Intel Aims for Two Second Boot Times

Status
Not open for further replies.

icestorm50

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2009
4
0
18,510
0
With a 2 second boot you could shut down to save battery life and then have almost no penalty when you go to reboot; that sounds mighty nice! I would be willing to take a look at netbooks with Moblin installed on them when Intel has a Moblin booting around 2 seconds.
 

sublifer

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2008
519
0
18,980
0
I'd sure give it a try. Having a Linux OS that fast might be enough to win a sizable marketshare for linux which would mean better support and maybe even AAA game releases on Linux. :)
 
G

Guest

Guest
So you're trying to tell me that a crappy, slow, Atom processor can boot an OS in 2 seconds? I'm sure they mean: "display the desktop in 2 seconds, and wait 10 more seconds for the rest of the OS to catch-up while the mouse cursor sits frozen." I was noticing today that Ubuntu comes with some of the smaller to netbook sized Dells now, I'd trust Ubuntu far more than Moblin.
 

ckthecerealkiller

Distinguished
Aug 16, 2008
219
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]YouKnowItsTrue[/nom]I'd trust Ubuntu far more than Moblin.[/citation]

I certainly have to agree with that statement. Also, I doubt that the full boot process could be completed in 2 seconds as well. Still it would be great if it does work as described. Not likely, but still......
 

gamefreak62

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2008
15
0
18,510
0
I don't think I would care what OS it was running if it could boot in two seconds. (Unless it were Ubuntu. I just can't warm myself up to Gnome...) I would use a netbook for just work anyway since the hardware in them sucks too bad for games.
 

ph3412b07

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2008
78
0
18,630
0
Interesting, what kind of functionality does it have though? The ASUS linux based Express Gate already offers boot in a couple seconds. Tack on a SSD and its even quicker.
 

Blessedman

Distinguished
May 29, 2001
577
0
18,980
0
Sure I would sacrifice usability for boot time! I would love to not have any of the applications i use on a day to day basis to be able to do nothing in 2 secs flat! lol Unless we have real world applications being developed for Linux all this is just benchmark talk...
 

brendano257

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2008
899
0
18,990
1
They are trying to introduce an operating system that is not mainstream to a market of netbooks that relies of the mainstream...I doubt it will work, and boot time or not I'd prefer to stay with what I know, mainly Windows, but if Apple were to put out a quick-booting OS, I may consider it for desktop app, but not gaming of course.
 

the_one111

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2008
390
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]ckthecerealkiller[/nom]I certainly have to agree with that statement. Also, I doubt that the full boot process could be completed in 2 seconds as well. Still it would be great if it does work as described. Not likely, but still......[/citation]
I agree also..
 

anamaniac

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2009
2,447
0
19,790
1
I'd be willing to try.
First I'd have to get a netbook though.
What about the integrated OS in some motherboards? Provide net, email, and instant messaging. All I'd use a motherboard for anyways.
 

Greatwalrus

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2009
108
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]gamefreak62[/nom]I don't think I would care what OS it was running if it could boot in two seconds. (Unless it were Ubuntu. I just can't warm myself up to Gnome...) I would use a netbook for just work anyway since the hardware in them sucks too bad for games.[/citation]
You do know about Kubuntu (KDE Desktop), Xubuntu (Xfce desktop) and Fluxbuntu (Fluxbox desktop) as alternatives to regular Ubuntu, right? :)

And I will absolutely try this. Man, that would be awesome to boot into my desktop in 2 seconds and check something on the internet before I have to leave in a minute or two. Not that big of a deal, but it would also be an energy-saving alternative to suspend/sleep mode.

However, my current Arch Linux system boots into the desktop in about 15-20 seconds, so it's not a huge deal to me to gain those extra seconds. Definitely beats my experience with booting Windows (no fanboyism intended).
 

solymnar

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2006
215
0
18,680
0
Huh...2 seconds.

Like many I'll believe it when I see AND displaying desktop does not = computer is fully up and running.

