
>
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> do you perhaps think that a longer, more introspective boot time
>>> for Windows 7 has proven to actually be an advantage?
>> ...er... I don't know.
>> Could you explain, perhaps in non-technical terms for the sake of simple
>> souls such as myself, what a "more introspective boot" is?
>
> It means Windoze7 takes longer to get its act together, coping with all the
> extra bloatware. HTH. Smile

>

No one but clowns would care about boot speed as much as these clowns
do. Where is the firer?

John Fuhrer · External Since: Oct 25, 2009 Posts: 20

"Kholmann is aka little 'Petey Toro' OLAY!" <Toro1.TakeThisOut@toro1.net> wrote in
message news:9oednRlesrBVinLXnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> John Fuhrer wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:31:46 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:50:24 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc.TakeThisOut@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Robin T Cox" <nomail.TakeThisOut@nomail.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:f7UGm.8858$Cq1.8483@newsfe12.ams2...
>>>>> Vista, Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10 boot speed comparison
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-
>> boot-
>>>>> speed-comparison
>>>>> http://bit.ly/3whaa6
>>>>>
>>>> Do you think that this will have any effect towards improving the
>>>> terrible commercial acceptance of Ubuntu? Given the overwhelming
>>>> interest in Windows 7 to date, do you perhaps think that a longer, more
>>>> introspective boot time for Windows 7 has proven to actually be an
>>>> advantage? It is not enough to simply measure, it is still necessary
>>>> to
>>>> understand the implications of the measurement and nothing to this end
>>>> is presented here.
>>> Hype does not equal acceptance.
>>
>> Hype is only a short term "solution".
>> See Vista for details.
>>
>> IMHO Vista was not that great, and the complaints were streaming in even
>> during the beta phase. Despite the hype by Microsoft, Vista was very much
>> ignored compared to what could have happened.
>>
>> Windows 7 is a different animal. It's been very well received by the beta
>> testers and has gotten great reviews, unlike Vista.
>>
>> However, if it all turns out to be hype, Windows 7 will tank like Vista
>> did because the truth will overcome the hype.
>>
>> Much like it does in the Linux community as well.
>>
>
> Boot up speed is much ado about nothing. And Vista still out paced all of
> Linux's desktops combined in usage. If anything, it's Lunux that's not
> being accepted. There is a lot of hype about Linux too, mainly in this no
> count NG. Where has the hype gotten Linux?

The Linux fanbois haven't done beans for Linux and in fact in the case of
some of them they have probably hurt Linux by confirming the various
stereotypes that Linux and the Linux community have.

John Fuhrer · External Since: Oct 25, 2009 Posts: 20

"Kholmann is aka little 'Petey Toro' OLAY!" <Toro1.RemoveThis@toro1.net> wrote in
message news:9oednRtesrAOhXLXnZ2dnUVZ_r9i4p2d@earthlink.com...
> William Poaster wrote:
>> Above the wailing & moaning of the trolls,bbgruff was heard to say:
>>
>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>> do you perhaps think that a longer, more introspective boot time
>>>> for Windows 7 has proven to actually be an advantage?
>>> ...er... I don't know.
>>> Could you explain, perhaps in non-technical terms for the sake of simple
>>> souls such as myself, what a "more introspective boot" is?
>>
>> It means Windoze7 takes longer to get its act together, coping with all
>> the
>> extra bloatware. HTH. Smile

>>
>
> No one but clowns would care about boot speed as much as these clowns do.
> Where is the firer?

Seeing as they cry like babies when their up time is comprimised by a power
outage, I find it odd that they focus on boot speed at all.