What's The Fastest Loading OS For x86?

core10k asks: "I have a question concerning quick loading operating systems. I have a laptop that I use which I'd *like* to have running in the 10 seconds or so it takes for the BIOS to heat up, but then I have to wait for Windows 98 to load. And I know that Linux is even slower loading up. So I was wondering, does anyone know of a fast-loading operating system that has a half-decent (not necessarily great) C/C++ and GUI toolkit?"

Comments

Suspend to disk

[Anonymous Coward]

Suspending to disk would solve this problem, if you're laptop supports it. Most newer laptops do.

QNX?

[Anonymous Coward]

I received a 1.44 mb floppy from a friend labeled "qnx realtime operating system demo (modem version)". He said it was bootable on x86 and I was curious, so I decided to give it a go.

It turned out to contain a contain an OS complete with windowing system and internet browser. Admittedly it didn't work first time, and I had to modify a couple of BIOS settings that it didn't like, but I was really impressed once I got it going. The windowing system took about twenty seconds to appear from the time the BIOS started the floppy going. It created a file system in RAM, and I was able to dial an ISP and surf. Some forms didn't work, and Java support is dubious, but you can't expect that much from something packed onto a 1.44 mb floppy.

The website has a boot floppy image which you can download. The latest version claims to allow additional driver and application installion via the network. Apparently they are downloaded (into the ram disk? - I'm not sure about hard disk support at this stage) and installed on the fly.

This OS looks cool, and would totally rock with a hard disk , as it would boot in about four seconds. I suppose having a hard disk would lead to complicated boot routines that loaded permenantly stored drivers and other processes though, so that argument might not hold up . . . .

Ok Ok, it would suck for many applications, and is mainly targeted at developers at this stage , but all you hard core "thin client, server based" computing enthusiasts should check it out if you haven't already heard of it.

Re:QNX?

[Mignon]

I've used this demo disk myself and was very impressed with what they got onto a floppy. I've downloaded some of the additional programs they mention - I think one of them is basically a shell, which was useful.

One drawback to the demo disk is the fact that every time you boot you have to re-enter your ISP settings if you plan to try to surf. I think the license explicitly prohibits tinkering with the disk image in order to hard-code those values; I guess that's one reason they call it a "demo disk"!

I don't know if the license prohibits copying the disk image to the start of a bootable partition of a hard disk. I'm not sure this would even work because I believe the OS on the demo disk doesn't have hard-drive support.

I think you could get lots farther with Linux/BSD where you have unlimited ability to modify things.

386 Linux

[Wiggins]

We have a 386sx running linux 8mb (not booting to x) that boots faster than my AMD Athlon 500 128 MB scsi machine. It all depends on what you intend to run on it and the number of things to boot up.

Check out an old version of slackware or maybe debian. RedHat is great and all but if you are looking for boot time rather than ease of configurability, etc. then it is terrible.

Also thought I would mention that it is an install of less than 100 MB, try doing that easily in RedHat.

Believe it: http://i386.sapien.net (if it is down it is usually because of the NE2000 network card ((newest piece of hardware in the machine)))

You have some control over linux load time

[Citrix]

Recently, I've built some linux boxes that (re)boot very quickly. The main thing I've done is remove unneeded crap from the booup, like do you really need sendmail running in the background of you personal box, I've been fine without it for months now (maybe I'm missing the zen of linux/unix without it but I'm happy). I've also made some things more parallel. eg: gpm (console mouse util) I don't need it first thing at boot so I have some scripts that delay it's loading or at least don't make it stop other things from loading at the same time.

Get to know your linux box. Mainstream distros are geared for everybody and do a lota stuff you probably don't give a damn about.

One other thing. Really large hard drives take forever to mount. look around there are ways to speed this up like reducing redundant fs checking (may not be a smart thing to do)
Citrix

BeOS

[Mondo54]

BeOS...10 seconds or less on my 450 mhz 192 MB boxen.

QNX

[technos]

Free for personal use, and all the way up in under twenty seconds(power switch to finish). I'm using it as a 'instant boot' client on a couple of 486-33/24M laptops I had lying around..

Very, very nice..

BeOS is also quite quick. I'd expect it to come in under thirty on decent last gen hardware.

Linux can also work, if you like a *nix style client. I've had P54D (166 Pentium) machines from post to login in under twenty. I was only starting a bare minimum of 'services' (inetd, routing, ethernet, card services) and running a very lean 2.0.xx kernel. The 1.2.xx series are even quicker, but may not have some of the device support you need..

IBM ROM BASIC

[hodeleri]

Loads at bus speed. (not available on all platforms unfortunately)

--
Eric is chisled like a Greek Godess

Re:BeOS, BIOS, DOS, and DJGPP.

[billcopc]

Dos can do 32-bit through the use of what's commonly known as a "Dos Extender". Remember Doom and Quake and all those great games from the Dos era ? Ever noticed that "DOS4GW Protected Mode" startup message ?

That's the Dos Extender being loaded. Basically it's a (relatively) small loader/overlay that switches into protected mode and handles the boring chore of thunking and relaying interrupts and all that delightfully mind numbing crap.

DOS4GW was generally associated with Watcom C++, while DJGPP commonly uses GO32 as its extender although they are easily interchangeable with a few code changes (slightly different API's). Whichever extended you use, they do more or less the same things : thunking interrupts, managing flat ram (vs 16-bit segmented ram), and giving nice detailed register dumps when they crash.

It depends on the services you load at startup

[mirko]

As said in the subject, this also involves the program loaded in your boot sequence. I have used many OSses in my life and here are some of them, ordered by boot time :

1. Palm OS (not x86)
2. Psion Epoc (not x86)
3. Acorn RiscOS (not x86)
4. MS-DOS
5. QNX
6. BeOS 4
7. AtheOS
8. standalone Linux (with a few services up and without starting X)
9. Windows 9x
10. Windows NT
11. NeXTstep (x86)

IMHO having GCC or not should not make the boot longer.

Concerning your need (C++ and GUI) I'd suggest BeOS or AtheOS. The problem with the latter being the lack of community. Tschüss!
--

BeOS, BIOS, DOS, and DJGPP.

[percival]

Well, BeOS is fast, that's for sure. You might also want to look at the Linux BIOS page - it promises VERY fast linux loading... when the work is done.

If all you want is a GUI of some type, DOS + Win 3.1 will load very fast, if you arrange it nicely. There's a DOS version of the GNU compiler environment here, so you can do C/C++ development under DOS, but I don't know about a GUI IDE. I recall there are several text IDEs.

DOS won't take up too much space, either, so you might be able to keep Win98 on there for other boot times.