Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Considers "Instant On" Windows

Barence writes "In what might be a glimpse of things to come in Windows 7, Microsoft is asking customers whether they would be interested in a new 'Instant-on' version of Windows. 'We would like your feedback on a new concept,' the Microsoft survey states. 'The Instant On experience is different from "Full Windows" because it limits what activities you can do and what applications you can have access to.' Sounds interesting but hardly new: Asus and Dell have produced laptops that provide swift access to apps and data using Linux subsystems."

440 comments

  1. Finally some progress... by Vadatajs · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now it doesn't even have to boot to bluescreen?

    1. Re:Finally some progress... by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, the Blue Screen is the "Instant Off" feature.

    2. Re:Finally some progress... by jimmyhat3939 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was actually kind of excited when I read the headline here. I thought maybe they were going to propose bringing up the full OS "instantly." This limited OS thing doesn't seem particularly useful to me. My Dell laptop already has an "instant on" media player thing, and I never use it.

      --
      Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
    3. Re:Finally some progress... by Carl.E.Pierre · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i have that too, when i was fix experimenting with linux last week, that was the first partition i deleted(cannot have more than 4 primaries), the thing is flipping useless. Speaking of linux, I wonder if MS will just use linux for the limited OS, or will they start from scratch.

    4. Re:Finally some progress... by sexconker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't you dare hit the "Media Direct" button!
      It'll hose your MBR!

      I think newer versions (3 and up) don't do this, since they don't use the HPA method anymore.
      There are guides out there describing how to dual boot those Vostro laptops. You can make a hackintosh on those guys fairly easily, as well. XP/OSX, XP/Linux, Linux/OSX, whatever you want.
      Main power button boots into one, Media Direct button boots into the other. No more choosing things from a bootloader!

      I would LOVE to see motherboards (and cases) support multtiple power buttons. Hell, bring back the turbo button!

    5. Re:Finally some progress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fsk yes! Turbo button ftmfw!

    6. Re:Finally some progress... by Atti+K. · · Score: 1

      Oh this is so great. Now Windows will also get into my BIOS.

      --
      .sig: No such file or directory
    7. Re:Finally some progress... by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      No, the Blue Screen is the "Instant Off" feature.

      I wonder what the difference in power consumption is when a Windows goes blue screen...

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    8. Re:Finally some progress... by Anpheus · · Score: 2, Funny

      This guy is going so fast he doesn't have time for vowels or full words.

    9. Re:Finally some progress... by leedsj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      not rebooted OS X for several weeks now, and it's ALWAYS there as soon as I lift the lid. It's clear from the trickle of stories about Microsoft losing it's grip that this company has peaked, it's place in history assured but it's future irrelevant. TIP: SELL

    10. Re:Finally some progress... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a job for FreeDos.

      @echo off
      color 1f
      echo IRQL_NOT_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  2. My opinion by harris+s+newman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In all honesty, I love the multiple minutes it takes to bring up windows now. Instant on would be a detriment.

    1. Re:My opinion by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      I see some of these expectations to be ridiculous. It takes me 20 seconds for my work laptop -- Compaq 2510p -- to come back from hibernate. I don't need anything faster then that.

      Standby isn't actually being powered off, but the laptops we distribute to employees standby when the lid is closed, and they come right back up once you open the lid again.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    2. Re:My opinion by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

      In all honesty, I love the multiple minutes it takes to bring up windows now. Instant on would be a detriment.

      Oh my God, the fucking Comcast turtle posts to Slashdot.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    3. Re:My opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Instant On" Would be the worst thing EVER!!!

      Windows is a great excuse to get up, get some coffee or tea, and spend the first 15 minutes of your day doing NOTHING.

    4. Re:My opinion by JCSoRocks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I realize you're being sarcastic but I don't know who all these people are that are waiting 5 minutes for Windows to start. I've got both Vista and XP and neither takes more than a minute to boot, tops. If it's taking longer than that... maybe it's time for you to clean out some of the crapware you've got on there.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    5. Re:My opinion by mweather · · Score: 1

      You still have defrag.

    6. Re:My opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the Shaw Cable slug couple.

    7. Re:My opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL.

    8. Re:My opinion by philspear · · Score: 4, Informative

      Me, for one. Even new, my laptop took at least 5 minutes to load it up. My work computers are cluttered with stuff the IT guy put on it and usually has to restart at least once during the boot process. I don't have administrator status and wouldn't know what I'm doing anyway.

      I think most of us users would agree that spending more time figuring out how to get our computers to load in less than 5 minutes would be a waste of more time. I would definitely prefer it if my computer turned on instantly without having to tinker around with it and likely break it.

      (Note that I'm not asking for advice here, I don't want to mess with it and am fine with how my computers work right now.)

    9. Re:My opinion by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      Its been done: Mac OS version 6.0.7 oh wait that was... HOW long ago?

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    10. Re:My opinion by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Me, for one. Even new, my laptop took at least 5 minutes to load it up. My work computers are cluttered with stuff the IT guy put on it and usually has to restart at least once during the boot process.

      Has to reboot at least once during the boot process? So you're saying you never reach the desktop?

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    11. Re:My opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I've got both Vista and XP and neither takes more than a minute to boot, tops."

      Consider yourself fortunate. My work issued XP laptop is loaded with company startup stuff and it takes one forever and two infinites to boot this thing and half as long to wake up from suspend mode. And if Data Protector happens to fire up at boot up because you didn't backup (oh, because, say, you wanted to actually use your box), forget it. It is 45 min of an unusable machine because this thing is such a resource hog!

    12. Re:My opinion by danwesnor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As an alternative, they could just make "sleep" mode actually work.

    13. Re:My opinion by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      has to restart at least once during the boot process

      I could also say that Scandisk usually has to restart at least once during the scan, but that doesn't mean it never finishes either.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    14. Re:My opinion by Kineticabstract · · Score: 0, Troll

      My work computers are cluttered with stuff the IT guy put on it and usually has to restart at least once during the boot process.

      Nothing personal, but posts like this make me wish for a mod of "-1 I Call BullSh!t"

      If it's not, you really, really need to fire your IT guy. He's installing viruses on your computers.

    15. Re:My opinion by divisionbyzero · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny but true. I turn on my computer. Go start a cup of coffee in the brew machine. Come back and type in my password. Go finish making my coffee. Chit-chat with some of my co-workers. When I return to my desk the Windows desktop is finally responsive even though it appeared about 2 minutes previously. Finally I load Outlook and that takes another two minutes.

      So, 5-10 minutes of my day every day is spent waiting for Windows. That's 40 hours a year. Microsoft owes my company 1 week of my salary. If they were forced to pay, they'd have to raise their prices for windows and office a whole hell of a lot to be profitable.

      Granted some of this is a function of hardware, login scripts that MS has no control over, etc, etc, etc, but it is a fun thought experiment.

    16. Re:My opinion by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Most of it is probably login scripts that are set in the policy, which means the slowness is due to the company's own setup and Microsoft really doesn't have anything to say about it.

      I know at college the network login used to take 3-5 minutes. If you'd used the computer previously, though, you could unplug the ethernet cord and login... and BOOM. Almost instantaneous. (Granted, the network drives didn't connect and the roaming profile wouldn't update — but then, the roaming profiles were so screwed up that they never worked right anyway.)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    17. Re:My opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you wouldn't drink coffee or talk to your coworkers any more if your computer didn't have to boot? If that is the case, would you be as effective without the coffee and whatever work related knowledge you gain from talking to your fellow employees?

    18. Re:My opinion by thermowax · · Score: 1

      Yep. Just enough time to go get some coffee and chat up the receptionist.

    19. Re:My opinion by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't have administrator status and wouldn't know what I'm doing anyway.

      Considering the fact that Slashdot's target demographic very likely has and prizes those two traits you lack, what interests you here? The MS/MAFIAA-bashing?

    20. Re:My opinion by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      So, 5-10 minutes of my day every day is spent waiting for Windows. That's 40 hours a year. Microsoft owes my company 1 week of my salary. If they were forced to pay, they'd have to raise their prices for windows and office a whole hell of a lot to be profitable.

      Considering the billions of dollars Bill Gates has raked off the top, I doubt that being forced to pay one week of your salary would require any price increases for Microsoft to stay profitable. I suspect they could pay one week of your salary every week and still be in the black.

      It's nice to daydream, though.

    21. Re:My opinion by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Why don't you turn off startup items in msconfig?

    22. Re:My opinion by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Youre missing the point. To end users the "IT guy" is always getting in their way. Wah wah, they want admin rights (need 'special'cursor and smilies software), want to shut of windows updates, shut off antivirus, etc. Something tells me this is just uninformed whining. Heck, he even admits to be uninformed.

    23. Re:My opinion by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this was for a Linux distribution people would love it. But because it has windows on it... It makes it bad.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    24. Re:My opinion by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      To end users the "IT guy" is always getting in their way

      That seems true more often than not. There are certainly a lot of incompetitent/power-tripping/cannot-consider-exceptions-to-procedures IT people. And since I know what I'm doing, the IT guy is usually in my way.

      That said, it's a good IT person's job to get in the way of people installing "Uber-Smiles".

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    25. Re:My opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My system at work can take up to 5 minutes to boot. Connecting up to our corporate network can take quite a bit, so it may be our network's fault and not Windows. But I do enjoy the few minutes sitting at my cube doing nothing (maybe reading a bit of Dilbert while I wait)

    26. Re:My opinion by SuseLover · · Score: 1

      You may get to the login screen in about a minute or so but there's no way you're logged into a desktop that fast. Our corporate images have Safeboot, Symantec AV, Carbon Copy, Proventia Desktop, HP Quick Launch Buttons, etc, etc. on them. It takes ~45 seconds to get to the splash/login but a good 4-5 minutes to get to a fully operational desktop, and this is on a fairly quick 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2Gb RAM laptop.

    27. Re:My opinion by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Work computers typically have to update your roaming profile, connect to several network drives, run numerous logon scripts, start the antivirus, start a bunch of system tray icons, etc. Unless they're an administrator on the computer, they can't do a thing about it, and even if they are they still can't disable the network login scripts.

      Back when I was in college, it took literally 4 or 5 minutes to log in. If the box already had a cached copy of your roaming profile, though, you could unplug it from the network and login in seconds. The difference was simply unbelievable.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    28. Re:My opinion by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      That's MISTER Slowski to you, speedy.

    29. Re:My opinion by philspear · · Score: 1

      Has to reboot at least once during the boot process? So you're saying you never reach the desktop?

      Yes, but I never use it anyway, I'm too busy with the infinite loop of washing my hair: Lather, rinse, repeat... FOREVER

    30. Re:My opinion by philspear · · Score: 1

      My point was that fast boot would have a use for those of us who have little control over the computers we use, not whining. Way to assume and make an ass out of u and me.

    31. Re:My opinion by Windows_NT · · Score: 1

      I think he's referring to how most of us can't just clean the 'crap' off our computers, because those are the programs that we need for work i.e. visual Studio, Outlook, SQL server management...
      It takes my computer a few minutes to boot up (that's when I get something to drink, have a smoke) and then you have things like virusware (AVG, Norton, McAfee) that take awhile to load, and my AVG likes to start scanning in the morning if my computer was off the night before.
      Windows DOES boot quickly but after 6 months of building programs with it, it gets sluggish

      --
      Go go Gadget Nailgun!
    32. Re:My opinion by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      A couple things could be affecting your performance... my first instinct says the hard drive, but there's other things that can affect you as well... I typically have a login screen after about a minute, but after I log in, I have a usable desktop after only about 2 minutes. Most of the work I do is with web-based applications, so the only things I really have to wait for are Office Communicator (typically about 30s-1m before it logs in and is useable), and MS Outlook (thankfully, IT hasn't forced me to upgrade to Office 2007 yet, but they did push Communicator 2007 down my throat yesterday). I'm just a user, not an admin, but from what I can see, the stuff I'm waiting for are login scripts, Java, and Symantec AV. I have a multimedia keyboard, but I don't need any software to use it, and all of the buttons work.

      For reference, my desktop is:
      XP SP2, 1GB of RAM, and a 2.8GHz P4 with HT. It's actually a fairly old Dell Optiplex.

      So it's entirely possible that the GP is telling the truth when he says he is able to log in that quickly.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    33. Re:My opinion by dnormant · · Score: 1

      I am a Unix administrator. Windows is the company standard desktop. I don't have nor want administrative rights on the desktop.

      This is the first time I've seem slashdot called a Microsoft Uber Social Club. Gag me with a spoon.

    34. Re:My opinion by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 1

      >>If this was for a Linux distribution people would love it. But because it has windows on it... It makes it bad. Ummm, yeah, sorta like how no matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a piece of shit. Get it?

    35. Re:My opinion by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Most of that is due to the way your company sets up there computers. It has nothing to do with MS.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re:My opinion by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Of course. It takes 3-5 minutes to get to a usable desktop. Time enough for me to go get a drink, etc, and come on back.

      Now Microsoft is trying to take my caffeine break away! Bad Microsoft!

    37. Re:My opinion by LordSnooty · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't have administrator status and wouldn't know what I'm doing anyway.

      What are these "users" doing posting on Slashdot? BBC Weather is that way --> :)

    38. Re:My opinion by Ansoni-San · · Score: 1

      At work it sometimes takes me an hour to get in. Yes, it's because the network is crap even though we've got money falling out of our asses. (I guess IT doesn't get any, or they're too lazy to improve things)

      Either way, there's your anecdotal evidence. Just as useful as your's. GP was talking about a work environment, which usually means a network.

    39. Re:My opinion by philspear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What are these "users" doing posting on Slashdot?

      1. Trying to learn more about computers. I know, I know, /. is about claiming you know more than you do, not learning. I'm also coming to realize also that although people here can come up with a fix to any computer issue, it usually is much more of a hassle than the issue, only works in theory, and even then only under specific circumstances (namely, it might be able to work for the angry IT guy who suggested it, but if your machine is configured differently it won't, and by the way you're an idiot for not having X Y and Z)

      2. More importantly, keeping up to date on actual important news, IE from the science, games, politics, or other (coughidlecough) sections.

    40. Re:My opinion by crimson30 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Join the military. Our networks push so much junk onto clients, it makes Core 2 Duos crawl.

      I've seen boot/OS load times on clean installs go from ~1 minute to 10 minutes (after logging onto the domain). And I'm not exaggerating; I timed it.

    41. Re:My opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahah its hilarious Microsoft thinks it can do ANYTHING "Instantly" hahahahahahahah...

      big companies lumber around :)

    42. Re:My opinion by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      It takes me 20 seconds for my work laptop -- Compaq 2510p -- to come back from hibernate. I don't need anything faster then that.

      I do, sometimes. Meetings in airports would be easier if it took 19 seconds less than that.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    43. Re:My opinion by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I am in awe. I didn't realize that there were people intimately familiar with *nix that were not also familiar with Windows.

    44. Re:My opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't really flamebait, note the :), it was a friendly jest.

    45. Re:My opinion by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I had that happen when working in an office. I don't know if it was because of Shares, etc. etc. but a computer with noticeably less software than my Win 2k or Win XP system at the time took 5 minutes longer to boot despite having similar configuration.

      Right now, I have a desktop with an USCSI 320, an SATA RAID card (both take about 10-15sec for both BIOS routines to recognize drives), using XP with most of the HDD full and a few startup apps running and it boots in about 1 to 1.5 minutes to useable state. Oh my desktop is also a P4 2.4 Ghz and has 1 GB of RAM. So its likely a HW or SW problem.

      I don't know what the complaint is though. With a stock "Linux" install (Ubuntu, RH, Slackware) or BSD or my prev. G5 iMac on Leopard system to useable state in 1 to 1.5 minutes. If this were the case for everyone, don't see the big deal.

      Again, work machines have been noticeably slower. Win 2k is the slowest. If you replace the boot files of 2K with XP, it should cut down boot times by 2 minutes (seriously it does work).

    46. Re:My opinion by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      I am in awe. I didn't realize that there were people intimately familiar with *nix that were not also familiar with Windows.

      -1 bad grammar s/x that/x who/

      May I ask why should we be?

      The slowest part of my morning is my monitor coming out of sleep, followed by typing my password into the box. And then my computer "desktop" resumes the state it has acquired for almost as long as my meatspace desktop has acquired state.

      Boot time? Who cares when you're only doing it a time or two a year, at best? Oh wait ...

    47. Re:My opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People with a myriad of third-party apps running at startup who are too @#%ing computer illiterate to know the f@#$@#ing difference...
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      Love you mom.

