Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MeeGo 1.2 Boots Nearly Twice As Fast As Fedora, Ubuntu

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    Ha, I'll bite. If I use my desktop 8 hours a day, why the heck would I want it consuming power for the other 16 hours (sleep)?
    Exactly! Sleep wastes power unnecessarily.

    Or hibernate, sure it would use no power, but it's just as fast as a boot for me. Why bother, when then there's state that can be corrupted?
    And that's the real issue. If hibernation was as fast as sleep, noone would be using sleep anymore. And with SSDs this is within the realm of possibility.

    Originally posted by deanljo
    I completely disagree, having to use hibernation and reboots are the "nasty workaround" for a poorly implemented sleep. A PC should with reguards to power operate like a cell phone with reboots only being needed in the most dire of circumstances.
    A computer sleeping consumes as much energy as a cellphone running, ergo sleep is wasteful.

    If a computer booted and/or hibernated in <3'', I assure you you wouldn't need sleep at all. Do you disagree?

    Comment


    • #17
      I agree with all above posters... or i don't agree with any :S

      Just give me options that work reliably and work fast so i can make the choice that suits me best.

      Fast boot impresses windows users... I just assumed thats what its for

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
        Do you disagree?
        Yes I do. It is unnecessary to power down and power up a system every time. Even the fastest SSD's out there are extremely slow compared to a sleep/wake and that is very unlikely that it will ever be remotely close to a sleep/wake in speed. Most posts and device detection alone take many times longer then a sleep/wake cycle. The amount of power consumed in a sleep status is extremely minimal (chances are your alarm clock uses as much if not more power). You should only have to run a post scenario once a day at most. There aren't many products out there that still do a full power cycle when it is "shut off" most modern appliances actually go into a sleep mode (blueray players, cable boxes, phones, etc) and don't do a full boot every time you go to use it.

        Comment


        • #19
          I like to completely power down my pc, it wastes 2,4W on standby and 4 W on suspend to ram. Some days I don't use my computer so , why I have to waste 4 W / Hour during 48 hours??

          Short boot times is a really nice feature!!. On my hardware windows is booting on 45 sec and arch linux on 20 sec. Wait 45 sec is really disturbing when you get used to 20 sec boot times (I am using e4rat to futher improve boot speed on arch linux, It's a nice application if u are using ext4 filesystem).

          This wikipedia article explain the actual problem with stand-by power consumption:

          "Standby power, also called vampire power, or phantom power, refers to the electricity consumed by many appliances when they are switched off or in standby mode. The typical power loss per appliance is low (from 1 to 25 W) but when multiplied by the billions of appliances in houses and in commercial buildings, standby losses represent a significant fraction of total world electricity use.[1] According to Dr Alan Meier, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, standby power accounts for as much as 10% of household power-consumption. A study in France found that standby power accounted for 7% of total residential consumption; while further studies have put the proportion of consumption due to standby power as high as 13%.[2]
          The IEA estimates that standby produces 1% of the world's CO2 emissions.[3] To put the figure into context, total air travel contributes less than 3% to global CO2 emissions.[4]"

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Watt_Initiative

          Comment


          • #20
            This wikipedia article explain the actual problem with stand-by power consumption:

            "Standby power, also called vampire power, or phantom power, refers to the electricity consumed by many appliances when they are switched off or in standby mode. The typical power loss per appliance is low (from 1 to 25 W) but when multiplied by the billions of appliances in houses and in commercial buildings, standby losses represent a significant fraction of total world electricity use.[1] According to Dr Alan Meier, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, standby power accounts for as much as 10% of household power-consumption. A study in France found that standby power accounted for 7% of total residential consumption; while further studies have put the proportion of consumption due to standby power as high as 13%.[2]
            The IEA estimates that standby produces 1% of the world's CO2 emissions.[3] To put the figure into context, total air travel contributes less than 3% to global CO2 emissions.[4]"

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Watt_Initiative
            That's very interesting. I hate it when appliances have a standby mode as their only shutdown mechanism.

            Comment


            • #21
              Why is this news?

              I bet that I could tailor a Kernel + Initrd to my specific hardware and get a super fast boot too. Why is this news? MeeGo doesn't support the same vast quantities of hardware that Ubuntu or Fedora does, so it makes sense that some time would be lost on boot.

              At any rate, as your 11.04 boot time article pointed out, boot times in Ubuntu have regressed greatly. Your same hardware booted 10.04 (which some of us are still running, including me) in 18 seconds, which is pretty much on par with MeeGo.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by thefirstm View Post
                Who really cares about bootup time anyway? Unless you are just constantly rebooting your computer...

                Bootup time is really just a Pissing contest.
                A lot of people, including me. People wonder why 16 years after the release of Windows95, their Vista PC is still equaly slow at booting a word processor.

                Maybe, just maybe, people don't want to wait. Wether you're waiting at a traffic light or in a que at the supermarket; waiting sucks.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by curaga View Post
                  Blurry low-resolution jpegs aren't exactly readable, why even include them?
                  Agreed.

                  Graphs like there would benefit immensely by being saved and published as .gif-files.

                  The gif-files are excellent for graphs with thin lines but terrible for photographs.

