Quick Boot Linux Hopes To Win Over Windows Users

Al writes "A company called Presto hopes to exploit the painful amount of time it takes for Windows computers to start up by offering a streamlined version of Linux that boots in just seconds. Presto's distro comes with Firefox, Skype and other goodies pre-installed and the company has also created an app store so that users can install only what they really need. The software was demonstrated at this year's Demo conference in Palm Desert, CA. Interestingly, the company barely mentions the name Linux on its website. Is this a clever stealth-marketing ploy for converting Windows users to Linux?"

Comments

Hibernation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who boots up anymore unless to fix/install something? Just hibernate. I know, I'm over generalising but still, I rarely reboot/boot my machine perhaps once a fortnight I just hibernate it. * Windows XP

Re:Hibernation?

[FredFredrickson]

I can see this working well for netbooks. One of the main reasons the idea of a netbook has been ruined for me is the boot time.

Here, I've got a small little machine that could be more useful than my phone- only catch, I'd rather txt google with my phone than power up the acer-one, since it's going to take forever to boot.

On my main machines I'll stick with xp and ubuntu. But this might be a great netbook os, finally making a netbook useful..

Re:Hibernation?

[ArhcAngel]

Perhaps I am the exception to the rule but every machine I have ever used (and I've used a bunch) boots faster than it comes out of hibernation.

Re:Hibernation?

[IANAAC]

One of the main reasons the idea of a netbook has been ruined for me is the boot time.

I really don't get this mentality. My first gen Asus 701 took all of 30 seconds to fully boot. I've since put UbuntuEee on it an it now takes about 40 seconds. IS your life that full that you just can't wait less than a minute?

Netbooks aren't meant to be whipped out for quick searches. They're meant to be an ultra portable that surfs, does email, word processing and other work. Pretty much what you would use a back breaking laptop for.

Re:Hibernation?

[Krneki]

This is why you use Standby + Hibernate.

My Asus EEE - Win XP comes from Standby in 1 sec and Hibernate take 15sec to boot, counting also the bios boot time.

Under battery it goes into Standby in 5 min or when I put down the cover. After 15min in standby it goes into Hibernate, so I don't have to think if I need it in the next minute or the next day.

Linux is not very friendly when it comes to Standby + Hibernate.

Re:Hibernation?

[Random Destruction]

Yeah that makes sense for desktops, but the amount of energy a sleeping laptop uses is equivalent to a power brick plugged in but not being used. So unless you unplug all your bricked devices while they're off (and turn off that PC at the switch on the PSU), I wouldn't worry much about that sleeping laptop.

Re:Hibernation?

[izomiac]

I never use hibernation for a few reasons.

1) It's a recipe for data loss on shared partitions if you dual boot.
2) I use an SSD and prefer 4 GB of space over saving ~20 seconds by hibernating instead of booting normally.
3) The OS gets a fresh start. This *shouldn't* matter, but often slightly affects speed and memory consumption.
4) Slowed boot time is an indicator of general performance issues. I might not notice a gradual doubling of application start up time, but boot times are more obvious.

Re:Hibernation?

[GMFTatsujin]

Hibernation/Sleep is also not perfectly flawless. My dual-core WinXP workstation goes to sleep fine, wakes up fine ... but any application that uses 3D will find itself running at exactly half-speed until I do a reboot.

I suspect there's some multi-core weirdness that wasn't accounted for in a driver somewhere.

That goes off the topic. You should be asking "why *not*" rather than "why," under the simple premise that your way may not be The Way.

BIOS

[Tx]

Several companies offer such functionality in their computer BIOSes. Sony's stupidly named XrossMediaBar that they install on everything from PS3s to televisions as well as some laptops being a prime example. These people are probably out of luck as if anybody actually wants this kind of feature, it will start to be provided in more and more BIOSes. Sure, the BIOS mini-OSes don't have the "app store" extensibility (although there's no reason why they couldn't), but, well good luck with that. And if (as I suspect) nobody is really interested because suspend/hibernate is plenty fast enough, then they're still buggered.

Fast Boot Time Means Little

[johnsie]

I had a fast boot time on Xandros. But the packages in the repositories weren't up to date and there were very few applications to install without breaking the system. Yes I enjoyed the fast boot times but what's the point of having fast boot times if your computer is completely useless. Installing Ubuntu was pretty easy and gave me access to some more up to date software but then then the Ubuntu repositories are barely up to date. The next netbook I get will be a windows one with a bigger hard disk so I can dual boot. I don't want to be limited by the OS I use.

Re:Who reboots?

[MBCook]

My XP box that I'm using now at work (2 core 2.33 GHz Xeon) boot Windows REALLY fast. It is under 30 seconds to get to the "Ctrl-Alt-Del to login" screen. It's great.

Then you log in.

Then you wait 5 minutes or so for it to finish loading everything and settle down enough to be usable (the desktop comes up nearly instantly but can't be used). If you open Outlook (as I have to), you're waiting another 5 minutes for that too.

I'm disk limited (a faster disk would help things) but it's just terrible. I can get in quick, but I can't do anything for minutes afterwords (like a simple Firefox open and search).

My Mac (MBP, 2.4GHz) doesn't boot as fast, maybe a minute to get to the desktop? But when the desktop comes up the computer is usable. It feels slow as it finishes loading stuff, but as soon as I get to the desktop I can start issuing commands (open Safari, etc.) and they happen. I doesn't feel "stuck" like XP does just after start-up.

As others have said, there is a simple solution to all this. My Mac is almost never off, it sleeps when I move it. It comes up and ready in like 3 seconds. By the time I finish opening the display, it's ready. My XP box is never turned off or logged off, I lock it. It unlocks in 2-3 seconds. If it were to hibernate, it'd only take a few seconds longer, still light years ahead of a boot.

I can tell you that these kind of things (little fast OSes) can get obnoxious. As soon as you run into a limitation (say you want to access something you don't have setup it in, or a program like Quicken) you have to suffer the full reboot. When you want to transition there is no easy way. You can't take your surfing from the fast-boot environment with you into Windows. All that rebooting gets really annoying. Now that I have a phone that can do a quick look-up on the 'net, I have even less reason to boot into this to see that "one quick thing".

Re:Yawn, another Lunix rerun

[David Gerard]

Linspire is now part of Xandros. This is them.

Re:Who reboots?

[BlueWomble]

I'm not sure it's the apps. I think what actually happens is that Vista puts up a login prompt well before it has truly finished booting. i.e. before all the services have started.

The result is that you can login but the machine runs like a dog with no legs for the next 5 minutes as it tries to complete the boot process and deal with you trying to use it all at once.

Re:Who reboots?

[iangoldby]

My XP box that I'm using now at work (2 core 2.33 GHz Xeon) boot Windows REALLY fast. It is under 30 seconds to get to the "Ctrl-Alt-Del to login" screen. It's great.

How long does it take your transistor radio to switch on? What about your television? (Unless it is decades old, it is probably two seconds or less.) When you turn on your kitchen tap, how long is it before water starts coming out? What about when you turn the ignition key in your car? Does it churn for 30 seconds before it is ready to drive off? (Well I know some cars do...)

If you think that 30 seconds is fast just because it is a computer, then I think you have really low standards.

(I know this wasn't the main point of your post.)