    48. Re:My opinion by eelke_klein · · Score: 1

      Actually some days ago on /. there was an article about speeding up the boot process of linux. However it seemed they had achieved booting the full Linux OS in five seconds on an Asus EEE PC which is way better then booting some very limited functionality in eight seconds.

    49. Re:My opinion by Rennt · · Score: 1

      I've met lots of these people.

      Windows boots nice and quick on a fresh install, but once malware starts to take hold booting can take longer and longer.

      I have reinstalled Windows for people who's computer took 30 minutes to boot. One guy's machine would never boot at all- just sat there at the loading screen for an infinite amount of time.

      Its debatable if this is Microsoft's fault or the fault of the user, but it certainly happens.

    50. Re:My opinion by d0cu · · Score: 0

      It's the same with my work PC. That's the reason I restart it once a month (when it's starting to grind to halt)

    51. Re:My opinion by Inda · · Score: 1

      And that crapware would be iTunes.

      My bootime on Vista halves when I remove iTunes from msconfig>start up. Why oh why does iTunes take a few minutes to load?

      One week later iTune has decided, all by itself, that it needs to start up at boot.

      I would really like to punch the programmer who thought this was a good idea.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    52. Re:My opinion by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      Try using it on a corporate domain, with GPOs up the wazzoo, and your roaming profile stored at head office or in an off-site datacentre on the other end of a 10 meg leased line currently being hammered by the other sixty users in your office all trying to log in at once.

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    53. Re:My opinion by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      Here's my real life comparison, and where I think MS should look for improvements.

      February 2007 I purchase a new PC, Intel E6600, 2GB RAM, dual 384Mb video cards. I decide to give Vista a try. After an hour of loading, a single reboot takes 2-3 minutes. Finally getting to the desktop, I find dual screens will not work without a registry hack, my 15Mb FIOS connection has been brought to a crawl (20 min. for a 60Mb file) and the constant UAC warnings drove me crazy.

      I reload XP SP2 and fully patch it in less than an hour. Both screens work from the start and look better when I download the 60Mb driver in 30 seconds. I load all my applications and restore my data. Boot time, 40 seconds.

      Now it's been 20 months and I still get to the desktop ready to load a browser, e-mail or a game in less than a minute. Add to this that I can leave it on weeks at a time with no issues, and I'm pretty pleased.

      I think MS needs to go back to the XP model and look at how they can improve from there.

    54. Re:My opinion by torkus · · Score: 1

      Standby is good, hibernation generally doesn't work with disk encryption though.

      Now, if you could boot the OS from the insta-on and somehow save time or start working while the OS loads that *THAT* would be a neat trick.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    55. Re:My opinion by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      huh, I've had vista since Beta 2 and I've never had trouble running dual monitors on it. I've had trouble with SLI... and bad nVidia drivers... but never with dual monitors.

      UAC was a good idea in theory, but in practice developers didn't write anything to work with it and you end up getting a million warnings and it sucks. Thankfully it's pretty easy to turn it off.

      Network speeds are something I can't defend. I've never seen issues with Internet download speeds but if you're using a network connection to pull files from another machine it definitely sucks. SP1 fixed that (mostly).

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    56. Re:My opinion by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

      Hah. I meant if they had to do it for everyone but thanks for the narcissism points and assuming I'm a retard.

    57. Re:My opinion by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

      Yeah, did that... That's like Windows OS 101.

    58. Re:My opinion by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

      Thanks, genius.

    59. Re:My opinion by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

      "Again, work machines have been noticeably slower. Win 2k is the slowest. If you replace the boot files of 2K with XP, it should cut down boot times by 2 minutes (seriously it does work)."

      That's interesting. There must be trade off somewhere. Anyhow, I won't mess with it since it is a work computer.

    60. Re:My opinion by WhatsAProGingrass · · Score: 1

      We have to log in through the network and the computer I work on litterly takes about 25 - 45 minutes before it is in a useable state. Obviously something is wrong here. It all started slowing down when they upgraded to office 2007. If I right click on an icon or on the desktop, it litterly takes about 6 seconds to load the menu, sometimes longer. I'm sorry, but back in 96 my computer was way more responsive than this. I can't believe where computer are in 2008. Its absolutly terrible in my opinion.

      --
      Mark
  3. Yes because as we all know... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ANYTHING that Windows wants to do to improve sucks and linux has already done it, done it better, cured cancer, etc.

    Seriously is there anyone on /. that isn't a "me too, me too" Microsoft sucks, Linux is good person?

    Jesus this is like Digg more and more everyday.

    OK bitches mod me down now.

    1. Re:Yes because as we all know... by mweather · · Score: 0

      Seriously is there anyone on /. that isn't a "me too, me too" Microsoft sucks, Linux is good person?

      Yes. Generally people who have never used Linux, or at least not this decade.

    2. Re:Yes because as we all know... by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      Do you really see any improvement on it?

      FTFA: "The Instant On experience is different from 'Full Windows' because it limits what activities you can do and what applications you can have access to."

      Isn't it smarter to make a simpler SO instead of putting limits? It even sells better: "Instant On provides a clean system for your main activities, reducing the time you spend waiting for unnecessary things to load up".

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    3. Re:Yes because as we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux deserves no credit for fast booting if there is no desktop targeted distribution that can deliver this out of the box, or at least easy achievable.

    4. Re:Yes because as we all know... by GFree678 · · Score: 1

      Seriously is there anyone on /. that isn't a "me too, me too" Microsoft sucks, Linux is good person?

      *raises hand*

      I only use Vista now. Tried Ubuntu solo, dual-boot, gave it up for something that provided me with a modern GUI with a massive amount of commercial software. Those are my reasons, and time has shown that I was right and the zealots were wrong.

    5. Re:Yes because as we all know... by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      Seriously is there anyone on /. that isn't a "me too, me too" Microsoft sucks, Linux is good person?

      Well, most people on slashdot seem to be judged on a post to post basis, and I doubt anyone but twitter has really had their post history thoroughly examined any significant chunk of the slashdot population, so we don't see a broad overview of their positions.

      Obviously slashdot has a larger than average population of Linux users, but it's got Windows users as well (*raises hand*).

      While I'm perfectly content to run Windows at home and on the desktop at work and I have no ideological issues with the concept of proprietary software, I'm a passionate advocate of Linux on the server and open source code in the workplace.

      If you're a staunch conservative, anyone who disagrees with you sounds like a liberal, and vice-versa. The same applies to the evangelists at the edge of any OS user base.

      I've been labeled a fanboy in both camps here, as I'm sure most people who can accept the merits and flaws of both systems have been at one point or another.

      So that's really a long-winded: "Yes."

    6. Re:Yes because as we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here.

    7. Re:Yes because as we all know... by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > ANYTHING that Windows wants to do to improve sucks and linux has already
      > done it, done it better, cured cancer, etc.

      Actually.... Linux hasn't done it YET but almost certainly will before Microsoft can ship this idea. This all started with the embedded Linux distros to get around the long boot times for Windows (and most current Linux distros, lets be fair) and Microsoft now wants to play "me too!" but Linux is already moving on to solve the actual problem. Fedora demoed an Asus EEEPC booting to a full desktop in five seconds flat recently. To make netbooks and small form factors (PDA, smartphone, etc) viable candidates for Penguin domination the boot time problem is going to get solved.

      So again, Microsoft will be pushing a me too clone to yesterday's problem while the penguin army will be moving onto bigger and better things. Who will want a crippled up raggedy assed mini-me Windows when a full Linux desktop can load in the same couple of seconds? Unless Microsoft wants to chase taillights they need to get their full OS booting in a couple of seconds. It should be possible.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    8. Re:Yes because as we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here. Seriously, back in the day (before slash even had banner ads) the mindless pro-Linux groupthink used to be considerably worse. Of course, Linux did look better vs. win95 ...

    9. Re:Yes because as we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, fuck you asshole!

      jk

    10. Re:Yes because as we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh. Even whilst MS-DOS boots up quickly on a quad-core processor with 8 gigs SD-RAM, a text based version of Linux can boot up faster by taking advantage of parallel scripts.

      Just because you can't handle simple truths like this you see the need to lash out at everyone.

      Maybe it will make you feel better if I say that when you want to shut down Windows you can take the same amount of time as in Linux when you pull the power cable.

      </winding up>

    11. Re:Yes because as we all know... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      ANYTHING that Windows wants to do to improve sucks and linux has already done it, done it better

      No, anything Windows wants to do to improve either sucks or Linux (or OS X, or both) has done it first. Very few things, at the level of the general concept for "improvement", fall into both categories, though some things Windows seeks to do to improve have already been done fairly well first by Linux (etc.), and when Windows finally does them, the Windows implementation also manages to suck (Vista UAC seems to fall into this category).

      Seriously is there anyone on /. that isn't a "me too, me too" Microsoft sucks, Linux is good person?

      Aside from the licensing structure, and monopolistic corporate behavior, I don't think Microsoft sucks. I Microsoft Office is a fine office suite (note, I'm not talking about Office Open XML format and the manipulations around that, just the software itself), and I think Visio's a great product (not the best cost:benefit ratio, as is typical of MS software).

      OTOH, I think, but for the available application base, Windows sucks compared to other OS's (I still use it, mostly, because of the available application base). (Actually, from what I hear, it seems like Windows Server doesn't seem to suck as bad as the various desktop editions, and could even be respun into a non-sucky desktop OS.)

    12. Re:Yes because as we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ANYTHING that Windows wants to do to improve sucks and linux has already done it, done it better, cured cancer, etc.

      Seriously is there anyone on /. that isn't a "me too, me too" Microsoft sucks, Linux is good person?

      Jesus this is like Digg more and more everyday.

      Um, if you think that the Slashdot crowd is starting to become anti-anything-microsoft and pro-anything-linux then you must be new here...seriously though, you'll feel better after you download the latest build of Ubuntu.

      OK bitches mod me down now.

      Me too, me too :P

    13. Re:Yes because as we all know... by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      gave it up for something that provided me with an obfuscated version of the old GUI with added non-functional bloated eye candy and a massive amount of commercial software

      There, fixed that for ya. By the way, I run Vista too and IMO it is the most god awful POS ever written. And the modern interface has nothing new to it. There are no productivity boosts in the "modern desktop" environment of which you speak, just expensive (in system requirements and power consumption) eye candy.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    14. Re:Yes because as we all know... by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      Seriously is there anyone on /. that isn't a "me too, me too" Microsoft sucks, Linux is good person?

      You must be new here. Hasn't been that way in a long, long time if it ever was.

    15. Re:Yes because as we all know... by Allador · · Score: 1

      What about:

      - massively improved reliability over XP

      - much better desktop experience due to the compositing window manager, no tearing, etc.

      - MUCH better I/O scheduler, which makes the machine usable even when the drive is getting hammered

      - much better start-menu/search ... just hit the windows key, type the first couple letters of what you want to start, and hit return

      - much higher security configuration with UAC (though I mean mostly in the way you can configure, rather than the way it comes configured)

      - layered integrity model, which prevents shatter type attacks and a whole other host of attacks

      - hugely improved 64-bit support

      - a ton more drivers in userland (which increases reliability)

      etc etc.

      It's not perfect, and I swear Windows Explorer gets worse with every release of windows, and the networking configuration UIs are freaking horrible in Vista. But for the business user its got alot of nice improvements that just makes it more reliable and predictable.

    16. Re:Yes because as we all know... by zaivala · · Score: 1

      Seriously is there anyone on /. that isn't a "me too, me too" Microsoft sucks, Linux is good person?

      Um, no. Why, should there be?

    17. Re:Yes because as we all know... by Rennt · · Score: 1

      "Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it... poorly"
      Henry Spencer, 1987

      You can call it groupthink or what ever, but sometimes there is a consensus simply because it is reality. Deal with it.

    18. Re:Yes because as we all know... by mweather · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are scores of desktop distros that deliver fast booting out of the box. They're just not popular. Ubuntu 9.04 will supposedly have this out of the box, though.

    19. Re:Yes because as we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't mod him down, mod him right..because he is.

      But maybe that's because /. is owned by OSTG... so, being pro-linux (or at least pro-open-source) is kind of a given.

      But, as for the article, what I'm really waiting for is for the instant-on OS to be able to silently load the main OS in the background. I dunno how hard it would be to transition from, for example, splashtop's kernel to one from ubuntu or fedora, without needing to reboot (probably very hard, if not impossible). And I imagine it would take a lot of work to patch X to a state that you could start your distro's session without losing whatever you had been doing on splashtop. But, given how demanding people's need for instant gratification is, these days, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody is already working on that.

  4. Uptime... by matt4077 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...19:21 up 30 days, 20 hrs, 3 users, load averages: 0.52 0.32 0.32

    That's a Macbook Air. Why does anybody turn their notebooks off?

    1. Re:Uptime... by thewils · · Score: 5, Funny

      System Up Time: 0 Days, 21 Hours, 32 Minutes, 58 Seconds

      Why does anybody turn their notebooks off?

      Windows Update :( Not "off" but restart.

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    2. Re:Uptime... by FrankSchwab · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because I have a secondary monitor to the left of my Microsoft Windows Vista laptop. Why is that an issue?
        - Because after undocking, Microsoft Outlook insists on opening on that (non-existent) monitor.
        - Because after re-docking, Microsoft Windows insists on logically placing my external monitor to the RIGHT of my Laptop, and swapping the screens that the start bar and sidebar show up on.
        - Because after undocking, carrying my laptop to the conference room and plugging it into the projector, all kinds of weird things happen.

      That's why I shutdown daily.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    3. Re:Uptime... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Bingo, the real world is that people have to reboot their laptops far too often because of problems with docking and un-docking. Instead of instant booting to a toy OS, I'd rather MS focus their resources on getting ALL the corner cases of hibernation to work right (multiple/external displays, intermittent network availability, external and network hard drives, etc).

      The only practical way this will ever work is coercing hardware manufacturers to stick to more specific standards. In practice, ACPI hasn't solved it.

    4. Re:Uptime... by halsver · · Score: 1

      You need a Thinkpad, its the only laptop I've used that manages switching displays moderately well.

      No, I don't work for IBM/Lenovo.

      --
      Roughly half my comments are never submitted. You may be reading the better half...
    5. Re:Uptime... by Jake73 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      System Up Time: 0 Days, 21 Hours, 32 Minutes, 58 Seconds

      Why does anybody turn their notebooks off?

      Windows Update :( Not "off" but restart.

      Hm. I run both Windows and Mac. I can't remember the last time I did any update to a Mac that didn't require a restart. It's really pretty annoying.

      Windows has gotten much better about not requiring restarts for updates. A huge change from its Windows 95/98 and NT days.

    6. Re:Uptime... by Jerrry · · Score: 1

      ...11:07 up 472 days, 21 hours, 3 users, load averages: 1.23 0.44 0.17

      This is my PowerMac G4. I never shut it down, just put it to sleep. Longest I've ever been able to keep a Windows laptop up was a week.

    7. Re:Uptime... by Rary · · Score: 1

      It may not matter what kind of laptop he uses. Vista has real problems with laptops and secondary monitors.

      Note: unlike 99% of Slashdot comments that mention Vista, I'm not bashing it (I like it and use it daily), but that is my biggest pet peeve with it. It always gets confused about monitor configuration on laptops with a secondary monitor.

      By the way, just a note to the GP poster: when an application insists on appearing on the monitor that isn't actually there, it can still be moved back to the correct monitor. Right-click it on the task bar, select "move" (or hit "m"), then press any arrow key. This will attach your mouse pointer to the window and allow you to drag it back into view.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    8. Re:Uptime... by Bandman · · Score: 1

      Eh, I just forcequit the updater process and reboot on my own terms

    9. Re:Uptime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Windows has gotten much better about not requiring restarts for updates.

      If you say so I guess... I've had to reboot on each of my last half dozen updates in Vista, its pretty infuriating for Microsoft's supposedly fanciest new OS...

    10. Re:Uptime... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      System Up Time: 0 Days, 21 Hours, 32 Minutes, 58 Seconds

      Uptime: 11:50:35 up 4 days, 16:39, 2 users, load average: 1.17, 0.97, 0.98

      The last three times I rebooted it was for a kernel upgrade. My laptop is an old P II with 96Meg RAM (maxed out) and it boots to a usable desktop in about 90 seconds or so with full access to every program on it. Who needs "instant on" if comes up crippled?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    11. Re:Uptime... by cawpin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of external monitor issues, let's not leave Vista our all by it's lonesome. My Macbook Pro consistently looses it's ability to keep my external monitor on. I have it running through a KVM switch but it wasn't a problem until after the 10.5.2 update. Before that it worked perfectly. Now, I have to reset it by turning off the machine and removing the battery and holding down the power button. It is quite annoying.

