Slashdot Mirror


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?"

35 of 440 comments (clear)

  1. Hibernation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Hibernation? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    2. Re:Hibernation? by IANAAC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Hibernation? by jetsci · · Score: 5, Funny

      Back breaking? I carry around a 17" HP DV9000 fully loaded laptop and barely notice it. Perhaps you should get some exercise. Certainly beats carrying around my old kit, 70lbs ruck-sack, 16lbs rifle, and ammo. Sissy.

      --
      Bored at work? Play Game!
    4. Re:Hibernation? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why on earth would you regularly boot a netbook? Doesn't it sleep when you close the lid and wake when you open it?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Hibernation? by wfstanle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are several reasons why you shouldn't always hibernate. Hibernate preserves the state of memory. If there is something wrong with the state of the memory such as a program has a bad memory leak, that problem persists. Also for computers with a large amount of memory, hibernation might not be the best alternative. The hibernation file must be at least as large as the RAM. If your computer has a large amount of RAM then it will take longer to backup/restore the state of the memory.

      At the very least, occasionally do a full shutdown to get a "clean slate".

    6. Re:Hibernation? by KillerBob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As everybody else has said... why bother rebooting it? My XP-based laptop is effectively instant-on and instant-off with sleep mode, and it really only gets rebooted after I've been playing video games all day, or after a system update.

      And don't gripe about battery life... sleep mode uses *very* little power. I have, quite literally, put my laptop in sleep mode, gone on vacation, and come back 3 weeks later to a laptop with a battery that still had enough juice to run for 3.5h before it needed to be plugged in. (The laptop in question has a Core 2 Duo T5450 @ 1.66GHz, 2GB of RAM, 120GB 7200rpm HDD, DVD, 15.4" LCD @ 1680x1050).

      Even with netbooks, battery life in sleep mode is very long. I have a Dell Mini 9 (64GB SSD, 2GB RAM) running OS/X (thanks to http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook), and that one is also pretty much instant-on and instant-off with sleep mode, and hasn't needed to be plugged in in 3 days.

      So... why are you actually bothering to power-down and reboot from cold your acer-one?

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    7. Re:Hibernation? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't work properly all the time under XP either. I've had some pretty quirky behavior, like the machine not coming back to life every once in a while. I found on my HP notebook that hibernate was sufficiently cranky under Vista that I finally stopped using it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Hibernation? by jaavaaguru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've had nothing but good experiences with Ubuntu and the Dell Mini 9 when it comes to standby. Works perfectly. I would guess it's the hardware vendors that aren't very friendly when it comes to standby + hibernate.

    9. Re:Hibernation? by izomiac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:Hibernation? by jmcvetta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We don't have anyone willing to use a shovel anymore to do real work.

      Here, let me correct that for you:

      "We don't have anyone willing to use a shovel anymore to do real work for less than a living wage."

    11. Re:Hibernation? by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Must be zombie immigrants that I see actually doing work :) I guess that road sign was right!

    12. Re:Hibernation? by djtack · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Two reasons, I think:
      • Many of my coworkers running Ubuntu (and I've occasionally seen this with XP also) can't reliably sleep and wake without crashing.
      • Badly designed hardware, with short battery life when sleeping. My older PowerBook G4 could sleep for 2 weeks on a single charge; my newer MacBook gets about 1 week on sleep. Again, I've seen a lot of wintel hardware who's battery won't survive an overnight nap.

      I'm not saying this is a problem for everyone; just that there's enough issues that I think a lot of people are afraid or unable to use sleep.

    13. Re:Hibernation? by wastedlife · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did you just insinuate that Anonymous Coward is new here? That guy has been here forever!

      Oh, wait...

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    14. Re:Hibernation? by FredFredrickson · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hibernating with 1 gb of memory still takes a long time. Sleep still drains battery.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    15. Re:Hibernation? by ender06 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Many of my coworkers running Ubuntu (and I've occasionally seen this with XP also) can't reliably sleep and wake without crashing.

      I read that as "Many of my coworkers can't reliably sleep and wake without crashing." I thought sleeping wasn't allowed at work. Can I have their job?

    16. Re:Hibernation? by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm much the same way.

      No, not my laptop. Me.

    17. Re:Hibernation? by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  2. Who reboots? by qoncept · · Score: 4, Informative

    I feel like this is too minor of a feature and too late to do any good. Windows 7 is apparently making huge strides toward reducing boot time, and I never hear anyone complain about boot time anyway. Including people who don't use the computer that much. Most of the people I know that aren't "computer people" leave their computer on or in standby/hibernate, so boot time is hardly an issue.

