What's up with this boot time focus?

ceed · External Since: Nov 05, 2009 Posts: 34

Hi,

Over and over again I've seen written about how fast Windows 7 boots
compared to Linux. Why all this focus on that, on something that happens
before the computer even fully run? Then it struck me, it's because
Windows users have to reboot a lot: for almost every update, and every
time an applications doesn't work, malware or Windows itself is causing
crashes. Of course it matters in Windows 7! But comparing it to Linux
where you only have to reboot once in a blue moon, it's irrelevant (except
for laptop users who may have to reboot a bit more often). Why brag about
something you should not have to do if things are working like they
should? It's like launching a new car model and let people know and it's
very quick to repair every time it breaks down. Would that sell the car
model? I don't think so.

--
> <(((°> ceed

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1797

ceed wrote:

>Why all this focus on that, on something that happens
>before the computer even fully run?

Seems to be much ado about nothing, at least in regards to desktops.

I suppose with portable computers becoming more used, the boot-time is
becoming more critical, as people will turn them on and off more
often, to save power.

--
"Security is only as good as it's most secure component" - Erik
Funkenbusch, arguing that "layering" security does not help

Ezekiel · External Since: Oct 20, 2009 Posts: 6

"ceed" <cdposter-usenet RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op.u2xh1scb325jvr@asus-laptop...
> Hi,
>
> Over and over again I've seen written about how fast Windows 7 boots
> compared to Linux. Why all this focus on that, on something that happens
> before the computer even fully run? Then it struck me, it's because
> Windows users have to reboot a lot: for almost every update, and every
> time an applications doesn't work, malware or Windows itself is causing
> crashes. Of course it matters in Windows 7! But comparing it to Linux
> where you only have to reboot once in a blue moon, it's irrelevant (except
> for laptop users who may have to reboot a bit more often). Why brag about
> something you should not have to do if things are working like they
> should? It's like launching a new car model and let people know and it's
> very quick to repair every time it breaks down. Would that sell the car
> model? I don't think so.

Why do Linux users focus on how long it takes to install the OS? Unless
they spend most of their time installing and uninstalling looking for one
that works.

ceed · External Since: Nov 05, 2009 Posts: 34

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:54:19 -0600, Hadron <hadronquark RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc RemoveThis @launchmodem.com> writes:
>
>> chrisv pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> ceed wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why all this focus on that, on something that happens
>>>> before the computer even fully run?
>>>
>>> Seems to be much ado about nothing, at least in regards to desktops.
>>>
>>> I suppose with portable computers becoming more used, the boot-time is
>>> becoming more critical, as people will turn them on and off more
>>> often, to save power.
>>
>> Suspend works well enough in both Linux and Windows.
>
> No it doesn't. It's glitchy as hell on laptops in Linux. And you know
> it.
>
It's glitchy in Windows also. I have not used Windows the last few years,
butI have colleagues with the exact same laptop I have. They run Windows,
I run Linux. We all have the same (minor) problems with both suspend and
hibernate. No difference there.

--
> <(((°> ceed

ceed · External Since: Nov 05, 2009 Posts: 34

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:47:51 -0600, Ezekiel <zeke-win7 DeleteThis @noteverywhere.com>
wrote:

>
>
> "ceed" <cdposter-usenet DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:op.u2xh1scb325jvr@asus-laptop...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Over and over again I've seen written about how fast Windows 7 boots
>> compared to Linux. Why all this focus on that, on something that
>> happens before the computer even fully run? Then it struck me, it's
>> because Windows users have to reboot a lot: for almost every update,
>> and every time an applications doesn't work, malware or Windows itself
>> is causing crashes. Of course it matters in Windows 7! But comparing it
>> to Linux where you only have to reboot once in a blue moon, it's
>> irrelevant (except for laptop users who may have to reboot a bit more
>> often). Why brag about something you should not have to do if things
>> are working like they should? It's like launching a new car model and
>> let people know and it's very quick to repair every time it breaks
>> down. Would that sell the car model? I don't think so.
>
>
> Why do Linux users focus on how long it takes to install the OS? Unless
> they spend most of their time installing and uninstalling looking for
> one that works.

