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

  • MeeGo 1.2 Boots Nearly Twice As Fast As Fedora, Ubuntu

    Phoronix: MeeGo 1.2 Boots Nearly Twice As Fast As Fedora, Ubuntu

    Prior to being spun into MeeGo, Intel's Moblin Linux distribution was one of the fastest-booting Linux distributions. Moblin worked phenomenally for Intel Atom netbooks with a great user-interface and was very quick at starting up. With the release this week of MeeGo 1.2, we have some Bootchart numbers for MeeGo 1.2 Netbook UX compared to Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 11.04...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTQ2OQ

  • #2
    Blurry low-resolution jpegs aren't exactly readable, why even include them?

    Comment


    • #3
      Who really cares about bootup time anyway? Unless you are just constantly rebooting your computer...

      Bootup time is really just a Pissing contest.

      Comment


      • #4
        Some more information about what software components are faster would be nice.

        Comment


        • #5
          Conclusions?

          It looks like the kernel+initrd finishes faster on MeeGo and MeeGo simply starts less. However it's hard to tell because the MeeGo chart is not high resolution so it's difficult to read...

          Comment


          • #6
            Why not Fedora 15?

            Why compare to Fedora 14, and not 15, which (as you know because I told you) is gold and has major changes (improvements) in startup?

            Comment


            • #7
              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.
              now thats an an analogy i like, and yes, it is nothing more.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.
                Uh, everybody except nerds?

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.
                  +100. Give me a proper working and reliable sleep instead.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Netbook users...

                    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.
                    I guess netbook users would be more likely to shut down a device when not in use, or when travelling, although they might use sleep as well. The boot time is useless for desktop users but that's not really the target...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sleep is just a nasty workaround for long boot times. Fix your boot times and sleep becomes unnecessary.

                      What, you say you wish to resume without closing your applications? Shut down should be completely replaced by hibernation.

                      In short: fix boot times (say, 3'' max), completely remove broken sleep and replace shut down by hibernation. Problem solved!

                      (And when you need a 100% boot, just reboot).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                        Sleep is just a nasty workaround for long boot times. Fix your boot times and sleep becomes unnecessary.

                        What, you say you wish to resume without closing your applications? Shut down should be completely replaced by hibernation.

                        In short: fix boot times (say, 3'' max), completely remove broken sleep and replace shut down by hibernation. Problem solved!

                        (And when you need a 100% boot, just reboot).
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          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.
                          I agree with you for once. Suspend to RAM is my favorite way of saving energy when my computer isn't needed, without an expensive reboot.

                          I can think of only a few situations where a Suspend to RAM is unwise:

                          (1) You're in a thunderstorm, and you don't have a UPS on your desktop. You could lose power with the RAM warm, and that isn't too friendly to program state (everything you startup will be in some sort of recovery mode - your browser, LibreOffice, etc.)

                          (2) You want to suspend a laptop, but you won't be able to plug it in for many hours (12+). The battery will drain completely or mostly in that time from keeping the RAM warm. Better to save battery life and shut it down completely, so you can turn it back on and have a near-full battery on the other side.

                          If you get caught in situations like these frequently, you find yourself wishing you had a faster boot time. I'll admit that it isn't that important to me, because I don't hit either of these situations more than once a week or so, but shit happens and a fast boot would be nice in those times where you have to do it.

                          For me, as long as the boot time is significantly faster than what you get on a loaded-down Windows machine (about 3 to 5 minutes of waiting for all the updaters and preloaders to grind through), I'm satisfied. So yeah, it's pretty much a pissing contest if Linux distros are fighting for boot time in the range of less than 1 minute. I use Suspend to RAM often enough that I don't care about boot time differences of less than a minute.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Boot times might be important for embedded. Things like appliances, entertainment stuff, cars. Some of that is really best to switch off entirely (I guess).

                            If you reboot your laptop/desktop every day, even if hibernate/suspend are working, you're doin it wrong.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by not.sure View Post
                              If you reboot your laptop/desktop every day, even if hibernate/suspend are working, you're doin it wrong.
                              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)?
                              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?

                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X