What is Digg?340 Comments
- srg13, on 04/13/2009, -1/+188Solid state drives are pretty great... Now we just have to wait until the prices come down to something sane...
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -3/+153Um. I exaggerate not: My 9.04 installation boots in 16 seconds on a regular old 7200rpm mechanical hard drive.
Vastly improved boot times was a major goal of 9.04, you don't need a fancy hard drive to experience it. - N3BUL4, on 04/13/2009, -3/+136And it took about 90 seconds for this website to load..
http://rorr.im/digg.com/linux_unix/ubuntu_9_04_boo ... - cannonball, on 04/13/2009, -5/+120Obviously, the solid-state drive has much to do with the boot up speed, but does the OS really help that much?
I'm curious to see how other OS's (especially Windows 7) boot off of an SSD.
17.5 seconds is pretty damn impressive. - strictnein, on 04/13/2009, -1/+58Oh God I just want to punch people who use "son" in their posts.
- freezerburn666, on 04/13/2009, -17/+71i notice my vista gaming pc takes about 2 minutes to boot, while my 6 year old ubuntu (ibex) laptop takes about 45 seconds.... when i used XP it would take sooo long, ubuntu rules :)
- nnoj, on 04/13/2009, -5/+56even my pocket calculator boots faster!
- rnawky, on 04/13/2009, -3/+54That's nice. Fedora 11 is already under a 20 second boot time on a non SSD.
- zwaldowski, on 04/13/2009, -3/+49Yes, it's very much the Linux. My laptop (with a regular SATA drive) boots in less than twenty seconds with EXT4 and Ubuntu 9.04.
Granted, the most recent Xorg has a bug that freezes up on my Intel GMAX3100, so it's really an unfair trade-off. - archer75, on 04/13/2009, -7/+45Dude, if it takes Vista 2 minutes to boot there is something wrong with your computer. I don't think Vista takes longer than 40 seconds on mine.
- sexybobo, on 04/13/2009, -0/+36And if you can't trust some random guy named matt who can you trust?
- Anduu, on 04/13/2009, -3/+38I would like to see what his Bootchart http://www.bootchart.org/ results would be.It would filter out the post time etc.
Considering I boot Jaunty on a 5 year old system in 32 seconds(Win XP like well over a minute...) I bet his would be around the 10 second mark. - Auzy, on 04/13/2009, -11/+46Wtf are you talking about? Its a bit more complicated then that.. It also has to do with parallel booting, caching things, etc. It As mentioned, the SSD drive makes a dramatic difference too during bootup (especially as bootup is generally mostly only reading).
UPDATE: Just noticed the official author agrees with me. Plenty of his hardware wasn't functional.
Also, I think Ubuntu's bootup time benefit is a null argument when you consider:
1) Last I tried, hibernation didn't work properly. Furthermore, because grub doesn't block other operating systems when hibernating them, users run a VERY high risk of corrupting their data if they switch OS temporarily.
2) I'd say a huge amount of people own hardware which doesn't have ubuntu support. When I purchased my computer 6 months ago, there was no support for my 802.11n wlan adapter, there still isn't for dolby digital live, and 8.04 wouldn't even boot on it (it does now).
So, maybe instead of focusing on bootup speed, Canonical should maybe prioritise the showstoppers. - ribo, on 04/13/2009, -2/+33Yeah, except Windows continues to churn at my harddrive far after it's "booted," even win7
- epohs, on 04/13/2009, -4/+31Does anyone care how fast it boots?
Yes. Pretty much anyone with a laptop. - danieltobey, on 04/13/2009, -1/+26You're retarded, the website went down.
- wigren, on 04/13/2009, -0/+25Any one else notice the ext3? I wonder what the time is on ext4.
- ethamajin, on 04/13/2009, -0/+25They might be using the new filesystem in 9.04 which is supposed to be much improved. Regardless, I can't wait until I can afford a nice fast SSD for my laptop.
- SlipStream89, on 04/13/2009, -2/+27It boots as fast as this webserver goes down!
- pathouston22, on 04/13/2009, -0/+25200 bucks for a 60Gb OCZ Vertex to double/triple the speed of your hardrive sounds pretty sane to me - considering the hardrive is the weakest link in a computer.
- DamnMan, on 04/13/2009, -7/+31Ubuntu is just as bad as Windows with loading unneeded crap. Scanning the pci bus every single boot and loading new modules on the fly etc take just as much time in Linux as they do in Windows. Then we add other ***** people may or may not use, pcmcia hotplug daemon, Avahi, NFS, SMB, dhclient, ipv6 adapters, X, GDM, DCOM/DCOP type software and we still aren't at the login prompt yet...