    12. Re:Uptime... by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Why does anybody turn their notebooks off?

      I dunno, maybe it's something to do with that announcement saying "the use of all electronic devices, including laptops, is prohibited during taxiing and takeoff"?

    13. Re:Uptime... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I used to do that for OS updates, too. It won't let you do that in Leopard (at least in Software Update; you might be able to do that if you DL the package and install it manually; not sure). For third-party kernel extensions, I usually force quit Installer, run Terminal, and kill -HUP kextd.... Usually works. Only when it doesn't do I begrudgingly reboot (and generally swear at the driver developers under my breath). Maybe it's just me....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    14. Re:Uptime... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      PG&E can barely even keep my power on for a week. Okay, I'm exaggerating slightly, but I do have machines whose sole reboots occur when the power fails for more than 30 minutes. Their uptime is currently a mere 8 days....

      /^@&*$!(&*#^%&+$-)&*&[4-)]/

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:Uptime... by paniq · · Score: 5, Informative

      I really love Ubuntu updates for that reason. Their update service is like that colonial england servant you dreamed of having but could never afford. Even if it updated the kernel, it humbly suggests a restart, serves earl grey and quietly retreats.

      --
      Do not trust this signature.
    16. Re:Uptime... by Dalroth · · Score: 1

      Notebooks? What about Media Center PCs?

      Watching TV. In the middle of a program. PC locks up, I'm going to miss the climax!

      Reboot PC.

      10 minutes later you resume watching, but it's too late, the show is over.

      That SUCKS! And trust me, it doesn't matter how careful you are picking out your hardware, or configuring your software. That WILL happen, the software stack just isn't reliable enough to avoid problems like this.

      Instant-on would be a godsend for us HTPC users.

    17. Re:Uptime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why does anybody turn their notebooks off?

      How about to save electricity? Do you really use your Macbook much when you are asleep?

      No wonder the planet is screwed....

    18. Re:Uptime... by Yetihehe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Windows has gotten much better about not requiring restarts for updates. A huge change from its Windows 95/98 and NT days.

      Yeah, now in every update pack only 2 out of 10 updates require restart.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    19. Re:Uptime... by paniq · · Score: 1

      Hah. They used to say that Linux is slowly approaching the quality of Windows. Now I know the opposite is the case. Windows is approaching the quality of Linux, all by itself. Hackers, do nothing, just wait! Our favorite operating system will become faster and less error prone than Windows all by itself!

      --
      Do not trust this signature.
    20. Re:Uptime... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Hm. I run both Windows and Mac. I can't remember the last time I did any update to a Mac that didn't require a restart. It's really pretty annoying.

      Two just recently, do you actually watch the screens you click "OK" on?

      Most importantly, 99% of the Mac applications don't require a reboot, while >80% of the windows apps do (strictly speaking, they don't really require one, but they ask for it as if).

      That's a lot more annoying.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    21. Re:Uptime... by icebrain · · Score: 1

      I turn it (my Toshiba satellite) off when I travel with it, cause the latch for the lid is broken and there's no way to turn off the "wake up when lid is opened" behavior, so if I don't turn it off, it tends to wake up on its own if the lid opens a bit. I'd much rather bring it out of hibernation or sleep by hitting a button.

      I also restart occasionally (every couple weeks) when it starts slowing down too much. Or if the cats unplug it. And yes, I run regular antivirus and adware sweeps.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    22. Re:Uptime... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's supposedly fanciest new OS...

      Mojave?

    23. Re:Uptime... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Most importantly, 99% of the Mac applications don't require a reboot, while >80% of the windows apps do (strictly speaking, they don't really require one, but they ask for it as if).

      My impression is that this has decreased tremendously from a while ago. Older programs often require it, some programs that make system changes (like VMWare, which installs a driver) require it, and the occasional program (like Visual Studio, I think) requires it for who-knows-what reason, but I would say it's pretty rare. I don't know if it's just the programs I install (often fairly lightweight installations of OSS stuff, often ported from Unix), but in my experience it's probably under a third of the time that they even ask for a reboot.

      I think 80% is VASTLY overstating the problem. (Not that it isn't a problem and developers aren't dumb.)

    24. Re:Uptime... by turd_sandwich · · Score: 0

      - Because after undocking, Microsoft Outlook insists on opening on that (non-existent) monitor.

      Alt-tab to Outlook. Press Alt+Space, M, any arrow key, and move the mouse. Viola. You're welcome

    25. Re:Uptime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The major software updates (Mac OS, QuickTime, and some security updates) do require restarts -- but the nice thing about it is, it's now designed (since 10.5) to start the install when your computer comes back up, instead of installing before shutdown.

      So while it's annoying that it requires the restart (and it would require restart to take effect anyways), it's helpful in that you don't have to worry about making sure that you've closed out everything that might interfere with the install process. (My laptop even gives me a warning before I try to install software updates if the laptop isn't plugged into a power source.)

      Now, as to the frequency of those updates, that's another question.

    26. Re:Uptime... by drquoz · · Score: 1

      Really? Windows makes me restart every time I update. This is one of the many reasons I prefer to stay in Ubuntu.

    27. Re:Uptime... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      The only practical way this will ever work is coercing hardware manufacturers to stick to more specific standards. In practice, ACPI hasn't solved it.

      Historically, the most stable, reliable computer systems have by and large come from companies that produced both the hardware and the software. Solaris, AIX, z/OS, VMS are all examples of this.

      I'm not saying it's impossible for the scenario with Microsoft not producing the hardware to work, but I'm not sure it is when Microsoft insist on writing software which tries to be so damn forgiving of every crappy bit of hardware - particularly when they're big enough these days to tell hardware manufacturers that failure to follow the spec properly is their problem.

    28. Re:Uptime... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder what's wrong if you can't keep a Windows laptop up more than a week. You've either got some bad hardware, or you've done SOMETHING to make it unstable.

      I don't like Vista, but my laptop is happy with it. I don't have problems with anything, everything works. I can output thru HDMI, or S-Video, or the VGA port, or the Component out, and switch back to the internal monitor. It's been going for multiple weeks now without any issues.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    29. Re:Uptime... by remmelt · · Score: 1

      Oh really? I distinctly remember the time I left my work computer running a long task overnight, coming to the office in the morning and finding it had rebooted because of an update. It didn't save anything, it didn't ask anything, it just rebooted in the middle of my (unattended) work. The IT mister sets the updater on our Windows computers, so it wasn't even my fault. This was perhaps six months ago, using XP SP2.

      That was the morning I took two coffees instead of my usual just single.

    30. Re:Uptime... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Hm. External monitor on my right at home, that occasionally gets rotated to and from portrait mode. Different external monitor on my left at work. Plug into lots of different types of projectors and even an old non-HD plasma display. No rebooting unless there's a core OS update. OS X even remembers which monitor belongs on which side of the screen, and that I prefer to have it logically positioned slightly above so that the bottom hotcorners are easy to hit.

    31. Re:Uptime... by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      The docking capability is typically bolt-on third party software (at the driver level, no less,) so your laptop probably always thinks it has a 2nd monitor even when there's none hooked up, and so Outlook is allowed to open on a monitor that doesn't exist.

    32. Re:Uptime... by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      True but I can restart and log back in to OS X on my computer within 1 minute at most. Restarting my Vista (or XP when I had XP) computer literally takes a minimum of 5 minutes (even with most start-up programs disabled). A restart in OS X is far less obnoxious than one in Windows (at least for me).

    33. Re:Uptime... by Sunnz · · Score: 1

      Any vendor who still work on the assumption that a majority of their laptop customers to still turn off their machine everyday is doomed to fail.

    34. Re:Uptime... by Allador · · Score: 1

      Even on an airplane, use standby, dont actually shut the thing off.

      There's just a trickle of current to keep the ram alive, its no problem.

      Been flying that way for years, with nary a problem.

    35. Re:Uptime... by Allador · · Score: 1

      Even the linux based ones from DirectTV do that.

      My POS drops a few seconds right on the 15th minute of nearly every 30-minute show I record.

      That thing is so damn flaky.

    36. Re:Uptime... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Probably depends a lot on the type of programs you install. You're right, small tools don't often require a reboot. Games (even demos!) very often do. Larger applications do. And of course, anything that installs a driver does.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    37. Re:Uptime... by Bandman · · Score: 1

      Trust me, I curse Apple developers pretty frequently...it's not just you

  5. Instant on UI by rlp · · Score: 5, Funny

    The UI for the new "Instant-On Windows" is a black screen with the text "C:\>".

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Instant on UI by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      I would have thought it would be:

      Your group is currently "mkpasswd". This indicates that
      the /etc/passwd (and possibly /etc/group) files should be rebuilt.
      See the man pages for mkpasswd and mkgroup then, for example, run
      mkpasswd -l [-d] > /etc/passwd
      mkgroup -l [-d] > /etc/group
      Note that the -d switch is necessary for domain users.

      goodb0fh@b0fhmobile ~

      That way, I can run mplayer and other things too.

    2. Re:Instant on UI by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny

      Close; the instant-on feature allows you a myriad of options, including a) continuing to boot into windows (2 minutes), or b) turn off computer. This will take a few years to implement, though.

    3. Re:Instant on UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh, i keep reading mkpasswd as "mmmmkay password".. mmmkay?

    4. Re:Instant on UI by mangu · · Score: 5, Funny

      How cute, an emoticon of a frowning bald guy with a goatee! What does it mean?

    5. Re:Instant on UI by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if you choose A, you'll get three pop-ups:

      "Are you sure you want to boot to application? Yes/No"

      "Windows needs your permission to use this program: Windows. If you do not trust the source do not use this program. This program can potentially harm your computer. Allow/Cancel"

      "Confirm boot-up to Windows: Yes/No"

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Instant on UI by kimvette · · Score: 4, Funny

      How cute, an emoticon of a frowning bald guy with a goatee! What does it mean?

      Maybe it means Steve Ballmer grew a goatee?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    7. Re:Instant on UI by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It's the anti-Ballmer. Customeres! Customers! Customers!

    8. Re:Instant on UI by MrMunkey · · Score: 1

      I saw a guy with a big nose wearing a party hat when looking at it right to left.

    9. Re:Instant on UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it means Steve Ballmer grew a goatee?

      Somehow I read that as Steve Ballmer blew a goat

    10. Re:Instant on UI by DarkTitan_X · · Score: 1

      How cute, an emoticon of a frowning bald guy with a goatee! What does it mean?

      It's Steve Ballmer sticking his tongue out.

      --
      ~Mike (Titan_X)
    11. Re:Instant on UI by fizzding · · Score: 1

      It couldn't be... Ballmer has a forked tongue.

    12. Re:Instant on UI by paniq · · Score: 1

      Remove the goatee, add high frequent blinking and occasional tongue licks, and I can tell you what it means. It means a lost election.

      --
      Do not trust this signature.
    13. Re:Instant on UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The UI for the new "Instant-On Windows" is a black screen with the text "C:\>"."

      Yes, but when you minimize this you find the full desktop Windows has been loaded behind it!

    14. Re:Instant on UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it means Steve Ballmer grew a goatee?

      Somehow I read that as Steve Ballmer blew a goat

      You see, there is more to him than chair-throwing and monkey-dancing. I fail to see how that's supposed to get their developers going though.

    15. Re:Instant on UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means you are either old and have forever remained on the UNIX command-line, or you are young and have never worked on computers without a GUI.

      Either way you are in a blessed state of bliss that should not be interupted by explaining the true horror that is the MS-DOS command-line. So many backslashes ... the horror.

      I suppose it is also possible you have forgotten due to the severity of the past trauma inflicted.

    16. Re:Instant on UI by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Sounds like famous pervert Gary Glitter.

    17. Re:Instant on UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks more like a bored Muslim dude.

  6. Sure! by Progman3K · · Score: 0, Troll

    So when it blue-screens you will not have to wait as long, brilliant!

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  7. BSOD=Instant Off by TheNecromancer · · Score: 2, Funny

    MS finally got around to complementing their Instant Off feature!

    Kudos to them!

    --
    Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
  8. WinTerm by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a windows terminal to me. You can be instant on, and lease all your applications from microsoft.

    Of course, now that we have metered service back, that will again kill the ASP business model off, this time once and for all. ( just in time for us all having enough bandwidth to make it finally work, the rug was pulled out from underneath us )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  9. Sounds like MinWin by Valtor · · Score: 1

    That sounds like MinWin, which is a very good thing. I would love to have the option of booting in a very minimal Win32 OS !

    --
    "Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org
    1. Re:Sounds like MinWin by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      My friend customized XP and got it to run only 2 services (which he couldn't disable). It was very small and ran really well. He couldn't install things or access the network though. Still, it had awesome FPS ratios in games :D

      --
      ics
    2. Re:Sounds like MinWin by mangu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try end it all. It doesnt affect boot time, you do a normal boot and then run end-it-all, but its great for games, you get more fps and, more important, less crashes.

    3. Re:Sounds like MinWin by harry666t · · Score: 1

      LinuxBIOS guys (now CoreBoot) have had 6 seconds from pressing the "power" button to an xterm. Combine this with Wine... No, not an ideal solution, Wine is still way behind real Windows, but for many apps it works just fine.

  10. Why give an option? by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Certainly there must be a way to offer these "instant on" apps while the rest of the subsystems load in the background. And if that's true then there's no need for an option, just always do it. It sounds like it's only an all-or-nothing proposition because they're copying the way others are currently doing it.

    1. Re:Why give an option? by OglinTatas · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...because they're copying the way others are currently doing it."

      because they're innovating the way others are currently doing it.

    2. Re:Why give an option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly there must be a way to offer these "instant on" apps while the rest of the subsystems load in the background.

      Yes, because the "Log me in and show my desktop, but don't let me do anything while you load everything in the background" is great right now. If they try to go "instant on" and load the rest of the subsystems in the background, then you'll have to stare at your desktop for 8 minutes instead of 3, hoping your boss doesn't come over and see you staring at an empty desktop. Granted, part of this problem is corporate crapware installed on my box by corporate IT, but not all of it.

    3. Re:Why give an option? by fermion · · Score: 1
      I agree. Windows should just boot up quickly, and be instant on from sleep. I think this is a minimum requirement. I think in the bad old days, the it was good to have the windows logo sitting there for multiple minutes for branding purposes, unlike the MS DOS days when one did not even know what the OS was a the diagnostics and loading were done in seconds.

      Now that MS does not need to brand MS Windows, and in fact ran away from the brand with MS Vista, some work was done to get move to the desktop quickly. But that just deferred some work until after the user logged in. Honestly, if the machine was responsive 15-30 seconds after the desktop loaded, it would not be so bad. Some it may be an XP issue fixed in Vista. Some of it should be solved when MS has 100% of the OS code threaded and optimized for multicores. I think this would be much better use of time than hacking a PDA on top of the OS.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:Why give an option? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      All they really need to do is to train their users to use "Sleep" mode on their laptops. I mean, seriously, when I open up my HP tablet it's every time they shut the lid! Why? I don't know, I doubt they know. But I also bet those are the same people complaining about the lack of "instant-on."

    5. Re:Why give an option? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      I agree. Windows should just boot up quickly, and be instant on from sleep. I think this is a minimum requirement. I think in the bad old days, the it was good to have the windows logo sitting there for multiple minutes for branding purposes, unlike the MS DOS days when one did not even know what the OS was a the diagnostics and loading were done in seconds.

      Agreed. Linux (and *nix) distros usually display an animated start screen like Windows and Mac OS X do, but for diagnostic purposes you can just hit a key and see the startup messages going behind the scenes. (IIRC that's possible with OS X - - isn't it?) I wish Windows offered the ability to show what was happening during the enumeration/boot process so users could pin down booting bottlenecks.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    6. Re:Why give an option? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      They used to. That went away with the death of the Win9x branch.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:Why give an option? by Pope · · Score: 1

      OS X has a "verbose" mode, hold down Command-V when starting up.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    8. Re:Why give an option? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      you can see it... but once you have you'll wish you hadn't :-)

      google for bootlog.txt, its a log file of everything Windows does when booting if you enable it. Googling to remind myself of the instructions to enable it tells me that Process Monitor now has an 'enable boot logging' option that's all nice and gui and easy to use.

    9. Re:Why give an option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about virtualisation? Start up the hypervisor + instant on, then send Windows slow boot off in the background. Just need a way of migrating the session across once the full system is started.