The reason it's important to LInux users how long it takes to install is
that most of the time a new computer comes with a useless OS (Windows)
which needs to be replaced before the computer safely can be used for
anything.
>
>

--
> <(((°> ceed

ceed · External Since: Nov 05, 2009 Posts: 34

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:42:22 -0600, Ezekiel <zeke-win7.DeleteThis@noteverywhere.com>
wrote:

>
>
> "ceed" <cdposter-usenet.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:op.u2xmkznr325jvr@asus-laptop...
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:47:51 -0600, Ezekiel
>> <zeke-win7.DeleteThis@noteverywhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "ceed" <cdposter-usenet.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.u2xh1scb325jvr@asus-laptop...
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Over and over again I've seen written about how fast Windows 7 boots
>>>> compared to Linux. Why all this focus on that, on something that
>>>> happens before the computer even fully run? Then it struck me, it's
>>>> because Windows users have to reboot a lot: for almost every update,
>>>> and every time an applications doesn't work, malware or Windows
>>>> itself is causing crashes. Of course it matters in Windows 7! But
>>>> comparing it to Linux where you only have to reboot once in a blue
>>>> moon, it's irrelevant (except for laptop users who may have to reboot
>>>> a bit more often). Why brag about something you should not have to do
>>>> if things are working like they should? It's like launching a new car
>>>> model and let people know and it's very quick to repair every time it
>>>> breaks down. Would that sell the car model? I don't think so.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do Linux users focus on how long it takes to install the OS?
>>> Unless they spend most of their time installing and uninstalling
>>> looking for one that works.
>>
>> The reason it's important to LInux users how long it takes to install
>> is that most of the time a new computer comes with a useless OS
>> (Windows) which needs to be replaced before the computer safely can be
>> used for anything.
>
> But if you're only going to install the OS once - what's the big deal?
> Unless someone is doing the distro-shuffle trying to find something that
> works with their hardware.

Even Windows users install their OS more than once. Yes, Windows offers
and update option for each of their major releases. It never works and
people need to do a clean install. And yes, Linux users are in the
fortunate position where they can dump one distro and install another, but
not necessarily because of hardware issues, more likely because another
distro is more suited, looks better or add useful functionality to the
computer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
> <(((°> ceed

Chris Ahlstrom · External Since: Jan 08, 2009 Posts: 484

chrisv pulled this Usenet boner:

> ceed wrote:
>
>>Why all this focus on that, on something that happens
>>before the computer even fully run?
>
> Seems to be much ado about nothing, at least in regards to desktops.
>
> I suppose with portable computers becoming more used, the boot-time is
> becoming more critical, as people will turn them on and off more
> often, to save power.

Suspend works well enough in both Linux and Windows.

--
.... A solemn, unsmiling, sanctimonious old iceberg who looked like he
was waiting for a vacancy in the Trinity.
-- Mark Twain

ceed · External Since: Nov 05, 2009 Posts: 34

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:42:46 -0600, Hadron <hadronquark.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> That is, of course, bullshit.

Yes of course it is and we all know it, right? It's Unforgivable!. Smile

>
> It does not work on ALL laptops (what does) but do you expect anyone
> with half a clue to believe laptops that ship with Windows do not or are
> not expected to hibernat/suspend properly?

Laptops shipping with Windows are expected to do a lot of thing they turn
out not doing. One thing that could go wrong is that it doesn't work.
Classic Windows problem: "It doesn't work" Smile

>
> The linux issues are well known and well documented and the kernel guys
> are looking into rebuilding the whole shebang to make Linux perform
> better in that arena.

That's good to hear. Maybe my laptop can sleep better after all the
improvements and wake up more relaxed? Smile

It works fine here. I have had
problems at times with waking up where networking doesn't work, but that's
about it. I have plowed through Dells, HPs and Lenovo laptops, and right
now I am on an ASUS. No problems with acpi and hibernation at all.

--
> <(((°> ceed

Ezekiel · External Since: Oct 20, 2009 Posts: 6

"ceed" <cdposter-usenet RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op.u2xmkznr325jvr@asus-laptop...
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:47:51 -0600, Ezekiel <zeke-win7 RemoveThis @noteverywhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "ceed" <cdposter-usenet RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.u2xh1scb325jvr@asus-laptop...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Over and over again I've seen written about how fast Windows 7 boots
>>> compared to Linux. Why all this focus on that, on something that
>>> happens before the computer even fully run? Then it struck me, it's
>>> because Windows users have to reboot a lot: for almost every update,
>>> and every time an applications doesn't work, malware or Windows itself
>>> is causing crashes. Of course it matters in Windows 7! But comparing it
>>> to Linux where you only have to reboot once in a blue moon, it's
>>> irrelevant (except for laptop users who may have to reboot a bit more
>>> often). Why brag about something you should not have to do if things
>>> are working like they should? It's like launching a new car model and
>>> let people know and it's very quick to repair every time it breaks
>>> down. Would that sell the car model? I don't think so.
>>
>>
>> Why do Linux users focus on how long it takes to install the OS? Unless
>> they spend most of their time installing and uninstalling looking for
>> one that works.
>
> The reason it's important to LInux users how long it takes to install is
> that most of the time a new computer comes with a useless OS (Windows)
> which needs to be replaced before the computer safely can be used for
> anything.