                  Likewise, jpg-files are good (not excellent) for photographs but terrible for graphs with thin lines.

                  gif is also better than png for thin line graphs.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by sabriah View Post
                    gif is also better than png for thin line graphs.
                    Huh? PNG is a lossless format, so I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that gif is better for line graphs. There's no reason to choose gif over png for non-animated images.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Fedora 14 is not really an interesting test subject, Fedora 15 would be much more interesting with the new systemd. Also the netbook you're testing with is only a single core; wondering how much time you'd shave off by using a dual-core, if any. Even the cheapest netbooks come in dual-core variant nowadays, so there's not really a reason to buy a single-core machine nowadays.

                      OT: Great to see that the 1 minute edit limit is finally lifted :-)
                      Last edited by monraaf; 05-22-2011, 09:52 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
                        I like to completely power down my pc, it wastes 2,4W on standby and 4 W on suspend to ram. Some days I don't use my computer so , why I have to waste 4 W / Hour during 48 hours??
                        In that case go ahead and power down the machine. Nobody is talking about over extended periods of days. Since you are not using the system in a multiple up/down fashion during the day then a 45 second boot shouldn't bother you. After all it means you lost a maximum total of 44 seconds waiting for a boot during that period.

                        This wikipedia article explain the actual problem with stand-by power consumption:

                        "Standby power, also called vampire power, or phantom power, refers to the electricity consumed by many appliances when they are switched off or in standby mode. The typical power loss per appliance is low (from 1 to 25 W) but when multiplied by the billions of appliances in houses and in commercial buildings, standby losses represent a significant fraction of total world electricity use.[1] According to Dr Alan Meier, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, standby power accounts for as much as 10% of household power-consumption. A study in France found that standby power accounted for 7% of total residential consumption; while further studies have put the proportion of consumption due to standby power as high as 13%.[2]
                        The IEA estimates that standby produces 1% of the world's CO2 emissions.[3] To put the figure into context, total air travel contributes less than 3% to global CO2 emissions.[4]"

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Watt_Initiative
                        The problem with any of these studies like this is that even if you did shut down everything to a zero power state the power sources still keep generating away despite that small load not being there. So unless a power source goes under strain where additional fuel is required to maintain the supply then there is no real increase in emissions as those emissions would be present as the source has to be in a ready state should awaiting a increased load. In reality you are more then likely wasting more energy with no extra increase in pollutants with a light load. A large power supply with a light load actually is very inefficient as once the resource is transformed to power it is not stored, it is used or lost.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          In that case go ahead and power down the machine. Nobody is talking about over extended periods of days. Since you are not using the system in a multiple up/down fashion during the day then a 45 second boot shouldn't bother you. After all it means you lost a maximum total of 44 seconds waiting for a boot during that period.
                          I mainly use linux which boot up time is 20 sec, fairly tolerable to me.

                          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          The problem with any of these studies like this is that even if you did shut down everything to a zero power state the power sources still keep generating away despite that small load not being there. So unless a power source goes under strain where additional fuel is required to maintain the supply then there is no real increase in emissions as those emissions would be present as the source has to be in a ready state should awaiting a increased load. In reality you are more then likely wasting more energy with no extra increase in pollutants with a light load. A large power supply with a light load actually is very inefficient as once the resource is transformed to power it is not stored, it is used or lost.
                          Sorry I don't agree , your argument is a little simplistic, do you deny what IEA have already studied?

                          Of course power source generated by electric plant have to be consumed instantly or get loss, although you loss one important aspect of power generation: you have to keep in mind that power plants and future plans to construct new power plants adapts to user demands, if users demands decreases power plants can make plans to output less power and there is minor demand to construct future power plants. Stand-by power represents 7% - 13% of total power consumption, we are not talking about 0,5% or 1%, so this is relevant.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
                            Sorry I don't agree , your argument is a little simplistic, do you deny what IEA have already studied?

                            Of course power source generated by electric plant have to be consumed instantly or get loss, although you loss one important aspect of power generation: you have to keep in mind that power plants and future plans to construct new power plants adapts to user demands, if users demands decreases power plants can make plans to output less power and there is minor demand to construct future power plants. Stand-by power represents 7% - 13% of total power consumption, we are not talking about 0,5% or 1%, so this is relevant.
                            Unless you are operating that power source at near 100% efficiency you are not achieving any reduction in emissions at all. As far as the IEA goes I take everything with a grain of salt when it comes to industry sponsored industries. Those same agencies are comprised of industry giants who tell us that their solution is safe power. It is also of no surprise that "studies" are usually done to try to validate the research to give the appearance the the research is justified in order to get more research funding.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by curaga View Post
                              No, I couldn't care less about keeping an app open. If I have work in progress, I know how to save it and close the app.
                              Agreed, then you might as well just reboot. But for me (and many others I guess), that's the point. Populating several virtual desktops with dozens of applications, terminals, editors, stuff is something I want to avoid at all cost. I want to have the system back the exact same way I left it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                                Unless you are operating that power source at near 100% efficiency you are not achieving any reduction in emissions at all.
                                Huh, and this affirmation? Are you a power plant expert? Do you know the cost associated with exploiting a power plant at 60% or 80% or 100% varying along the day, human, materials , logistic, emissions...?? Or may be you have simply no idea and pointed your personal point of view?

                                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                                As far as the IEA goes I take everything with a grain of salt when it comes to industry sponsored industries. Those same agencies are comprised of industry giants who tell us that their solution is safe power. It is also of no surprise that "studies" are usually done to try to validate the research to give the appearance the the research is justified in order to get more research funding.
                                Well at least they make studies / statistics, which can be more or less accurate, but those studies are not based on personal opinions.
                                Last edited by Jimbo; 05-22-2011, 12:42 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X