    10. Re:Why give an option? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      I am surprised that companies are JUST NOW getting into this concept of instant on. My C64 was instant on 25 years ago. Granted, I then had to type LOAD"$",8
      LIST

      then when I made sure it was the right disk,
      LOAD"KONGO BONGO",8,1
      and wait about 90 seconds for it to load up the 50k program.

    11. Re:Why give an option? by Allador · · Score: 1

      Add /SOS to the boot line.

      Gives you mostly what you want. But to be honest, it goes by so fast its almost unusable.

    12. Re:Why give an option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No fucking kidding. It seems like it should be trivially easy with the hardware available these days to do instant on with no trouble at all.

      I know this is antithetical to the anti-MS crap out there, but my old-ass Dell D600 laptop can resume from suspend in under a minute. From zero power to actually doing work.

      So MS could easily implement a boot up process that uses ideas from this that makes any computer completely functional in seconds. Windows could build a memory image (like the hiberfile) that's loaded upon bootup. If a customer wants even faster boot-up speed, they could install a 2gb flash memory card that would contain this image. Hell, there could be a couple of images available (docked or undocked?). It probably wouldn't take more than a couple of ms to determine whether the computer is in the same hardware state it was when it shut down. If it's not, it could go through the full boot process and do what it needs to.

      (I suspect some of the reason why they haven't done this yet is fear that an OS that's effectively always-on will develop memory leaks and other performance issues, and that forcing the occasional reboot clears them up nicely. Well, that's not my fault. Design a better OS that doesn't allow bad apps to take it down.)

      I honestly don't understand what the OS is doing that takes all this time to boot up anyway. There must be tons of fail-safes and initializations that are occurring to check for configuration changes.

      And probably a ton of lazy programming- I'm seeing more and more of that- why does it take my cell phone over a minute to boot? What the hell is it doing? Same with my cable box. There just aren't that many more features in those things as the older ones. I had a DynaTac phone in 1993 that took, I don't know, 4 seconds to start up and be ready to use. Hit the button, get a light test, hear that pleasant Motorola tone and start dialing. Cable box was the same way- it was ready to go before the TV's tube was warmed up and on.

  11. Nothing new here.... by FutureCIS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is it that Microsoft has no original ideas of their own? Have you ever noticed that whenever Microsoft puts out a new product/service/concept there is substantial proof that it has already been done by someone else? The worse part of this whole thing is, Microsoft convinces the public that their idea is something new!!! Whats wrong with all the Sheeple!!!

    1. Re:Nothing new here.... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Why is it that Microsoft has no original ideas of their own?

      I would think it comes from having almost no competition for nearly a long time. Look at what happened to IE after they won the browser wars. Now that there is competition, they have to shift from the strategy of defense to offense. The problem is in the meantime, MS has added multiple lines of businesses and find themselves unfocused without a clear strategy of what to do with so many fronts. A strong leader might be able to point them in the right direction. My personal opinion is that Ballmer is not such a person.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Nothing new here.... by FutureCIS · · Score: 1

      I agree with you there, Ballmer is not the man for the job.

    3. Re:Nothing new here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simpsons did it!

  12. Instant On by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, so, you can get Windows instantly, but note that it says you will be limited to the applications and what you can do.

    I'm not another "me too, me too" Linux fan, I've been using it as my main desktop for 18 months. And the Linux instant on desktops are fully featured. Not cut down. Sorry Microsoft, you fail.

  13. Obligate smartypants reply... by catdevnull · · Score: 1, Funny

    "...it limits what activities you can do and what applications you can have access to..."

    Sort of like Vista, eh?

    [hit 'submit' before changing my mind...]

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
    1. Re:Obligate smartypants reply... by catdevnull · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? Since when are there Vista fanboys with modpoints here? :-P

      C'mon--you know it's funny.

      --

      I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  14. Nope. by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instant on is useless if you can't do everything you want; which is what this is.

    How about an don't need to reboot version?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you'll always need to reboot occasionally to clear up (and defragment?) RAM.

    2. Re:Nope. by qoncept · · Score: 0, Troll

      Like Ubuntu? Wait! It made me reboot yesterday.

      --
      Whale
    3. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AGREED!!! I hate having to reboot! And Instant on is already available.. its called SLEEP MODE!

    4. Re:Nope. by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, did you need to do a full reboot (like for a kernel upgrade), or did you just need to log out and back in, or maybe restart X?

      Cheers,

      --
      "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
      "A four-foot prune."
    5. Re:Nope. by qoncept · · Score: 1, Troll

      I don't know. I had a little recycle icon that told me I needed to reboot in notifications. I never did -- it crashed on its own overnight (as it so often does) and I restarted today. I've been using Ubuntu for a few months now and I'm trying to learn as little as possible.

      --
      Whale
    6. Re:Nope. by wed128 · · Score: 1

      What if i'm coming home late from work, and want to just check my e-mail before bed? currently, i have to boot into my ubuntu machine (takes several minutes, more probably then windows but it's worth it). I would be happy with a 'web-browser-only' option, but my motherboard doesn't support those fancy flash-linuxes...

    7. Re:Nope. by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      It's got its uses... just like the limited Linux "instant on" laptops that let you watch DVDs. It's handy on a trip. You can watch a movie without anything else consuming battery life but the resources necessary to watch your flick.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    8. Re:Nope. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It shows. My systems have never crashed on their own, only when I do something stupid and try to twiddle something a way it's not to be twiddled.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:Nope. by cawpin · · Score: 1

      If Ubuntu is crashing there's problem with your system in particular. My server at home is running 8.04, upgraded from 7.10, upgraded from 7.04. It has NEVER crashed.

    10. Re:Nope. by domatic · · Score: 1

      Something is wrong. I won't say my Ubuntu boxes have never crashed but they are few and far between. Both of my Ubuntu desktops last for at least several months worth of uptime and usually longer. If you have some local Linux talent available, throw the guy a beer to tshoot it for you. As with Windows, the culprit tends to be video drivers. If you're using ndiswrapper or some such then suspect the wireless driver as well.

      I'll also note that I don't run the oh-so-trendy spinning cube desktop. At least not yet.

    11. Re:Nope. by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

      My ASUS PC I built has instant on ability to play CD's without booting into an OS.

      Various laptops let you do this and more.

      I'd love an instant on ability to play DVD's using my laptop, without the overhead of the OS. Wouldn't the battery life be much longer if the only thing running was a properly written DVD player?

      Give me the options of a basic web browser, DVD/CD player, and perhaps TV w/out OS. At least that way when my wife's XP laptop BSODs due to some crappy software again, she can still use it for what she primarily uses it for until I have time to do a manual system restore.

    12. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computers don't "just crash" any more. Even my Windows machines runs for months these days. Linux doesn't seem to have as many bad driver problems, so I'd guess you have a hardware problem most likely the memory. Make a copy of the Ultimate Bootable CD and run Memtest and maybe the disk checker for whatever brand disk you have. Good luck.

    13. Re:Nope. by quantumphaze · · Score: 1

      The spiny cube is so last version. All bow before the spiny cylinder/sphere B-)

    14. Re:Nope. by qoncept · · Score: 1

      Very possible, but Windows doesn't crash like that. One of the problems seems to be with starting and/or stopping sleep mode. Which would be fine, because I have sleep mode turned off, but it will still be in sleep mode when I come back to it sometimes.

      I like the guy that modded me troll for answering a question, so I'll go ahead and earn it. I'm a linux newb and using Ubuntu has been a horrible pain in the ass. The button you click to shut down/log off doesn't work -- if I click it, nothing happens except the only input I can get the computer to accept is (umm.. it's been a while.. alt-ctrl-backspace?). When switching users, the original session crashes frequently. When it doesn't, the login sound will sometimes play in a loop until I reboot. Pidgin crashes with a cryptic error in debug mode, I've found no help, and when submitting a bug to the Pidgin dev team, they refer me to a 404 error that is apparently tells me how to get a back trace. Ubuntu, which everyone assures me can run virtually forever without a reboot, gives me that need-to-reboot message probably once a week. Doom Legacy locks everything up. Wine doesn't seem at all intuitive to me. I can't remember what, specifically, but probably 10 unique problems with other apps crashing were fixed by needing to stop compiz. USB drives are finnicky as hell. And every time I do find help, it involves a terminal instead of just using the GUI (whether or not it actually has to be done in a terminal). Fine, I can do that, but that's never going to work for a mainstream OS.

      Sure, I'm a newb, but I'm not an idiot. I haven't spent a lot of time figuring these things out because I'm trying to avoid computers at home. I'm not the fiddling geek I used to be. That is a lot of problems with no apparent cause. All on hardware that runs Windows XP just fine. I don't know why I'm still using it.

      --
      Whale
    15. Re:Nope. by cawpin · · Score: 1

      That's a very weird combo of problems you have. Do you have some odd hardware in your system? I've run into problems with Compiz, but not in a while and not on a graphics card made in the last 3-4 years. If you're having problems with something as simple as the shutdown button something seriously wrong has happened, or been done, to your installation. I'm not pointing fingers but you may have borked something while trying to learn. We've all done it. I would seriously suggest backing up your important data and reinstalling. Starting fresh and knowing WHEN a symptom started is half the battle.

      I was in the same boat as you about 5-6 years ago. Be glad that you have a distribution like Ubuntu and the community that comes with it. I started messing with Linux just before Redhat became Fedora, RPM hell and all.

    16. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the battery life be much longer if the only thing running was a properly written DVD player?

      Probably not. Most of the power drain if you're "just" watching a DVD is going to be the DVD drive and the screen - the software that's running (or not) isn't likely to be a major factor.

  15. I have a great name for this by whyde · · Score: 1

    They can call it DOS.

  16. Instant on while it loads up the rest? by slysithesuperspy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can't we have best of both worlds? Perhaps booting instantly a browser and basic apps, and then loading up other stuff in the background?

    Or how about it loading up bits that you need, when you need them?

  17. What an original idea - NOT! by gabrieltss · · Score: 2, Informative

    What joke!

    We did this with an 68020 Amiga 2000 back in the early ninties. We bought an eeprom board and burned the whole Amiga OS (all 6 880K floppies and the rom image) to eeprom then plugged the board into the rom slot. The Amiga came up within milliseconds with the Workbench screen. Of course if you tried to do this with windows you would need 100 gigbytes of memory to do it...

    Ok, next original idea from Microsoft please....

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
    1. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by jonnythan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No one said it was an original idea.

      Does it need to be an original idea for them to implement it? Are only original ideas worth adding to an OS?

    2. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Does it need to be an original idea for them to implement it?"

      Only if it is Microsoft - the bar is higher for them because nobody likes the company.

    3. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by butalearner · · Score: 5, Informative

      No one said it was an original idea.

      Does it need to be an original idea for them to implement it? Are only original ideas worth adding to an OS?

      Nobody, that is, except Microsoft in the actual survey. From TFA:

      "We would like your feedback on a new concept," the Microsoft survey states, according to a leaked version sent to Engadget.

    4. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only does it not be original for them to use it, it doesn't have to be original for them to pattent it! Which I'm sure they will...

    5. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by qoncept · · Score: 1

      Was a 6mb eeprom any less expensive in "the early 90s" than 100gb of RAM would be now? And how is writing a 6mb operating system to an eeprom comparable to loading only bare essential libraries to do basic tasks with a modern (scratch that; future) operating system? Get a life, man. Girls like sensitive guys, but they want you to be sensitive to them, not Bill Gates.

      --
      Whale
    6. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by speedtux · · Score: 1

      Microsoft said it was a new idea:

      'We would like your feedback on a new concept,' the Microsoft survey states.

      Of course, those kinds of misrepresentations are the rule rather than the exception for Microsoft.

    7. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by ChrisMounce · · Score: 1

      Mod up. Not only is the quote in the article, it's in the summary as well.

    8. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. For Windows. This may come as a surprise to some slashdotters, particularly autistic ones such as yourself, but when most people hear MS talking about new concepts in regards to Windows, they automatically get the connection between the two. Most people don't need to have a "for Windows" qualifier thrown into every statement to understand that MS is not claiming a completely original, never-before-seen feature that they are introducing to the world.

      Windows + New Feature = New Feature for Windows. It is really is that simple.

    9. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone remember ads that (I thought) Microsoft was running some years back, talking about all the things they were working on? The one thing I remember from the ad was "a computer that turned on like a lamp." In other words: instant-on.

      It's not a new idea, but it seems there is more of an effort to make a marketable instant-on computer set-up/system.

    10. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      They have earned that reputation.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    11. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simpsons did it.

    12. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I see your Miggie and raise you an Apple //c. Those things could boot straight to the ROM BASIC, no floppies needed. Not as capable as yours, but this was 1984-5.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    13. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 Gigs of memory is all you would need...Can you please not give those idiots any ideas!

    14. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      but it is a new concept... for Windows, and to Microsoft's view of the world, that's the only thing that matters.

      New != already done by someone else, not when they can market it as Microsoft 'innovating'.

    15. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 1

      We are still talking about windows, right?
      So what do you want with the original ideas thingy? I mean, the day Microsoft starts to actually implement new ideas I will probably start looking for flying pigs - and actually find some..

    16. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by misaltas · · Score: 1

      >Does it need to be an original idea for them to implement it?

      Of course not, but normally one asks for feedback about a new idea, not one that's already well established and the pros/cons well understood.

    17. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by wilsoniya · · Score: 1

      Does it need to be an original idea for them to implement it? Are only original ideas worth adding to an OS?

      "Those who fail to learn from UNIX are failed to repeat it."

      --
      I can't remember the last time I forgot anything.
    18. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aaahhh! So that explains why the keep saying they are innovative when it's obvious to anyone there aren't. All that BS has been an innovation for Windows.

    19. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      The point isn't whether or not they deserve people not liking them, the point was that even potentially good ideas become bad because people have a preconception that anything coming from MS is necessarily going to be bad. Earned or not, having the standard of "good idea" or "bad idea" different for two companies does not seem to be rationally honest.

      The same is true for Apple, Google, etc. People's perception of the company tints their reaction to what the company comes out with.

    20. Re:What an original idea - NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something wrong keyboard? Words letters missing.

  18. Full windows? by superphreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article:
    The concept is called 'Instant On'. 'Instant On' takes your computer from being completely powered down or 'turned off' to being usable for a few specific activities in a very short amount of time."
    Glad they clarified that powered down and turned off are the same thing. S3, anyone? Small power draw and "instant on" with "full features." I wonder if instant on will be (much) faster than resuming from hibernate. It would be hard to justify an instant on for limited features unless it's a whole lot faster than resuming from hibernate.

    "Obviously the systems that are greater than 60 seconds have something we need to dramatically improve- whether these are devices, networking, or software issues."
    So, instant on will shave it down to... 30 seconds? Also have to wonder if this will be standard in 7 or something you get to pay extra for.

    --
    Evolution is a state-sponsored, state-protected religion.
    1. Re:Full windows? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      30 seconds isn't instant. Instant means it's on instantly. Sounds like someone is applying buzzwords to things they don't fit on.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Full windows? by superphreak · · Score: 1

      I just arbitrarily said "30 seconds," since instant, from the article, is not definite: "a very short amount of time." Going from 60 to 30 might qualify as "a very short amount of time"...

      --
      Evolution is a state-sponsored, state-protected religion.
    3. Re:Full windows? by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      Quick, someone needs to inform the companies that manufacture instant soup!

    4. Re:Full windows? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Going from 60 to 30 might qualify as "a very short amount of time"...

      In geological time, yes. When you're staring at the screen, no.

    5. Re:Full windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was recently demonstrated that a suitably-configured Linux system can boot from cold to a fully-operational desktop with no loading going on in the background in five seconds flat.

      Obviously that's just a demo at the moment -- you won't get anything like that performance if you just install Ubuntu. But it's the new gold standard for everyone to aim for. It's a shame that Microsoft appear to be taking the easy route out and making their "instant on" boot to a crippled desktop. So much for Microsoft innovation and OSS copying...

  19. Wow! What a novel idea! by butalearner · · Score: 1

    I'm glad we have Microsoft to come up with these innovative ideas, because Linux developers could never come up with something like this on our own! Thanks Microsoft!

    1. Re:Wow! What a novel idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because this was all about Microsoft claiming a new idea. Slashdot retards attack!!!

    2. Re:Wow! What a novel idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously the Linux developers traveled into the future, stole Microsoft's idea, brought it back in time and implemented it! Like many Microsoft innovations, this idea has been stolen by their sneaky time-traveling competitors!

    3. Re:Wow! What a novel idea! by butalearner · · Score: 5, Informative

      Right, because this was all about Microsoft claiming a new idea. Slashdot retards attack!!!