Back in the dark ages when Linux was a black art that required a more hands on approach to hardware support and system software it was hands down faster than Windows. But these mass produced works-perfectly-out-of-the-box distros like Ubuntu have to play the same game Windows does when it comes to loading everything but the kitchen sink because you never know exactly what kind of system you have to work with. Any speed gains Ubuntu DOES have over Windows is also mitigated by its spottier hardware support in some areas. - hokie47, on 04/13/2009, -1/+21Very true I want a 500Gb SSD for under 200.
- bwinebarger, on 04/13/2009, -1/+21Very nice but pricey. Looking forward to those being affordable.
- pathouston22, on 04/13/2009, -3/+22There's only 2 SSDs on the market worth buying at the moment: OCZ Vertex and Intel X-25.
Almost ALL of the others use the ***** JMicron controllers where the drives suffer from POOR random writes, which leads to your system freezing for several seconds. Shame on all these manufacturers (including OCZ) for continuing to sell this crap and faulty products. - mason092, on 04/13/2009, -2/+21That's because you had too much crap on it.
- theaceoffire, on 04/13/2009, -0/+18It will show you the desktop, but the CPU won't stop working till a long time later... Basically, Windows gives you a "desktop" half way through the booting process.
- mason092, on 04/13/2009, -2/+20My low speced vista laptop doesn't take that long. I agree, something is wrong.
- N3BUL4, on 04/13/2009, -0/+17Hmm, you can get fairly acceptable speed on 3g..
Have not used Dial up for... well over 6 years
Sorry i don't live in america therefore i can't get comcast, but i do have a 20mb cable connection with virgin media in the UK, it does the job! :-) - sirjoebob, on 04/13/2009, -3/+19LAPTOP USERS CARE!!!
- AntiInsight, on 04/13/2009, -0/+16***** Comcast.
- marx2k, on 04/13/2009, -0/+16With the release of the .29 Linux kernel, the OS (Linux) now DOES matter as far as bootup time since the .29 kernel now does asynchronous service loading so the system doesn't have to wait for USB devices to initialize before loading your FTP server before loading Apache (for example). This should significantly shorten bootup time. I'm not sure if the new Ubuntu uses that kernel version though.
- iandflp, on 04/13/2009, -3/+18Site down in 17.5 seconds.
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -10/+25What's the solid state in, a 8088? 17 seconds is not impressive.
- Red989, on 04/13/2009, -3/+18But I can find a free, open-source program that can do the same thing and not pay a dime
- Disease, on 04/13/2009, -0/+14lol
- DigitalPioneer, on 04/13/2009, -0/+14Fresh install, sure. But use it for a month and then try it. And see how much his Ubuntu's performance changes in the same time.
- subxero37, on 04/13/2009, -1/+15@mattgh3king6: Wine is NOT an emulator.
- PatrickBrown, on 04/13/2009, -0/+13@DontGiveADamn
Storing your vast music collection onto a solid state disk is a waste of the drive. Most of the time you are only accessing a couple of files.
The better solution is to get a smaller 60 GB drive and load your OS + common files onto it (perhaps everything but multimedia / games). - abhiroop, on 04/13/2009, -1/+14WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR (its called a backronym)
- protogenxl, on 04/13/2009, -5/+17They should change the name from Juanty Jackalop to Road Runner
- LonelyTylenoL, on 04/13/2009, -4/+16One word:
WINE - mynameistux, on 04/13/2009, -0/+12Yeah, except Windows continues to churn at my harddrive far after it's "booted," even win7
so true
the real test is from off to browsing the web
also, let's consider shut-down times
I don't know about win 7, of vista, but XP sure takes it's time to shutdown, especially when you put it next to <insert linux distro here> - HonestAbe, on 04/13/2009, -8/+20Does anyone care how fast it boots? I reboot maybe once every two weeks. It's not like a few seconds make any difference.
There are MUCH much bigger problems Canonical could be working on. Like... say... any of the most popular 10 ideas on Brainstorm:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/most_popular_ever/ - wigren, on 04/13/2009, -2/+14You, enough to comment.
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -3/+14apart from the bit where a mac air boots slower than a dell mini 9 with OSX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7hc6qZ_PGI - ayeroxor, on 04/13/2009, -0/+11I want it for a buck. Wanting is fun.
- JayD16, on 04/13/2009, -0/+11@PatrickBrown
Games would benefit quite a deal from faster I/O. Make sure the OS, the programs and the swap file are on the SSD. - Krissam, on 04/13/2009, -0/+10Yes, we do, because our kernal actually does improve on a regular basis, and updating it will require a reboot for changes to take effect, but it's not required to continue running the system
- KrisRobocop, on 04/13/2009, -0/+10Good link, Thanks.
- mynameistux, on 04/13/2009, -2/+12holy *****, that's awesome.
*consider switching to fedora*
How hard is it to get dvd/mp3/avi, to work with fedora
I tried a while ago, but gave up because I couldn't figure it out, and there was no reason for me to leave ubuntu.
WHat is it like now? -
Show 51 - 100 of 350 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is