But if you're only going to install the OS once - what's the big deal?
Unless someone is doing the distro-shuffle trying to find something that
works with their hardware.

Hadron · External Since: Dec 05, 2006 Posts: 495

Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc.TakeThisOut@launchmodem.com> writes:

> chrisv pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> ceed wrote:
>>
>>>Why all this focus on that, on something that happens
>>>before the computer even fully run?
>>
>> Seems to be much ado about nothing, at least in regards to desktops.
>>
>> I suppose with portable computers becoming more used, the boot-time is
>> becoming more critical, as people will turn them on and off more
>> often, to save power.
>
> Suspend works well enough in both Linux and Windows.

No it doesn't. It's glitchy as hell on laptops in Linux. And you know
it.

Hadron · External Since: Dec 05, 2006 Posts: 495

ceed <cdposter-usenet.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:54:19 -0600, Hadron <hadronquark.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc.TakeThisOut@launchmodem.com> writes:
>>
>>> chrisv pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>>> ceed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why all this focus on that, on something that happens
>>>>> before the computer even fully run?
>>>>
>>>> Seems to be much ado about nothing, at least in regards to desktops.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose with portable computers becoming more used, the boot-time is
>>>> becoming more critical, as people will turn them on and off more
>>>> often, to save power.
>>>
>>> Suspend works well enough in both Linux and Windows.
>>
>> No it doesn't. It's glitchy as hell on laptops in Linux. And you know
>> it.
>>
> It's glitchy in Windows also. I have not used Windows the last few years,
> butI have colleagues with the exact same laptop I have. They run Windows,
> I run Linux. We all have the same (minor) problems with both suspend and
> hibernate. No difference there.

That is, of course, bullshit.

It does not work on ALL laptops (what does) but do you expect anyone
with half a clue to believe laptops that ship with Windows do not or are
not expected to hibernat/suspend properly?

The linux issues are well known and well documented and the kernel guys
are looking into rebuilding the whole shebang to make Linux perform
better in that arena.

JEDIDIAH · External Since: Sep 24, 2004 Posts: 1070

On 2009-11-05, Ezekiel <zeke-win7.RemoveThis@noteverywhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> "ceed" <cdposter-usenet.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:op.u2xh1scb325jvr@asus-laptop...
[deletia]
> Why do Linux users focus on how long it takes to install the OS? Unless
> they spend most of their time installing and uninstalling looking for one
> that works.

People like to install software.

People like to install hardware.

--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \

JEDIDIAH · External Since: Sep 24, 2004 Posts: 1070

On 2009-11-05, bbgruff <bbgruff RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> ceed wrote:
>
>> The reason it's important to LInux users how long it takes to install is
>> that most of the time a new computer comes with a useless OS (Windows)
>> which needs to be replaced before the computer safely can be used for
>> anything.
>
> That's putting it rather strongly, but yes - it's probably true that over
> 90% of Windows users have Windows installed for them, whereas probably over
> 90% of Linux users install Linux.
> Also, as a sweeping generalisation, it's probably true that the quicker an
> OS installs, the simpler the install process is.

The OS install process is going to be a reflection on how well the
system takes to hardware or software updates. If the OS install is a
royal pain in the ass due to hunting down driver disks, then so will
installing new hardware. A bit of "Windows hardware" ends up with a
yoke being tied around it's neck (namely the driver disk).

Some simple stuff (like printers), you're not even supposed to plug
into a Windows box before you've pre-installed the driver.

They have little bits of red tape covering the USB port. Hilarious.

--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \

John Fuhrer · External Since: Nov 03, 2009 Posts: 76

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:54:19 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc.DeleteThis@launchmodem.com> writes:
>
>> chrisv pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> ceed wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why all this focus on that, on something that happens
>>>>before the computer even fully run?
>>>
>>> Seems to be much ado about nothing, at least in regards to desktops.
>>>
>>> I suppose with portable computers becoming more used, the boot-time is
>>> becoming more critical, as people will turn them on and off more
>>> often, to save power.
>>
>> Suspend works well enough in both Linux and Windows.
>
> No it doesn't. It's glitchy as hell on laptops in Linux. And you know
> it.

Is Ahlstrom Lyiny for LIEnux again?