      I know this is Slashdot, but you could at least try to RTFA:

      We would like your feedback on a new concept...The concept is called 'Instant On'. 'Instant On' takes your computer from being completely powered down or 'turned off' to being usable for a few specific activities in a very short amount of time.

      Quick! Slashdot Microsoft apologists to the rescue!

    4. Re:Wow! What a novel idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "Slashdot fucktards", we don't want to insult actual mentally challenged folks who usually operate at a higher mental capacity than is displayed by many of the comments on Slashdot. :)

    5. Re:Wow! What a novel idea! by thewils · · Score: 1

      Hey, I want that Splashtop Toaster that they have in their video demo. Apparently it's a no-wait one. You just turn it on and up pops the toast, no waiting whatsoever!!

      Cool! At least that's probably what the toast is. It's a bad analogy worthy of slashdot, even my windoze box boots faster than it takes to toast a couple rounds of bread. Or even a bagel. But I digress.

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    6. Re:Wow! What a novel idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We would like your feedback on a new concept...The concept is called 'Instant On'. 'Instant On' takes your computer from being completely powered down or 'turned off' to being usable for a few specific activities in a very short amount of time.

      Wow, I haven't seen that much bullshit flow out of a Marketing department since they invented the word "Verizon".

      Sorry, but this isn't a new concept at all. Sleep/hibernate mode is only slightly different than this, draws an insignificant amount of battery power when in that mode, and therefore has little justification to be replaced/updated with this nonsense.

      Still have a 6-year old IBM notebook running XP that I never power completely down. Works like a champ every time you open the lid.

    7. Re:Wow! What a novel idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because this was all about Microsoft claiming a new idea. Slashdot retards attack!!!

      I know this is Slashdot, but you could at least try to RTFA:

      We would like your feedback on a new concept...The concept is called 'Instant On'. 'Instant On' takes your computer from being completely powered down or 'turned off' to being usable for a few specific activities in a very short amount of time.

      Quick! Slashdot Microsoft apologists to the rescue!

      Wow - can you people find another insult for the internet that isn't a some derivative of 'lulz @ u fanboiz'?

    8. Re:Wow! What a novel idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Context is your friend.

      Windows has never had instant-on tech. They're proposing an instant-on Windows. This would be a new concept since there isn't already an instant-on version of Windows.

      Even given that Linux has instant-on tech (even though, technically Linux itself doesn't have the instant-on tech, the RTOS it runs on top of in Splashtop does), it doesn't make the concept of an instant-on Windows an old idea.

      Furthermore, instant-on tech has never been implemented on a mainstream, consumer-oriented desktop operating system before, since, well, lets face it, at less than 1% of the overall market, Linux is anything but mainstream.

  20. Vista loading times *Configuring updates* by jadedoto · · Score: 1

    After sitting through "Please Wait. Configuring Updates" every time that I would shut down and boot Vista, this would in fact be a welcomed change. Well, I switched to Linux anyway... But okay.

  21. Nothing new here....Headlights. by Ostracus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Why is it that Microsoft has no original ideas of their own?"

    One could very well ask FOSS the same question. Any takers?

    "The worse part of this whole thing is, Microsoft convinces the public that their idea is something new!!!"

    Like Apple?

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:Nothing new here....Headlights. by FutureCIS · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "One could very well ask FOSS the same question. Any takers?" You can ask but I guarantee you that FOSS has more original ideas then Microsoft. "Like Apple?" Apple at least embraces the open source community and plays an active role in it.

    2. Re:Nothing new here....Headlights. by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Informative

      "One could very well ask FOSS the same question. Any takers?"

      You can ask but I guarantee you that FOSS has more original ideas then Microsoft.

      "Like Apple?"

      Apple at least embraces the open source community and plays an active role in it.

      Apple embraces the open source community with the most locked down systems and electronics made by any vendor not working on a defense contract. That must be a tight embrace.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    3. Re:Nothing new here....Headlights. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Like Apple?

      Apple borrows a lot from existing technology but I have never seen them claim that they invented it. Where people see Apple as a leader is that they have at times been a pioneer in implementing it before others have. For example, PCs started coming with USB (which was invented by Intel) around 1993, however Apple was the first to drop all their other peripheral ports besides USB (and Firewire) starting with the original iMac. To this day, most PCs motherboards still come with legacy PS/2 and serial ports that are rarely used.

      Things that I remember Apple being the 1st in laptops: trackpads, integrated camera and microphone, magsafe power adapter, slot optical drives, multi-touch trackpads.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Nothing new here....Headlights. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      FOSS has lots of original ideas. They just languish in obscurity and die because everyone wants to run something that looks like Windows.

    5. Re:Nothing new here....Headlights. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple embraces the open source community with the most locked down systems and electronics made by any vendor not working on a defense contract. That must be a tight embrace.

      Really?

  22. Ok, and now get me an instant-off feature please. by anomnomnomymous · · Score: 1

    They might as well get to work on an instant-shutdown feature too: Whereas I know the sortof exact time it takes my machine to boot up (to the point where you recognize the beeps and clicks of the HD ;-) ), it's always different in how much time it will take to turn off.

    I can't really pinpoint why it sometimes takes ages for it too shut down: I have a habit of closing all my running programs first (not the ones in the trays), so the shutdown times shouldn't be too different.

    --
    When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
  23. If you wanted an uptime contest... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Look, I can beat you in an uptime contest. Observe:
    1. 13:27:54 up 29 days, 19:11, 8 users, load average: 0.01, 0.06, 0.07
    2. 13:33:46 up 101 days, 4:32, 1 user, load average: 0.20, 0.05, 0.01

    But I can think of plenty of reasons to turn a notebook off. For example, a kernel update (we get those a lot in Fedora). Or a hardware upgrade. Or a low battery. Or extended storage. Or, if you are using a dual-boot system, to switch OSes.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by thewils · · Score: 4, Funny

      FreeBSD box :) up 465 days, 1:48, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    2. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by matt4077 · · Score: 1

      With those loads, Al Gore would like to talk to you. But seriously, I was just trying to make the point that the hardware is able to handle standby well, so why don't they work on improving that? Or is standby working perfectly on windows, but it's the users that feel they have to turn the machine off for every coffee break (I've seen that quite a few times with Mac users, where I KNOW it's ridiculous).

    3. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's it?

    4. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Trashman · · Score: 3, Funny

      FreeBSD box :) up 465 days, 1:48, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

      Bah, HPUX 11.0:

          2:00pm up 613 days, 19:43, 17 users, load average: 0.19, 0.19, 0.19

      --
      Do not read this .sig
    5. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by JustinOpinion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uptime contests are fun and all. But I'm always suspicious of systems with very long uptimes: they probably haven't had a kernel update since that last reboot... meaning that they are a highly vulnerable box.

      My Ubuntu machine has uptimes that are about 30-90 days, which is entirely based on new kernel releases. I've never had an unintended reboot (e.g. from a freeze or crash).

      (Yes, there are methods of updating the kernel without rebooting... but most people with massive uptimes seem to achieve it not by using these tricks but rather by not touching the box.)

    6. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I see your FreeBSD and raise you, um . . . FreeBSD

      su-2.05$ uptime
      10:57AM up 737 days, 1:11, 11 users, load averages: 0.01, 0.07, 0.07

    7. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by butalearner · · Score: 5, Funny

      I see your FreeBSD and raise you, um . . . FreeBSD

      su-2.05$ uptime 10:57AM up 737 days, 1:11, 11 users, load averages: 0.01, 0.07, 0.07

      You guys are all weak. Windows Vista Ultimate:

      11:03:42 up 1010 days, 8:11, 1 user, load average: 0.99, 0.99, 0.99

      I'm almost completely booted up now!

    8. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Ramjet350 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bah, Suse ES10 2:06pm up 642 days 20:26, 3 users, load average: 0.30, 0.22, 0.18 :)

    9. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you really want some uptime:

      2:17pm up 229 days 22:51, 74 users, load average: 0.73, 0.81, 0.91

    10. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    11. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd tell you my OpenVMS uptime but it would be awkward and uncomfortable to see you cry.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    12. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 2, Funny

      I knew a guy that was so proud of the uptime of one of his servers that he actually used a battery backup and a cart to move the thing when he had to move it as part of a remodel. I don't remember the exact number of days but he was into the year+ range as well.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    13. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Trashman · · Score: 1

      The beauty of Unix is that you can update most of the software independently of the kernel. but you're right, if you don't apply updates then you can be vulnerable. Another thing to consider is some faulty HW doesn't get noticed until boot time. So you can never be absolutely certain that it's working. Sometimes there's even silent corruption of the Filesystem.

      --
      Do not read this .sig
    14. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      CentOS Server: up 1071 days, 10:29, 2 users, load average: 0.07, 0.11, 0.69

    15. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1

      Look, I can beat you in an uptime contest.

      Oh, but you couldn't beat him in a hipness contest, you vile non-Mac user. ;)

      To get back on track, though, the parent's point wasn't really to never have to turn the notebook off, but merely that such features as sleep-to-RAM and hibernation pretty much negates the usefulness of an "instant on" system like the one in TFA.

      It's one thing to have to reboot every once in a blue moon due to a kernel update (though I might suggest that you look into Debian stable if you are disturbed by frequency of updates ;) or hardware upgrades, but I'd be able to bet a lot that's not really the kind of opportunity that one would use an "instant on" system anyways. When you run into a low battery or even when switching OSes, you can just hibernate.

      If anything, I for one would appreciate a coreboot-compatible notebook computer, since the BIOS seems to be what takes the longest time to get through when going back from hibernation. But that would most likely apply to the "instant on" system as well.

    16. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Trashman · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd tell you my OpenVMS uptime but it would be awkward and uncomfortable to see you cry.

      Slashdot: Where uptime is considered the equivalent of your penis size. :-)

      --
      Do not read this .sig
    17. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by stim · · Score: 1

      14:30:51 up 482 days, 1:43, 23 users, load average: 6.95, 4.46, 4.28 Debian Sarge.

      --
      Browse at -1 to keep an eye out for abuses.
    18. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uptime contests are fun and all. But I'm always suspicious of systems with very long uptimes: they probably haven't had a kernel update since that last reboot... meaning that they are a highly vulnerable box.

      The box I'm currently logged into.

      19:31:01 up 339 days, 8:28, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

      I build my own kernels, they're as minimal as possible so not all the subsystems are present. Actually I think there was a local kernel vuln I let slide some months back but I decided to let it go because I was planning to swap the entire physical server out (delayed -- but before 365). Frankly local access is all most attackers want these days. I've got (current firmware) hardware firewalls, additionally all daemons and system libs are up to date.

      I'd dispute your claim of "highly vulnerable", this particular server has a single known locally exploitable kernel vuln but it's already over the moment an attacker gains local. It's never happened BTW, in over a decade of working as in-house admin.

    19. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by domatic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another thing to consider is some faulty HW doesn't get noticed until boot time.

      In the case of certain types of disc failure, that is a good reason not to power down a server unless forced to. Note that I say "power down" and not "reboot" as rebooting doesn't usually spin down the platters. I've had long running machines survive reboots fine but lose a disk or two if forcibly powered down. Ike remnants took us down for a week and I had quite the fun time rebuilding a raid array that failed one of members proper and the designated hotspare. Prior to the outage, that machine had been up for 6 months.

      I'm not going to get into the habit of powering down servers just to see if the disks will spin back up or not. The moral of this little story is that the platters of a disk may well be fine but the mechanicals driving them may not do the correct things if they have to start from a cold state.

    20. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I mananaged a NetWare 3.11 server that we installed some time in 1993 I think, and didn't get shut down until 2002. It overflowed the date counter at least twice in one stretch, and was finally shut down for drive replacements with 179 days on it. We think it was up for 2177 days, and missed every patch that was 'critical' during that time. It served a dedicated app, and was happy in a very cold corner of the machine room next to a row of AS/400 racks that probably beat it for uptime. Being cold helped those old Fujitsu drives go much longer than I expected...

      We put a Slackware box in shortly after that to do proxy, mail forwarding, and VPN and it stayed up for over 200 days at a time between drive swaps and the VPN install. This was before spam was king. Oh, and it got pwned twice in a month, no thanks to MCI putting a pink slip spammer in our subnet. Nice work, guys, hope you didn't spend your commission all in one place. Can you tell I'm not bitter?

      My email server has run either Red Hat for up to 660 days at a stretch, or Fedora for well over 500 days several times over the years. Lately, I've been fiddling with it and causing some great panics, as well as trying to make FC3 work with current Bind, OpenSSL, etc.

      There are lots of Linux boxen out there cranking stupid uptimes. Some of them are actually workstations, while servers with less than 100+ days uptime should be considered unstable, out of date, or are being changed a lot...

      Now, show me some Windows server with uptime in 3 digits, and that would be remarkable. Should we handicap Windows for the patch problems???

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    21. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your system is sitting there doing nothing? Awesome.

        12:02pm up 254 day(s), 3:35, 3 users, load average: 14.66, 15.92, 15.19

    22. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by paniq · · Score: 1

      And there I was, believing that uptime penis comparisons were a thing of the past.

      --
      Do not trust this signature.
    23. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Zhila+the+Great+Z · · Score: 1

      I don't quite understand why people tend to be so proud of their unnecessarily long uptime. After all, a penis larger than 9 inches (23 centimeters) is mostly wasted.

    24. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      Since we all know that BSD is dying... does that uptime indicate a large number of zombie processes?

      sorry.... ;)

    25. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow! Has Vista been out that long already? Man, time flies....

      --
      What?
    26. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by BUL2294 · · Score: 1

      Netware 3.12 - 5174 days, 21 hours, 48 minutes, 19 seconds

      Go 486DX2/66, go!

      --
      Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
    27. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh.

        22:02:30 up 875 days, 2:07, 7 users, load average: 1.49, 1.19, 1.34

      CentOS 4. Performs real work. Solid as a friggin' rock. I like it.

    28. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by MazzThePianoman · · Score: 1

      Able to use Adobe Creative Suite 3 & Play Spore > Uptime preen length

      --
      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Franklin
    29. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by thewils · · Score: 1

      I just knew I was pouring gas onto the flames there...

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    30. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by mcclungsr · · Score: 1

      Bah, HP-UX 10.20:

          6:08pm up 1828 days, 4:06, 3 users, load average: 0.62, 0.59, 0.51

    31. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by A+non-mouse+Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd tell you my OpenVMS uptime but it would be awkward and uncomfortable to see you cry.

      You run OpenVMS on a laptop?! I'm not sure if "pity" is the word. When's the last time lynx needed a security update? Guess you missed out on that whole clickjacking thing.

      --
      libertarian: (n) socially liberal, financially conservative; neither left, nor right.
    32. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Almahtar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Screw this, guys. Let's compare penis sizes! Woo!

    33. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by TheDauthi · · Score: 1

      Mr. Titor, is that you?

    34. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by TBoon · · Score: 1

      ...And here I thought it was UserIDs that was used for that purpose...

    35. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by dropadrop · · Score: 1

      Bah, FreeBSD box up over 1000 days

      > uptime 11:39PM up 1288 days, 8:59, 3 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

    36. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Now, show me some Windows server with uptime in 3 digits, and that would be remarkable."

      My uncle's Windows 2003 server hasn't been restarted or even powered down in almost three straight years, I built that machine the right way.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    37. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't whip it out AND be close enough to the keyboard to type.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    38. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      haha, we got a mainframe that's been up since the 70's.
      Suck on that you Toy computer losers!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    39. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by initialE · · Score: 1

      -1 Waay too informative.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    40. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2:00pm up 613,000 days, 19:43, 17 users, load average: 0.19, 0.19, 0.19

      see I win!

      Does this actually prove anything?

    41. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      You've been running Vista since late 2005?

    42. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      I'm almost completely booted up now!

      Great, only another year or so for the desktop widgets to load! Then another ten minutes or so for the system backup to completely fill your hard drive and finally shut itself off.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    43. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      My penis is larger than 23cm, you insensitive clod!

      Mind you, it's mostly wasted, so can't be bothered arguing with you.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    44. Re:If you wanted an uptime contest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a wireless keyboard..... Like I do...

  24. New? by I.M.O.G. · · Score: 1

    So maybe it's not the first time it's been done... Speaking as someone whose stuck on Windows in certain regards of his job, I would absolutely be interested in an instant-on subsystem which allows some utility in a standard Windows install without all the overhead that comes along with it.