    --
    Whale
    1. Re:Who reboots? by InlawBiker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even Vista boots pretty quickly, at least to the login prompt. The excruciating delay comes from loading all of the apps - virus checker, printer/scanner tools, laptop vendor "helpful tools" that don't seem to do anything, etc. It's ridiculous.

    2. Re:Who reboots? by MBCook · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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".

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    3. Re:Who reboots? by BlueWomble · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Who reboots? by iangoldby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.)

    5. Re:Who reboots? by HetMes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or you could ask:
      How long does it take to get on the highway?
      How long does it take to get dressed?
      How long does it take to get the shower temperature right?

      The questions you ask refer more to delay times in starting applications, and overall responsiveness.

    6. Re:Who reboots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How long does it take your oven to pre-heat? Honestly this is all apples to oranges. Most people simply don't care about the fact that their computers take a bit of time before they're ready to use.

  3. Boot Time is the least of the pain. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am fairly sure faster boot times wont cause most people to switch. For most people it comes down to being able to run their apps, and not the sometimes poor GNU replacements of their apps.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Boot Time is the least of the pain. by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you had looked at the site for about 45 seconds, you could have noticed that the product installs in a dual-boot setup and gives the option to boot into Windows. It's not a new company called PResto, BTW. It's a product called Presto from Xandros, which has been putting out their own Linux distro for years.

    2. Re:Boot Time is the least of the pain. by Vectronic · · Score: 5, Funny

      "If you had looked at the site for about 45 seconds..."

      Who has time for that?... Apparently 30 seconds is too long to boot a computer these days, who has 45 seconds for reading?

      Someone should build a site called 'Presume', which strips out 2/3rds of the words, knock the reading time down to 15 seconds.

  4. Making Linux Work by Useful+Wheat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although I agree that a shorter boot time would be attractive, I doubt this will increase the number of people using Linux. A lot of the resistance to using Linux is tied up in the number of applications that don't port to the operating system, not the boot time. It doesn't matter how quickly the OS is available if you can't do anything once it turns on. If you could make it so that the majority of windows applications ran without resistance, I think that almost no boot time could make Linux revolutionary. Until then, I think you're wasting man hours on the wrong problem.

  5. Xandros by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Informative

    Based on the copyright ("Copyright (c) 2009 Xandros Incorporated") I would venture to guess that Presto Linux comes out of Xandros Linux.

    1. Re:Xandros by Workaphobia · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man, the lengths some people will go to to not read the article.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
  6. "painful amount of time....." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Speaking as someone who owns a relatively new PC, XP, Vista, and 7 boot faster than the 'flasghip' Ubuntu. Not that it matters really.

  7. TFA Almost burns. by Useful+Wheat · · Score: 5, Informative
    From TFA

    One of the main reasons why modern operating systems take so long to boot is that they are very bulky: a huge amount of code needs to be read when a computer is first turned on. Consisting of far fewer lines of code than Windows, Presto needs just a few hundred megabytes of memory, says Jordan Smith, product marketing manager at Xandros. Microsoft's Vista operating system, in contrast, recommends at least 15 gigabytes of free disk space to install.

    I don't think the reviewer really understands what's happening here. Recommended amount of hard drive space is not installed space (although I'm aware that Vista is a beast). And the reviewer has apparently compared RAM to HD space.

  8. BIOS by Tx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  9. Re:Easier to DIY... by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you kidding? When is the last time you used OpenOffice.org? If the version number was earlier than 2.4.0, I might agree with you; but OOo is at 3.0.1 now and it's quite good and fully integrated as a replacement for all MS Office -- the only thing it doesn't do well are Excel macros, and that's for a reason: they're broken and easily replaced. As for database apps, with Office you have Access, which is fine for very small databases, but more than a few thousand records you need to look at SQL anyway, which if you recall is a standard array of functionality (designed on purpose), so MySQL can do the job pretty well as MS' SQL Server, and sometimes better.

    ...and drawing apps

    What MS Office drawing app are you referring to? Would that be Paint? Paint is a POS, and even MS knows that (they really ought to replace it with Paint.NET)

    I can replace all my Office apps with free alternatives:

    MS Word = OpenOffice.org Writer
    MS Excel = OpenOffice.org Calc
    MS Access = OpenOffice.org Base
    MS PowerPoint = OpenOffice.org Impress
    MS Publisher = Scribus
    MS Outlook = Evolution
    MS Paint = GIMP or OpenOffice.org Draw
    Adobe Illustrator = Inkscape
    Adobe Acrobat = (practically any Linux application can create a PDF or PS file)

    The list can go on, and others here can easily tell you more applications, I only wanted to harp in on a few that you might be interested in (or didn't even think about.) The days of MS Office being the be-all-end-all of office application suites is over and has been for a while now.