Sinister Midget · External Since: Jan 09, 2009 Posts: 73

On 2009-11-05, ceed <cdposter-usenet DeleteThis @yahoo.com> claimed:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:54:19 -0600, Hadron <hadronquark DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc DeleteThis @launchmodem.com> writes:
>>
>>> chrisv pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>>> ceed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why all this focus on that, on something that happens
>>>>> before the computer even fully run?
>>>>
>>>> Seems to be much ado about nothing, at least in regards to desktops.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose with portable computers becoming more used, the boot-time is
>>>> becoming more critical, as people will turn them on and off more
>>>> often, to save power.
>>>
>>> Suspend works well enough in both Linux and Windows.
>>
>> No it doesn't. It's glitchy as hell on laptops in Linux. And you know
>> it.
>>
> It's glitchy in Windows also. I have not used Windows the last few years,
> butI have colleagues with the exact same laptop I have. They run Windows,
> I run Linux. We all have the same (minor) problems with both suspend and
> hibernate. No difference there.

That was just "true linux advocate" Quirk "advocating" linux again.
Ignore s/h/it.

--
You definitely intend to start living sometime soon.

John Fuhrer · External Since: Nov 03, 2009 Posts: 76

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:42:46 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> ceed <cdposter-usenet DeleteThis @yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:54:19 -0600, Hadron <hadronquark DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc DeleteThis @launchmodem.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> chrisv pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>>
>>>>> ceed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why all this focus on that, on something that happens
>>>>>> before the computer even fully run?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to be much ado about nothing, at least in regards to desktops.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose with portable computers becoming more used, the boot-time is
>>>>> becoming more critical, as people will turn them on and off more
>>>>> often, to save power.
>>>>
>>>> Suspend works well enough in both Linux and Windows.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. It's glitchy as hell on laptops in Linux. And you know
>>> it.
>>>
>> It's glitchy in Windows also. I have not used Windows the last few years,
>> butI have colleagues with the exact same laptop I have. They run Windows,
>> I run Linux. We all have the same (minor) problems with both suspend and
>> hibernate. No difference there.
>
>
> That is, of course, bullshit.
>
> It does not work on ALL laptops (what does) but do you expect anyone
> with half a clue to believe laptops that ship with Windows do not or are
> not expected to hibernat/suspend properly?
>
> The linux issues are well known and well documented and the kernel guys
> are looking into rebuilding the whole shebang to make Linux perform
> better in that arena.

Looks like ceed is another zealot who is Lying for LIEnux.

Sinister Midget · External Since: Jan 09, 2009 Posts: 73

On 2009-11-05, ceed <cdposter-usenet.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> claimed:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:47:51 -0600, Ezekiel <zeke-win7.RemoveThis@noteverywhere.com>
> wrote:

>> Why do Linux users focus on how long it takes to install the OS? Unless
>> they spend most of their time installing and uninstalling looking for
>> one that works.
>
> The reason it's important to LInux users how long it takes to install is
> that most of the time a new computer comes with a useless OS (Windows)
> which needs to be replaced before the computer safely can be used for
> anything.

The comparison is important because Windross needs to be reinstalled
from scratch every few months to make it usable. It gets Windummies all
warm and wet knowing they have to spend more time just installing
things once than a linux user spends if (s)he installs something new
every month.

--
You will experience a strong urge to do good. But it will pass.

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

ceed wrote:

> The reason it's important to LInux users how long it takes to install is
> that most of the time a new computer comes with a useless OS (Windows)
> which needs to be replaced before the computer safely can be used for
> anything.

That's putting it rather strongly, but yes - it's probably true that over
90% of Windows users have Windows installed for them, whereas probably over
90% of Linux users install Linux.
Also, as a sweeping generalisation, it's probably true that the quicker an
OS installs, the simpler the install process is.

ceed · External Since: Nov 05, 2009 Posts: 34

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:02:52 -0600, John Fuhrer
<fuhrer_spam_no_joh DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Looks like ceed is another zealot who is Lying for LIEnux.

John, I am not. I'm a not very technical Linux user who has been on Linux
for 10+ years.

--
> <(((°> ceed

Terry Porter · External Since: Jan 10, 2009 Posts: 131

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:50:48 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> ceed pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:54:19 -0600, Hadron <hadronquark RemoveThis @gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc RemoveThis @launchmodem.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Suspend works well enough in both Linux and Windows.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. It's glitchy as hell on laptops in Linux. And you know
>>> it.
>
> No, it is not "glitchy" as hell. It is a little glitchy, on my Acer.
>
> On my OLPC, it is rock-solid.

On my EeePC900 it's as solid as a rock, I have used suspend probably 50
times since I installed U9.10.

<snip>

--
C.O.L.A Charter:-
"For discussion of the benefits of GNU/Linux compared to other
operating systems."