    My needs when running to meetings, on the road, and taking notes in seminars do not call for much more than a pen and paper, but my handwriting sucks. If its packaged into a standard windows install, its more likely that it might see the light of day in my corporate environment - third party options from specific vendors are far less likely to see usage, and they aren't offered by the vendor we go thru.

  25. Thats because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats because you have automatic updates set to download/install... Turn them off and you wont get that message.... just hax0red

  26. It's called SplashTop ... by meist3r · · Score: 1

    or Express Gate ... and it's available now: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131322

    Get your game together Microsoft. We seriously need to see some self developed innovation from you soon or people will care even less.

  27. Well, that explains it all again by yttrstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The very fact that Microsoft as an organization cannot see that an "instant on" operating system would be a really, really major boon for them (my god, its so obvious my CAT is nodding) casts the entire company in a very, very bleak light.

  28. Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by nweaver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Boot the system. Now snapshot a memory image (a'la hybernate).

    Now for "instant on", set up the page table and start running, and in the background, lazily swap in the rest of the memory. Anything you need immediately gets paged from disk, and the rest of the state gets swept up over the next 30 seconds.

    Also, in the background, do "lazy write" as well: Any page that is stable for >X seconds but the disk is still active, write it out, so that going back to sleep (rehibernating) can be fast as well.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That won't work if there have been any interesting hardware/configuration changes since the last reboot.

    2. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by nweaver · · Score: 2, Informative

      So? How many "interesting" hardware reconfigurations happen?

      If the hardware has changed, reboot the F@#er.

      --
      Test your net with Netalyzr
    3. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Think about doing that with a 50-200 megabyte binary (like Word or Firefox). You still have to copy all of that from disk straight into memory. Plus you have to copy the libraries that are linked to. Basically, the only performance difference would be that all the useless libraries and services that get run on startup wouldn't have to get loaded immediately. This would be an incremental improvement, but not really 'instant on.' Furthermore, it just makes more sense to *stop* loading the crap I *don't* need in the first place.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    4. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by nweaver · · Score: 1

      No you don't. Because what you do is you demand-swap the pages as they are accessed, ideally with some trace-based hacks so you know "if this page is fetched, these pages are fetched".

      --
      Test your net with Netalyzr
    5. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I'm saying is that as soon as you try to actually do *anything*, like click on a button, the OS will have to load all of the virtual pages on disk containing needed libraries as the application traverses down its software stack. Your mouse click will generate an interrupt, which then needs to invoke the USB subsystem, which then invokes a callback which generates a windowing system message, which then gets routed to your processes, which then loads your process' window event callback function. Eventually, by the time the software stack is traversed, you've quite likely loaded your entire application plus most of your GUI libraries into memory.

      I mean, I could be wrong, it all comes down to how much of the physical code gets touched in response to any particular gui event. Just redrawing the screen would require loading quite a bit of libraries, though.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    6. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by chuhwi · · Score: 1

      Hibernation on linux at least used to work exactly like this (the newer version might just load the entire memory image, though). In my experience the problem with this system was that it takes long enough that you might as well just start from scratch. The thing is, ignoring the exact state of the applications you had open, there's no reason this should theoretically be faster than booting so it would probably just be better to but more effort into booting faster in the first place.

    7. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course, if Windows hibernation operated anything like Linux hibernation, it would work a lot better.

      For reference, Linux hibernation doesn't bother writing non-writable memory pages to the hibernation file. So the hibernation file is much smaller compared to Windows. (Which is why Linux can hibernate to a swap file.)

      But this is because Linux can 'swap' from the original executable file into memory. So when it unhibernates, it 'unswaps' most of the programs from their original location, only loading the data segments from the swap file.

      Of course, a good portion of the program is already in swap, so what actually happens is that all data segments not in the swap file are written to it, with as much executable segments overwritten as needed to fit those in. It is very very fast.

      As opposed to Windows, which sits down and writes out all of physical memory to another file, and then has to load it all back in.(It might even write out 'clean' memory pages that are already in the swap file and unchanged since they were loaded back in memory, but I bet MS is smarter than that.)

      Granted, Linux still has to, eventually, load all the programs into memory too, but it can load them in via 'swap', which is fairly invisible to the end user.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by jhantin · · Score: 1

      XP Embedded also offers a fast boot feature called HORM - Hibernate Once, Resume Many. With this enabled, an ordinary cold boot reloads the saved hibernation snapshot without removing it. The downside: any filesystems mounted when the snapshot was taken are expected to be block for block unchanged from the time of the snapshot, which can require some backflips to deal with.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
    9. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by skroops · · Score: 1

      Of course, if Windows hibernation operated anything like Linux hibernation, it would work a lot better.

      Except, Linux hibernation has never worked for me, ever.

    10. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoa...you're actually trying to argue that linux hibernation is much better than Windows?

      Hibernation has worked on every single Microsoft machine I have ever tried, laptop, desktop, XP, Vista, every single time I did it.

      Hibernation has worked on roughly 0.002% of the times I tried it on a linux machine.

      You seem to be arguing about the actual mechanics going on underneath the hood, and the general efficiency of the process, but you know what nobody gives a flying fuck about that. All they know is that it works, or doesn't.

    11. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The two people who responded about Linux hibernation seem to have it confused with suspension.

      Suspend is notoriously flaky in Linux. This is because power management states are very...crappy...in a lot of hardware. Manufacturers write drivers that work for Windows, Linux people have to guess until things work. (Unlike other driver issues, this isn't a matter of manufacturers claiming it's proprietary, it's a matter of them being incredibly lazy and bad engineers and not actually following the well-defined standard and fixing it in their Windows drivers.)

      But there is no conceivable way that hibernation doesn't work every time. Hibernation is just shutdown and restart, it requires no hardware support. There is a power management state designed for 'hibernation', but Linux and Windows don't use it, because half the manufacturers didn't bother to even put it in. (Possible the Intel Apples use it.) They just shut the computer down like normal, but instead of a normal shutdown process they write everything to a file, and instead of a normal boot they read everything from a file.

      The only actual problems that I've ever seen is people attempting to do it as a normal user and not having permissions. For a while, Gnome would idiotically try to run the hibernation command as the user you'd logged in as, even though it'd go and run the shutdown command as the superuser. And half the distros didn't bother hooking it any acpi buttons or lid-close events, so it would never run in cases where you though it should, but that's the fault of the distro.

      There are a very few pieces of hardware that need custom programs to run on startup to initialize them, and can end up with those not having run when resuming from hibernation, but that's bad driver design and actually more likely to exist on Windows than Linux, because Linux drivers that need that get fixed. (And got fixed, years ago.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    12. Re:Easy Lazy Instant-On/Off... by DrVxD · · Score: 1

      Hibernation has worked on every single Microsoft machine I have ever tried, laptop, desktop, XP, Vista, every single time I did it.

      You've never had a Sony laptop, have you?

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
  29. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Mod parent up!

  30. Instant Off by RemoWilliams84 · · Score: 1

    How bout an instant off windows. I know I wish for one of these everytime I boot up Vista. I think instant on would just make the pain begin sooner.

    --
    "I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
  31. I'd enjoy it if they focused it on... by ceosion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd enjoy an "instant-on" version of Windows if they focused it on productivity software and casual access to the internet. I'd also need to see it improve laptop battery life by a fair amount. Let's speculate: if this version of Windows allowed you to run Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer (with overhead plugins turned off, such as FlashPlayer) and gave you access to file servers (FTP, SSH, etc.) and sported a 50% battery life improvement, I'd use it! This is a perfect setup for what I need from my laptop when I'm going about my day from classes and meetings.

  32. Next Windows should be Windows Verde by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The green os. 12-18% better power savings for 'always-on' desktops. Sell it to the CFO, not the CTO, and leverage half the marketing budget to the Windows Green campaign. Don't bother with other features or capabilities. They are unneeded, and do nothing to drive adoption or deployment. (Sorry, feature teams.)

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by butalearner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The green os. 12-18% better power savings for 'always-on' desktops. Sell it to the CFO, not the CTO, and leverage half the marketing budget to the Windows Green campaign. Don't bother with other features or capabilities. They are unneeded, and do nothing to drive adoption or deployment. (Sorry, feature teams.)

      You got modded funny, but that's a pretty damn brilliant marketing gimmick. Better than anything Microsoft has come up with recently, that's for sure.

    2. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by Missing_dc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are forgetting the benefits of instant login machines. Instant on and instant login saves 5-15 minutes per day of user time. GEICO used to insist that their employees were logged in and ready to take calls when their shifts started. This got them a class-action lawsuit over the non-paid work and overtime accrued by their phone reps. (are your company's practices as unfair?)

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    3. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by digitalunity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, I used to work in a call center with the same policy. I eventually told them their options were A) I leave my computer on 24x7 and show up on time and ready to rock, or B) I take overtime for showing up 10 minutes early to start my computer.

      They chose A, despite B being much cheaper.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    4. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by denis-The-menace · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too bad they didn't use the BIOS or Wake-on-LAN to turn the PC 10 minutes before your shift starts.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    5. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by Moridineas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I imagine in most cases it's the login rather than the boot itself that takes the time....

    6. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I imagine in most cases it's the login rather than the boot itself that takes the time....

      Mod parent up. Booting up an XP machine is often a lot faster than the time it takes to login, and wait for the OS to become responsive as it loads all the startup crap.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    7. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by RulerOf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      XP can login extremely fast, but the thing that really kills login times can be old DOS style logon scripts. Totally serial drive mapping, etc. can hugely inflate logon times.

      Worse, all those scripts could be written in VBScript or perhaps javascript and run asynchronously, giving the user their desktop while mapped drives are connected in the background.

      Oh well... batch scripts are much easier to write.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    8. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by Arterion · · Score: 1

      Oh well... batch scripts are much easier to write.

      Are you kidding. VBScript is way easier, once you learn it.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    9. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what makes our login times at work take a long time--roaming profiles. 1gb+ of email, documents, etc can add pretty fast, especially with 100bt.

    10. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by geekoid · · Score: 1

      C) LAN Boot up ahead of time and pay you tro log in during your regular shift.
      Most of the reason logging in takes 'so long' is because most people try to log in as soon as the login box appears. It is still loading background crap when that screen first appear, having it sit the for a few minutes before your shift takes care of that issue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

      That is only what you think, when you get to the login screen you get a 10-40% loaded OS.
      On Windows 2000 the login was later in the boot process, they only did this to let you believe that XP loads faster than 2k.

    12. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      But I thought they'd just released Windows "Merde" ?

      "Verde" is just too similar and will confuse the (already confused) market place :)

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    13. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by beav007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you kidding? I'd rather write in Brainfsck. Seriously, my boss makes me write in VBScript because it's the only language he's had experience with.

      I'm currently trying to find someone in Gitmo who is willing to trade places with me, but so far, they'd all rather stay in there than use VBScript...

    14. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by ball-lightning · · Score: 2, Funny

      At login, Vista is ready to rock-and-roll. (If you are sneaky, you can full Vista into loading executables from the login screen.)

    15. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Why do you need roaming profiles? Do you stay perpetually connected to the same machine? If not, you'll need to turn that shit off.

      I've never understood that either; Why call it ROAMING profiles if it's only of use when you're logging on to the same computer all the time?!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    16. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Why do you need roaming profiles?

      1) Remote work locations
      2) Best backup solution

      If someone's computer dies, they either logon temporarily somewhere else until I can just grab a spare we keep around with all needed software preinstalled (Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, one or two proprietary, etc) and they're immediately up and running. No lost email, no lost files, same desktop, same preferences, etc.

      Do you stay perpetually connected to the same machine? If not, you'll need to turn that shit off.

      I don't know how to parse that?

      I've never understood that either; Why call it ROAMING profiles if it's only of use when you're logging on to the same computer all the time?!

      Because Roaming Profiles are incredibly useful and power, and they're used for much more than you seem to think they are?

    17. Re:Next Windows should be Windows Verde by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      "Because Roaming Profiles are incredibly useful and power"

      Until you put a big file on your desktop

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  33. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mod parent slanty!

  34. Re:Mod parent down by Your.Master · · Score: 1, Funny

    Mod parent left!

  35. Re:Mod parent down by FeepingCreature · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah right.

  36. linux subsystems? by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

    I can attest to the fact that Dell uses XP Embedded for Dell Media Direct, and always has. I don't know about Asus.

    1. Re:linux subsystems? by rgo · · Score: 1

      and it's not instant on.

  37. Ancient technology by airship · · Score: 1

    Pffft! I had 'instant on' applications with my old VIC-20 computer.

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
  38. Suspend-to-disk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Limited activities"? No. Why not use suspend-to-disk as the default way to power off?

  39. "It limits what activities you can do.." by 101010_or_0x2A · · Score: 0

    Isn't that what the full Windows does anyway? Oh...they mean without bluescreening.

  40. Instant On? by johnshirley · · Score: 1
    So it can suck sooner and recover from its daily reboots faster? Glad I don't have to do daily (or even weekly or monthly) reboots on my *nix boxes:

    11:57:02 up 291 days, 23:16, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

    [Yeah, it's working hard.] 'Course, on that box it takes about four minutes for a reboot. Most of that time is waiting for system BIOS and RAID controllers to start.

    1. Re:Instant On? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Mine hangs while some USB device gets picky and refuses to accept addresses. If not for that, it would be up within a minute.

      I still haven't determined which device is being snobby though.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  41. instant on = by bizitch · · Score: 0, Redundant

    instant BSOD!

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  42. Instant on? by Hottie+Parms · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    More like instant turn-on.

    Microsoft, you raise more than just my hopes with your incredible innovation.

  43. Green for Windows Verde, then brown for ... by zooblethorpe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Presumably the box and ads would be green, too? Then maybe they could have a color-coded release scheme, instead of the letters and numbers used to date. A green campaign for Windows Verde, followed by a brown campaign for the upgrade to Windows Merde! :D

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:Green for Windows Verde, then brown for ... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Presumably the box and ads would be green, too?

      Maybe, but recycled cardboard would probably be better.

    2. Re:Green for Windows Verde, then brown for ... by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Funny

      The best part is that the screen would be green as well.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  44. Re:Ok, and now get me an instant-off feature pleas by mrhthepie · · Score: 1

    I know my computer's startup far too well as well. It sends me into paranoia overdrive when it's different because it updated at last shutdown.

  45. Is this really a software issue? by netruner · · Score: 1

    How much would it take for RAM modules be made such that they persist their state (like flash ram)? Or even have a motherboard that matches the size of RAM with flash and does a "hardware initiated hybernate". Granted, some work would need to be done to speed up the process, but "instant on" seems to be a missing hardware feature that is exacerbated by software using more time than necessary to start up.

    Older computers ran fast with simple software and less and slower RAM. Has our capability scaled at the same rate as our system requirements?

    --



    DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    1. Re:Is this really a software issue? by rgo · · Score: 1

      Check out Magnetoresistive RAM. It is a relatively new tech that could eventually replace DRAM.

    2. Re:Is this really a software issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll probably happen sooner or later. My MS thesis ('07) was about the circuitry needed to make a RAM module like that, but with magnetic memory, and I talked about instant on/off as a possible application. So this is current research and will trickle into actual existence in a few more years, I would assume.

  46. How about we just fix the existing sleep mode? by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Informative

    Normal Windows would be fine if it could sleep/wake up without locking up or losing half the devices and forcing a reboot.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:How about we just fix the existing sleep mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would have to fix all of the memory-leaking apps (not entirely Microsoft's fault). Then you would have to fix the apps that choke when they wake up and discover the server has said bye-bye due to timeouts and non-response. There are other problems that are IMHO fixable, but it will never really work. Too many things in the real world can change while the computer is asleep.

      It might be easier to un-bloat the startup and shutdown sequences. Asus is already doing it with Linux, let's see if MS can play too.

      I think the key is get out of the business of probing and discovering the same hardware again and again on every boot up. Perhaps the user has to boot up a special way to trigger all the probing, as you might do after a hardware upgrade.

    2. Re:How about we just fix the existing sleep mode? by Allador · · Score: 1

      Myself and everyone I work with has been doing this for many, many years, working on corporate class laptops, and using sleep/suspend 8-10 times per day, every business day.

      And only very very rarely will a problem result from it. Vista is even better in that respect.

      If you're seeing that kind of problems, then stop buying that type of computer.

      Stick to the business class Dells (ie, Latitudes) and HP Compaq's. The drivers tend to be much, much better, which is often the problem that causes what you describe.

      Thats one of the reasons you dont ever want to buy consumer garbage like Toshiba, Sony, etc. Stick with corporate class equipment from Dell, HP or IBM (not sure how Lenovo is nowadays) if your computer is an essential tool for your work.

      -

  47. Just use Sleep mode. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who reboots their Windows machines more than once a month anymore? Vista's Sleep mode is vastly improved over XP. Just sleep your computer instead of powering it off. A laptop battery will power a laptop for several days in sleep mode. Vista resumes from sleep mode in seconds.

  48. Already have "instant-on" by ohxten · · Score: 1

    If you throw your computer into suspend-to-disk (Stand-By), it uses no electricity, except for the amount your computer normally uses when it's off, and is essentially "instant-on".

    Try it: put your computer into stand-by (suspend-to-disk), and after it turns off, reactivate it (click the mouse or something) and watch how quickly it goes back to how it was before you threw it into standby.

    --
    Need an automatic screenshot taker? Try here.
  49. FOSS is innovation - just a different kind by Rob+Y. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People always claim that FOSS (usually they just mean Linux, and in particular the KDE and GNOME desktops) just copies Microsoft and/or Apple, so "where's the innovation".

    Well, this is where. FOSS made it possible for Asus and Dell to think about instant on computing. With Windows, you'd only have it if Microsoft came up with the idea. With Linux, anyone is free to come up with the idea. Even people not associated with Linux development per se.

    That's what open source innovation is about. Providing the freedom to innovate. Yes Linux is still playing catchup (to a limited extent these days) in matching mainstream desktop functionality and in keeping up with all the closed de-facto 'standards' that keep appearing due to the fact that the marketplace is still a heavily distorted Monopoly dominated one.

    So don't expect a new desktop paradigm (which most people probably don't even want). But expect a host of new devices (EeePC, Android, TiVo, etc) made possible by the true open source innovation - freedom to reuse.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    1. Re:FOSS is innovation - just a different kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apple at least embraces the open source community and plays an active role in it."

      Please give me ONE good example where Apple has supported OpenBSD (and OpenSSH) by donating hardware to developers. While you're at it, please tell me how much money or time Apple has ever donated towards the two projects. They don't support open source for shit.

    2. Re:FOSS is innovation - just a different kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't one of Microsoft's biggest fears that an OEM would develop their own OS and software?

      With these features it looks as if some OEMs are effectively leveraging Linux and dabbling in that area already.

      I'll bet this scares the bejeezuz out of Microsoft and want to offer their own Windows Instant On tm and will soon add it to their OEM contracts as a mandatory requirement, etc. ...

  50. Completely wrong design philosophy by Archimonde · · Score: 1

    Let me get this as simple as possible:

    1. Having a fast booting OS is good in any case.
    2. Having a special fast-boot mode is useless.

    Let me give you an example.

    Take a normal mobile phone. I can press two buttons and the phone is ready to be used. Does anyone on this planet cares how fast a mobile phone boots its OS? Pretty much nobody cares if the phone boots in 15, 30, or 60 seconds. They boot it once a day at most. I can't even remember when was the last time I rebooted mine.

    Can you already see where I'm going with this? I got only few words:

    Suspend/hibernation/hybrid sleep.

    I already wrote a post similar to this. Take my macbook (or pretty much any other computer) for example. I can't even remember when was the last time I (re)booted it. Consequentially, I don't even care how fast it boots. I just close the lid when I'm done with my work and the computer goes to hybrid sleep. When I want to resume with my work, I just open the lid and the computer is *instantly* ready to accept my input.

    This is just like a mobile phone. But even better! As the mobile phone does drain the battery slowly, computer actually doesn't (if it is hibernated).

    So to finish with my post. Of course it is good for a OS to boot fast. But in my view this isn't one of it's main features. Instead they should really be working on improving suspend/resume mechanic on desktop and laptop computers. Too many brand new laptops dont' resume when I open their lids. I usually have to press their power button to resume. And sometimes, they don't resume at all. So instead of doing a whole another windows mode, they should instead focusing on better suspend/resume support.

    I still can see like 98% of windows users and 90% of mac users regularly shut down their laptops/desktops. One can consider this a bad habit from the "good old times. Modern computer architecture really should be making great suspend/resume architecture.

    --
    Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
  51. Why business would upgrade for this feature. by sampson7 · · Score: 1

    I am probably the least techincal person on /. But I like geeky girls, so I keep up on the news. I know a lot of you are saying "big deal" or "it's been done before" -- but I respectfully disagree.

    This would make me upgrade. I think it would make a lot of businesses upgrade. Especially if it would allow you to write or check email or even browse as the full functionality is loading in the background.

    To give you a sense of why I think business would love this: Imagine a law firm with 300 lawyers. Those lawyers probably wastes on average of between 1 to 2 minutes each morning booting Windows.* (Since there are no known lawfirms that use Macs or Linux, it's a moot point whether other systems already do this.)

    300 Lawyers * 2 minutes = 600 minutes or 10 hours per day of wasted legal time.

    At a low hourly rate of $200 per hour, that is $2,000 per day in lost revenues. Given that a license costs, what -- $100 dollars per attorney? It would pay for itself in .... 15 days...? (Did I do that right?)

    * And note that for me, boot up time probably cost me far more than 2 minutes per day. You sit down at the computer to work, sit while it boots, get distracted, and come back 10 minutes later. I know it's silly -- but when you are in a profession where every six increment is billed, this adds up.

    1. Re:Why business would upgrade for this feature. by Kent+Recal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ehm, people will just slack off those 2 minutes in other ways. For example by chatting around the coffee-maker.
      Boosting productivity by shaving *minutes* off of a workflow (especially a once-a-day one) is a myth.

      Premature optimization in business processes is just as harmful as it is in computing.
      Try to optimize tasks that amount to hours of overhead each day first - then look after the 2 minute thingies.

      The most common sources of overhead in modern organizations are, still, unclear communication-paths and dependencies.
      Those imaginary 10 hours are very likely wasted in *your* company every day (or even every hour in big companies) only because processes are not properly decoupled. You know, A is waiting for B and C is waiting for A. People just love excuses and "I'm waiting for X" is so much better of an excuse for not getting shit done than "I had to wait for computer to boot".

      Also see: Chain of Blame and The mythical man month

    2. Re:Why business would upgrade for this feature. by sampson7 · · Score: 1

      I suspect you've never worked in a law firm or another business the bills on a minute-to-minute basis. When I was with the law firm, every minute you billed during the day was a minute you did not have to bill at night. It's a devilish way to live, but it's not uncommon. In short: I billed every second I was at work because I wanted to get home before midnight. (Hence why I left.)

    3. Re:Why business would upgrade for this feature. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if the fast-boot version wouldn't let you do everything you needed, you'd need to do a full boot anyhow; it's something you'd do to check your email really quickly, not for a full day's work.

    4. Re:Why business would upgrade for this feature. by sampson7 · · Score: 1

      That's why I stated that ideally, it should boot in the background. But even the ability to do basic work and then do a full boot on my own time (meeting, whatever) would be beneficial. Clearly: a crappy implementation will not lure anyone. But if done well? I can see this being a major draw.

  52. Already done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... most computers already show a blue screen when you power them on.
    Then they mess it up with that BIOS booting stuff. They just have to disable BIOS and it will be just like instantly booting Windows.

  53. Risc OS and my thoughts. by QJimbo · · Score: 1

    6-7 seconds to the desktop.

    One of the reasons I loved Risc OS so much (non-brits may have to google). There's a lot to be said for instant on, especially for creative types (like myself) where inspiration may suddenly appear and the need to save it is urgent.

    Waiting for windows to boot (especially an old installation) can take so long you can lose that "spark", so I'm all in favour of this.

  54. What's your point? by kiwimate · · Score: 1

    Pfft...beat you. I did this with a Sinclair ZX81 in the early eighties. It had BASIC already burned into the main ROM. You turned it on and your entire system was immediately ready to go. Ergo, by your rationale, your idea was a pathetic imitation stolen from Sir Clive Sinclair.

    Gee, I remember when /. used to have rational and meaningful dialogue from people who were at least half as intelligent as they thought they were.

    1. Re:What's your point? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      C:\>debug.exe
      -a
      0B0F:0100 int 18
      0B0F:0102
      -g

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:What's your point? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      FATAL: INT18: BOOT FAILURE

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:What's your point? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      INT 18 would launch ROM BASIC if the computer had it. They don't anymore, so it just crashes... I figured the error message would at least say something about ROM BASIC so you'd get the point but I guess not. (It does for me in a DOS prompt window on XP.)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:What's your point? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      That was FreeDOS in a VirtualBox VM. Had to d/l FreeDOS to try out your command. :-)

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:What's your point? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Heh. DOSBox just returns silently, incidentally (which means you also need an INT 3 to interrupt the program).

      Now that you've installed FreeDOS you should try some of what's in my Journal, though... :)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  55. Debunked for years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd say you were beating a dead horse, but the horse has so completely decomposed, even the skeleton has been ground to dust and blown away. You're beating the ground where the dead horse used to be.

  56. Hibernation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already have hibernation for Windows. What else do you need???

    Waste of time....

  57. And yes, Palm did it too. by zullnero · · Score: 1

    12 years ago. It certainly isn't a new idea. However, it does require either caching session data out to ROM, Flash, or hard disk (which requires energy and therefore the system isn't "off"). Therefore, I don't know how this isn't that different from their current hibernation technology they've had for years. And honestly, they really should just fix that first.

  58. Gaming? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

    Can they make it instantly boot into the game in the cdrom tray? That's basically the only reason I start Windows anyway. It would be nice to have Firefox, but if I really needed to do some web browsing I'd just boot back to Linux.

    So please, Microsoft, work on load times. This is a real problem for some of us.

  59. This actually might be very unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Useable for a few specific activities in a very short amount of time

    Sounds like certain applications will become active immediatly and the rest will loadup with the rest of the OS. Like being able to use IE to browse while waiting for your desktop to come up.

    Looked at in this manner it actually could be considered innovative since this would not be the same as a souped up hibernate or writing the entire OS out to flash. They would have a hit if you could set bejeweled or solitaire to load up and you could play a game while waiting.

  60. kaboom by flahwho · · Score: 1

    ...and if you had a dell laptop this would include "instant-on-fire".

  61. Instant crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much are you willing to pay for this? I think its stupid, I might consider this useful if it was a full blown OS. In reality I can wait the 55 seconds it takes my laptop to boot. Usually takes me that long to find the power cord anyways.

    I loaded Windows on a RAM drive once that was pretty cool and fast.

    Now when someone figures out the "instant green" gadget to make red lights turn green so you are never stuck at an intersection I will pay any amount! (Assuming it makes the other lights red and safe of course, oh and I can be the only one who has it or else chaos would occur)...wait what was I talking about? Oh yeah Windows..sucks.

    1. Re:Instant crap by phillymjs · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now when someone figures out the "instant green" gadget to make red lights turn green so you are never stuck at an intersection I will pay any amount!

      It's already been done, and use of one of those gadgets by civilians was made a federal crime over three years ago. Sorry.

      ~Philly

  62. One idea by dayton967 · · Score: 1

    Why not spend the money on developing mram to be used for storage, then you can shutdown and startup really fast. Oh wait Microsoft will find a way to slow that down anyways.

  63. Re:Hype and Power management failure. by dedazo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After reading your journal entry, I'm a little confused on how you believe Microsoft "intentionally sabotaged" power management under Linux? Of all the evidence presented in the Iowa case, surely you have something more specific than an email that proves nothing at all other than Bill Gates' reluctance to release something for free?

    Also, if your claim that Microsoft somehow crippled ACPI (and/or APM) to hurt Linux... how come ACPI works as well (or as badly, depending on your hardware) as it does on Windows? Specifically, if Microsoft, *BSD and Linux all implement the same open standard, how is that intentional sabotage by "M$"?

    And, going back to your journal entry, I see you never did reply to any of the posts that challenge your interpretation of this problem. Why is that?

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  64. PDAs have done this forever by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    Windows mobile already has this. Just keep the O/S and applications in non-volatile memory (or with a battery backup) and you're there. The only issue seems to me to be the huge variety of peripherals - with variable quality code. Provided you keep very tight control (i.e. disallow) what can be conected to the box - or what you expect to be available in the first 1 second, you could do this with Windows (even Vista) or Linux today.

    Same for instant off (yawn)

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  65. Re:Mod parent down by X0563511 · · Score: 0

    Mobius Mod!

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  66. Concept testing != Future by SailorSpork · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a standard concept test. I work with market research for a large CPG company. Let me tell you what a concept test is.

    Marketing Manager: "We have a bunch of ideas for things we can do in the future. Let's put out a survey and find out how many people like it. Then we'll measure purchase intent and find out what people would pay more for, and measure the costs of doing each concept vs the potential sales and do the one that makes us the most moneys."

    Let's be clear: just because someone saw it on a survey from Microsoft, doesn't necessarily mean it will ever see the light of day, let alone be incorporated into Windows 7. They may be using it (along with many other concepts they are likely testing) to try and shape what Windows 8 or 9 might look like. Most concepts I have tested, when weighed with costs, haven't reached the "let's go do this" threshold.

  67. Who cares? by Pope · · Score: 1

    It's not a server, it's a laptop. Uptime is meaningless.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  68. With the cost of power by teknosapien · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd be interested in what the power consumption would be in this "instant on environment"

    --
    no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
  69. Re:Ok, and now get me an instant-off feature pleas by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    The real joke, of course, is that shutdown really should be almost instant.

    But MS, and Linux, and everyone else, insists on terminating each and every process for no apparent reason.

    Just close the damn open files and turn the power off, you stupid computer.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  70. Slashdot Post Confirms... by wild_berry · · Score: 1

    FreeBSD's clearly dead: 1 user, load avg 0.00.

  71. VAX beats them all by mangu · · Score: 1

    I'm always suspicious of systems with very long uptimes: they probably haven't had a kernel update since that last reboot... meaning that they are a highly vulnerable box.

    I don't remember when was the last VAX/VMS kernel update, ten years ago perhaps? Where I work we have several VAX machines with uptimes around fifteen years. With NO vulnerabilities at al, they are in their own DECnet, no TCP/IP, no connection to the outside world. They run a satellite control system, several million lines of VAX-Fortran source code.

    The only problem with this setup is that there is no replacement hardware being fabricated, luckily it's very reliable hardware, but even so we are now upgrading to a completely new system.

    1. Re:VAX beats them all by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know that you can still get VMS systems from HP right?

      The Vax was a great machine and VMS is a great OS. Too bad that didn't get open sourced.
      Probably would have been an even better platform than Unix.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:VAX beats them all by mangu · · Score: 1

      You know that you can still get VMS systems from HP right?

      Yes, but it's not VAX. When the Alpha came out, they migrated some applications, but the conclusion was that migrating from VAX to Alpha isn't easy enough to justify the trouble of keeping a niche system of dubious future.

    3. Re:VAX beats them all by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well they are running on the Itanium now so less of a niche system than the Alpha "I am sorry to say" and I would think it would be easier to migrate to it than Linuz, AIX, or Solaris.
      Please tell me that you are not going to port to Windows...

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  72. Re:Mod parent down by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Someone with mod points is lacking a sense of humor.

  73. Microsoft Apologist by Ralish · · Score: 1

    While I have no legal recognition as a Microsoft apologist, through contractual obligations or licensing terms, nevertheless, I would like to apologise on behalf of Microsoft.

    Please accept my sincere apologies.

  74. It about time! by thewiz · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's good to hear that Microsoft is looking into "instant on" technology. It would be a good complement to their "instant stop" technology.

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  75. Bonjour! by paniq · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want instant on for my own body. Saves a cup of coffee in the morning.

    --
    Do not trust this signature.
  76. priorities by Tom · · Score: 3, Funny

    You have installed a new 'Instant On'(tm) aware application. Do you want to reboot in order for the change to take effect?

    [Reboot Now] [Remind me every 2 minutes] [Go away but reboot without another warning in rand(5,10) minutes]

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  77. Linux version (?) by Jamamala · · Score: 1

    Yes, I know there are projects like Splashtop, but each time I've heard about them they seem to only come with the purchase of a particular product (e.g., a motherboard or laptop).

    Are there any free linux projects that aim to do this type of thing? Or would even do this type of thing as a side-effect of being really lightweight?

    What I'd be looking for as an end user is a graphical environment, in which I can start up a browser and maybe an IM client.

    Would an installation of Knoppix fit the bill? I've never tried actually installing it...

  78. NO!!! by replay+TV+Guy · · Score: 0

    I love to wait for my system to boot up. I can have a cup of joe. Eat a bagel. Perhaps even raise a kid or two. What will I do with all of my spare time if they did this?

  79. I have this verison already.... by wpiman · · Score: 1

    it comes with my solid state disk.