That said, for a mobile device that has specialized apps loaded on it. If it works will probably be a very handy thing indeed. Most people don't really need windows loaded on their mobile devices, they just need the apps to be functional and the files to be compatible with whatever they normally use on their desktop.
 

gamefreak62

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2008
15
0
18,510
0
I'd say that you don't sacrifice much usability when switching to linux, since there are alternatives to just about all the windows apps excepting games. Most of the really neat things on Windows like Photoshop and the like don't have good alternatives with all the easy to use features, but alternatives are there. As far as the usefullness of netbooks goes, they aren't really meant for much more than word processing and internet browsing, which linux provides very good alternatives for those, (most of which will actually run on windows too).
Most of the internet already runs on linux anyway.
And yes, I've heard of the other ubuntu variants, and they are a bit better, but instead of the likes of Kubuntu I would use Mepis, which actually shares ubuntu innards but is designed with K interface in mind so it's slightly better for that. (I admit, I'm not familiar with Xfce or Fluxbox desktop environments, I'll have to check them out.)
 

jaragon13

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2008
396
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]gamefreak62[/nom]I'd say that you don't sacrifice much usability when switching to linux, since there are alternatives to just about all the windows apps excepting games. Most of the really neat things on Windows like Photoshop and the like don't have good alternatives with all the easy to use features, but alternatives are there. As far as the usefullness of netbooks goes, they aren't really meant for much more than word processing and internet browsing, which linux provides very good alternatives for those, (most of which will actually run on windows too). Most of the internet already runs on linux anyway.And yes, I've heard of the other ubuntu variants, and they are a bit better, but instead of the likes of Kubuntu I would use Mepis, which actually shares ubuntu innards but is designed with K interface in mind so it's slightly better for that. (I admit, I'm not familiar with Xfce or Fluxbox desktop environments, I'll have to check them out.)[/citation]
GIMP? Paint.NET?
Also, I'm pretty sure you can modify photoshop to work on linux.

I'm pretty interested in an operating system from an actual silicon designer/manufacturer...Maybe they can actually take advantage of all the processing power :p
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]YouKnowItsTrue[/nom]So you're trying to tell me that a crappy, slow, Atom processor can boot an OS in 2 seconds? I'm sure they mean: "display the desktop in 2 seconds, and wait 10 more seconds for the rest of the OS to catch-up while the mouse cursor sits frozen."[/citation]
That is exactly how it is done. Windows is doing the same think since Windows 98. But compare to Windows the mouse don't get frozen because the better task scheduler used by new Linux kernel used by Moblin. Of course you need to wait for network connection in order to open your e-mails. With new changes in the kernel I think we can see even faster boot times.
[citation][nom]YouKnowItsTrue[/nom] I was noticing today that Ubuntu comes with some of the smaller to netbook sized Dells now, I'd trust Ubuntu far more than Moblin.
The new Ubuntu loads all background task faster then Moblin, but Moblin is not finished yet and has a lot of debugging code enabled.
Moblin V2 vs. Ubuntu Netbook Remix vs. Ubuntu MID
This is small demonstration how the Linux can be trimmed down in order to achieve maximum performance.
 

g-thor

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
227
0
18,680
0
What value is a 2 second boot time if the programs that you use can't properly handle the document formats that exist? So many running under Windows claim compatibility, yet I shudder anytime I have to work on a Word doc under WordPerfect and then send it back to the Word user.

That quick a boot is nice, but it needs software that's really compatible. Then I think the end users can really get some use out of it. But then, I see these as secondary, light work units, and maybe they'll be more robust in a year or so.
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]g-thor[/nom]What value is a 2 second boot time if the programs that you use can't properly handle the document formats that exist? So many running under Windows claim compatibility, yet I shudder anytime I have to work on a Word doc under WordPerfect and then send it back to the Word user.[/citation]
Word compatibility is never going to happen until MS is keep changing own format in order to prevent the competition. It is so bad that I have some old DOC and XLS file form old MS Office and they do not open correctly since Office 2000. Yes, MS has forced the OXML format as ISO standard, but the current Office do not supports that standard either and it will be unsupported until next release of MS Office.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS