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."
In all honesty, I love the multiple minutes it takes to bring up windows now. Instant on would be a detriment.
ANYTHING that Windows wants to do to improve sucks and linux has already done it, done it better, cured cancer, etc.
/. that isn't a "me too, me too" Microsoft sucks, Linux is good person?
Seriously is there anyone on
Jesus this is like Digg more and more everyday.
OK bitches mod me down now.
The UI for the new "Instant-On Windows" is a black screen with the text "C:\>".
[Insert pithy quote here]
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
System Up Time: 0 Days, 21 Hours, 32 Minutes, 58 Seconds
Windows Update :( Not "off" but restart.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
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!
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.
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."
System Up Time: 0 Days, 21 Hours, 32 Minutes, 58 Seconds
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.
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!
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.
I imagine in most cases it's the login rather than the boot itself that takes the time....
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
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.
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?