  80. Re:Hype and Power management failure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an admission of failure from M$

    No, it's not. And you're still Slashdot's biggest troll.

  81. Don't bother by EncryptedSoldier · · Score: 1

    I have a ThinkPad with the exact same thing, and guess how many times I've used it? ZERO (0)!!! This is for a number of reasons, but a big one is how customized my OS and browser is. I open up FF and type in a pwd and immediately Slashdot opens, and logs me in, eBay opens, and logs me in, Gmail opens, and logs in, and Woot! opens up and logs in. It's all automated and quick. Unless I can have FF with noscript running on this "micro windows", and unless it synchronizes with my regular FF, I'm not interested.

  82. Re:Mod parent down by Theoboley · · Score: 0

    Looks like we've pushed all the buttons in this wonkamod except for one.

    --
    Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
  83. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be OK if they could resolve Suspend to disk and suspend to RAM bugs. MY desktop stays on all the time, my laptop goes into suspend all of the time. I typically only restart either when an update requires it. Instant-on should be called something different if what they are doing is providing trimmed down services such as a media player or a web browser

  84. Re:Mod parent down by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Mode parent independantly.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  85. Did that long time ago.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hah.. my Amstrad CPC 6128 had instant on already in 1986, that included a full word processor with mail merge, an assembler software, a spell checker and some disc utilities.

    Now my computer is some 1000 times more powerful, yet it boots up in minutes.

    It's a strange world

  86. Ahem, what's the difference? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "The Instant On experience is different from "Full Windows" because it limits what activities you can do and what applications you can have access to"

    Every time I boot "Full Windows" on a client's PC, once the desktop comes up I sit there for another thirty seconds to a minute depending on how much crap is loading in the background. So I'd say "Full Windows" limits what activities you can do - for a while at least.

    My openSUSE Linux boots faster than Windows XP and has a usable desktop pretty much immediately, minus some slowness as the stuff in the system tray loads - no where near as bad as XP.

    Windows is an unmitigated POS.

    Moderate me as troll! You can't handle the truth! You're not good enough to beat me! Is that all you got, huh? Are you nuts? Come at me!

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    1. Re:Ahem, what's the difference? by paniq · · Score: 1

      *big long gong sound*

      Confucius says: Not as much pain in being moderated as a troll than not being moderated at all.

      *bow* *retreat*

      --
      Do not trust this signature.
  87. Off by one letter by querist · · Score: 2, Funny

    You're off by one letter

    1,$s/V/M/

    Grab your French dictionaries for that one, folks, and laugh.

    Windows Merde!

    1. Re:Off by one letter by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      You fool! You could have saved one character!

      %s/V/M/

      Also, I really doubt whether your message was using 100% recycled electrons.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  88. Re:Mod parent down by Kagura · · Score: 1

    There is no mod.

  89. Re:Hype and Power management failure. by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

    The ACPI Specification defines the requirements for the DSDT (and everything else, for that matter) pretty explicitly. Intel's ASL compiler, iasl, used to compile the DSDT to AML from ASL, will throw errors and warnings if the underlying ASL is buggy. Unfortunately, Microsoft's ASL compiler allows many of these errors and warnings to sneak by. As a result, many OEMs write buggy DSDTs, and it turns out that Windows is very forgiving of bugs in the DSDT that get by Microsoft's compiler (not surprisingly).

    One may speculate about intentional crippling of Linux (as was the case with FoxConn mainboard), so the GP's post may be valid given the bad business practices that Microsoft was using all the time (I recall them trying to pay a premium to sysadmins who convince their bosses to buy MS-products).

  90. undocking... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Because I have a secondary monitor to the left of my Microsoft Windows Vista laptop. Why is that an issue? - Because after undocking, Microsoft Outlook insists on opening on that (non-existent) monitor. - Because after re-docking, Microsoft Windows insists on logically placing my external monitor to the RIGHT of my Laptop, and swapping the screens that the start bar and sidebar show up on. - Because after undocking, carrying my laptop to the conference room and plugging it into the projector, all kinds of weird things happen.

    That's why I shutdown daily.

    You can undock? My work laptop is infested with XP, and refuses to undock. If I try to undock, Windows informs me that a serial port is in use and prevents the undocking. As far as I know, there are no serial ports in the port replicator, other than USB ports which are not in use. It has always done this, since it arrived out of the box last year.

    Uptime: limited by need to shutdown before undocking [stupid bloody Windows], rarely more than 1 day.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  91. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that where you trace the +1 Funny mod around far enough and it becomes -1 Offtopic?

  92. Use Stand By, instead of shutting down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I put my desktop in Stand By mode when I'm about to leave the office. The next morning when I return, I just tap the spacebar on my keyboard. My desktop powers up and I'm ready to work in less than a minute.

  93. Re:Hype and Power management failure. by hey! · · Score: 1

    Well, I can answer the reason why ACPI works "so well" on Windows. It "works so well" because the BIOS writers' job isn't done until the computer jumps through all the necessary ACPI hoops -- on the current versions of Windows.

    This isn't quite the same as making a standards compliant implementation. It is making an implementation that does everything (or the important things) the standard says should be doable provided you are dealing with on Windows.

    Secondly, there's no guarantee that whatever atrocities you commit will work on the next version of Windows. I've seen a number of ACPI DSDTs uncompiled, and they do a lot of version and OS dependent stuff.

    You'd think the point of a standard would be to provide a uniform interface, that whatever operating system twiddles some lever gets the same result. However the result is dependent on what the ACPI implementation thinks your OS is. So this makes it possible, indeed very easy, to provide an ACPI implementation that is broken depending on which operating system it believes is running the show. Indeed, sometimes the fix for Linux based ACPI problems is to give a phony identification string to ACPI, to tell ACPI that your Linux kernel is really Windows XP.

    Maybe there's some profound reason why the things ACPI are supposed to do in a situation have to be (a) tied a specific operating system and version yet (b) hide the details of the differences from the operating system. Or maybe it's just a crappy standard. The fact that it makes all kinds of wonderful things happen doesn't make it a good standard.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  94. Re:Hype and Power management failure. by Windows_NT · · Score: 2, Funny

    You guys don't read much, Microsoft couldn't sabotage anything!
    Remember, they do have Ethical guidlines

    --
    Go go Gadget Nailgun!
  95. OS X is already "instant-on" from long-term sleep by iliketrash · · Score: 1

    Truly, I must be missing something. OS X (the Macintosh operating system) comes on instantly from sleep mode. (In sleep mode on a laptop, battery life is typically several days. However, all Macintoshes have the same sleep mode.)

  96. Re:Hype and Power management failure. by dedazo · · Score: 1

    Well, I can answer the reason why ACPI works "so well" on Windows.

    Actually, in my experience it's as big a crapshoot as it is on Linux. It depends entirely who you purchased your laptop from. IBM Thinkpads seem to work most of the time, Toshiba not so much. Sony Vaios are completely broken under any OS.

    maybe it's just a crappy standard

    It *is* a crappy standard. But that has nothing to do with sabotage or any other conspiracy theories.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  97. Quick email check by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

    What if i'm coming home late from work, and want to just check my e-mail before bed?

    That's what I use my BlackBerry for - I have the Gmail app installed. Instant gratification.

    I saw a video a while back for a new laptop made by someone unusual - nVidia maybe? - that came with an instant boot to basic functions like email, with an optional boot into Vista. I thought that sounded great. It also might make users realize that they don't need Vista for a lot of what they do.

  98. My PC is ready to go 10 secs from hibernate by Jeff1946 · · Score: 1

    My Dell 630 latitude running XP-SP3 is ready to go in 10 seconds from hibernation. From standby it is even faster but in this case the computer is not fully off. Sometimes it may take a few more seconds for the wireless to connect, but this would be the same with any system. I'll take lean and mean over bloated and slow anytime.

  99. Why can't we have both? by MORB · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why should people have to choose between instantly on and fully functional? Can't Microsoft be ambitious enough to aim to make windows boot fast? This is like they're giving up on that as if it's just not possible, and instead offer some half-way compromise.

    1. Re:Why can't we have both? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps Microsoft's "half-way compromise" will work - ultimately, without extensive re-working of Windows, you are never going to get a 25-second boot time... (Fedora, anyone???) Alternatively, it might just be taking all of Microsoft's time to keep Windows vaguely competitive to business...and "instant-on" is just a buzz-word to get more people interested in the "potential" that Windows is a good bet for future deployments.

  100. Re:Hype and Power management failure. by dedazo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unfortunately, Microsoft's ASL compiler allows many of these errors and warnings to sneak by.

    It's a well-known fact that you never use Microsoft's compiler if you need ACPI to work under Linux. That's what the Intel compiler exists for. I will grant you that laptop vendors might simply use Microsoft's compiler because "it works" (barely), but until very recently they had no reason or incentive to cater to Linux. However, had they wished to do so, they had a readily available option. I'm pretty sure Dell is not using it for their Ubuntu laptops.

    as was the case with FoxConn mainboard

    That's a completely different problem, a vendor specifically excluding power management support for Linux. Once enabled with a simple BIOS hack, everything worked correctly.

    I recall them trying to pay a premium to sysadmins who convince their bosses to buy MS-products

    I fail to see how that is relevant here at all.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  101. Screw instant on, Computer should always be on... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Screw instant on, Computer should always be on...

    This is why hibernate and other state technologies exist. Hibernate your freaking computer, stop shutting it down. Even in a hibernate state, the computer can turn itself on to grab updates or performance maintenance if allowed and then re-hibernate.

    (The concept of 'shutdown' for modern computers is something that will die in a few years anyway, like like application states of being off will be a thing of the past before long also.)

    Why aren't people better educated about this. Even Vista by default puts itself to sleep and hibernates.

    On my work laptop, it has been restarted about once a month for updates. The rest of the time it is either ON, Standy/Sleep, or Hibernated when traveling. I literally wait longer on the 'aged' BIOS than the OS itself.

    As for the statement about Linux 'instant on' media features on some laptops... Um, some of the current instant on Media/DVD utilities use a modified form of XP more than I have seen Linux versions, as embedded XP is what was used by some of these companies.

    As for Vista, it already supports Media or Hotstart features, that just haven't been used much by the OEMs, because it boots in 15-20 seconds instead of the 2-5 seconds of the embedded XP implementation.

    Again, why settle for a single application instant on, when people are getting 15sec boots times on a full Vista boot? (Even the PS3 or XBox 360 take 10seconds to boot) Are people just getting insane about boot times? -And if you want to see a 'real long' boot time, restart your Cable Box or Sat Receiver, yes even the *nix based ones. 5 minutes or more you will be waiting.)

    This is crazy on several levels. Especially when several OEM's BIOSes take longer to intialize than the OS itself takes to boot.

    Microsoft should:
    1) Demand OEM BIOS times are 'instant'.
    2) Educate users to use freaking hibernate ALWAYS.
    3) Forget the limited feature OS boot (A form of WinPE or an embedded Vista core, like the XP media center instant on features use already).

  102. Give me a break by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    How hard is it to cache the ram and have it reload on startup if the checksum clears. Microsoft should be able to do this and have everything the same if you are doing a full boot or "instant on".

  103. Will he ever reply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No response forthcoming from twitter (not as of 8:00 EST anyway). Still waiting...

    1. Re:Will he ever reply? by dedazo · · Score: 1

      twitter does not reply when you hand him his ass on a plate, unless he has a name troll for he can use to insult you. And if you're not careful, he'll just create one. And then claim you threatened him with most foul death.

      We've done this before, with the same expected results.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  104. Instant on Usefulness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need eomthing useful for instant on. A quick web e-mail and IM session - i don't mind the wait to logon if I'm going to be doing that stuff. We need some nice built in utilities for those instant on sessions, something like gparted and other diagnostic utilites, even image making program to back up the hard disk. This would make an instant on pre-OS option much more appealing.

  105. What this'll REALLY be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's what I suspect this'll REALLY be. Microsoft will but on a show about how they came up with a brand new windows product, etc. etc. It will be Windows CE I bet -- there IS an x86 port of it, boots fast, and can run out of a ROM.

             

  106. What I would prefer ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be better to have a message box to tell you when it's done loading. Even after you log in it sits there for a few minutes doing things. I would like to know when it's done without using task manager

  107. Re:What an original idea - NOT! Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed, 110%: As long as it improves something, then it's a good thing! However, the originators OUGHT to be credited (those that came up with an idea, that is).

  108. Re:Hype and Power management failure. by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

    You did mention Gate's insensitive to prevent Linux from being able to use ACPI. I see this being accomplished by Microsoft's compiler. I don't say that every vendor is in bed with MS (although we don't know their contracts), I say that Microsoft has fulfilled the will of Bill Gates by developing this forgiving compiler and knowing that vendor would test Windows only. I see the connection, you don't, that's what opinions are for. Given Microsoft's shady behavior in the past I know about, I think they are more than capable of doing such a thing.

    As for Foxconn -- there was a case of a vendor explicitly enabling crippled support for Linux, not excluding it. Malice or carelessness -- we'll never know. They have fixed the issue nonetheless, yet I doubt that I'll buy their products.

  109. Wouldn't the 'brown campaign'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...be for Ubuntu? :)

  110. pc's are already instant-on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just because it'll boot instantly doesn't mean it won't still take 5 minutes to load the desktop. startup programs start when you log in, not during boot. this is a pointless feature.

    phil, your computer does turn on instantly. that's why all those fans start whirring away whenever you hit that button on your tower.

  111. They've asked the wrong question by (Score.5,+Interestin · · Score: 1

    It's not so much Windows instant-on that people care about, it's something better than the same-day service currently offered by Vista after you hit the power switch. If you could tune the OS to boot in 10-20s (or even 5s like the Linux Plumbers did recently this wouldn't even be something you'd need to ask users about.

  112. Those crazy marketting guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'The Instant On experience is different from "Full Windows" because it limits what activities you can do and what applications you can have access to.'

    Sounds like they're rebranding the mighty combination of DRM & UAC to me.

  113. how about a by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1
    Never On Windows feature. That seems more appropriate for the /. crowd.

    More seriously though it would be good if they partition things nicely so you don't have instant on then have to choose to boot into a full Windows. Instead if you could use the work that has already be done (by presumably just loading a small kernal with minimal services), and then just load the remaining pieces that would be better. My understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong but the Instant On linux is actually a firmware linux on the Asus and Dell products so when you click to go to full OS it has to load everything as if the feature didn't exist. Having an OS kernel in firmware that was used when live would be really cool.

  114. Re:BSOD=Instant Off (Hardly) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instant Off? Hardly. My BSOD takes between 2 to 5 minutes to complete on Windows XP. Does anyone has any advice to speed it up?

    Thanks.

  115. Vista actually boots quite fast. by draxredd · · Score: 1

    My experience :

    On my intel (ich9r / q6600 / 4gb) rig, the longest at boot is the BIOS POST screens, followed by the Intel RAID BIOS. the vista boot time (until usability) is very tolerable (30 seconds including account selection screen and password entry).
    Then again, I seldom run complete boot cycles for Vista as STR sleep is perfectly reliable and wakes the Pc in 2-3 seconds, tops.

    YMMV.

    --
    --- Back to the trees, back to the trees !
  116. Flash drive bootable XP by tigueraje · · Score: 1

    I recently tried a version of Windows XP that I received from a friend. It resides in a USB flash drive, takes about 30 seconds to be completely operational, takes up around 160MB of total storage space, runs all my portable apps(from http://portableapps.comand/ it takes around 3 to 4 seconds to shutdown. I know it's not "instant on" but around 30 seconds after pressing the power button, I am able to browse the hard disks of computers which have been damaged by viruses or other causes (and recover data that would be lost to reformatting). Perfect in my opinion.

  117. Re:Hype and Power management failure. by dedazo · · Score: 1

    I understand what you're saying, but think about it a bit more and it makes no sense whatsoever. Remember where desktop Linux was back when ACPI was first released. Do you think Microsoft felt threatened by that?

    Microsoft may be guilty of caring only about their platform, but that in and of itself does not make them guilty of trying to "sabotage" others. At least not in this particular context.

    But like you say, that's just my opinion :)

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  118. Re:Hype and Power management failure. by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

    Well, in Iowa case documents there was an analysis of Linux and Open Source: http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/6000/PX06501.pdf
    It is a 70-page document and it is well made. I'll quote from the summary:
    Consequently, OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft - particuiady in the server
    space. Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benerifs that are not replicabie with our current licensing model arand therefore present a long term developer mindshare threat.

    A very good analysis though, one of the best I've actually seen.
    So they did care back then.