Slashdot Mirror
New Phoenix BIOS Starts Windows 7 Boot In 1 Second
suraj.sun excerpts from a tantalizing Engadget post: "Phoenix is showing off a few interesting things at IDF, but the real standout is their new Instant Boot BIOS [video here], a highly optimized UEFI implementation that can start loading an OS in just under a second. Combined with Windows 7's optimized startup procedure, that means you're looking at incredibly short boot times — we saw a retrofitted Dell Adamo hit the Windows desktop in 20 seconds, while a Lenovo T400s with a fast SSD got there in under 10."
That is indeed really fast boot to desktop. I like it how it shows the Windows loading screen almost immediatly too.
This also brings a new friend for F5 hitting. To get to the bios menu you'll be smashing F12 as fast as you can during boot.
But the article is a little low on details of optimizations. As I've understood, BIOS isn't really that complicated nor does it do any heavy calculations. It basically just brings hardware up and tests it, which takes most of the time (not that the 5-6 seconds is so long wait anyway). So have they optimized something else, or are they just skipping those tests?
After you see the desktop it's another minute for all the system tray crap to load. And if you're stuck with corporate antivirus? May as well throw some cinderblocks in the trunk of that nice sportscar and watch it do 0 to 60 like an arthritic Ford Pinto.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
If they could get rid of the vacuum tubes, Windows could turn on instantly.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
How long does it take before the desktop is usable? Did they login all the way or just stopped the clock at the login prompt? Vista for eg. boots quickly but it takes a while until its usable.
Its fairly easy to speed up the bios if you just scrap all internal testing, key pauses and such. Does it recognize a new ide/sata disk/other devices without going into bios manually?
HTTP/1.1 400
It's very important they minimize windows boot times because, you know, windows users have to reboot so frequently...
Great BIOS!
But there is no special relationship between this bios and Windows 7, meaning that Linux can't also start-to-boot in 1 second!
The Upcoming Ubuntu 10.04 is going to start up in 10 seconds, meaning that from you hit the power button until you have the system ready are only 11 seconds on this system.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Have you ever actually used Windows 7?
I'm thinking that they turned just about every service off in order to get it to pop up that fast.
If it is booting up as a fully functional system, then kudos to them! But I am skeptical.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
wait, wait.... from what I read and from what I know about Slashdot...shouldn't the headline read "New Phoenix BIOS Starts LINUX boot in 1 second"?
Or how about "New Phoenix BIOS Starts OpenBSD Boot in 1 second"? or even "New Phoenix BIOS Starts OS X Boot in 1 second"?
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
What's with the Windows 7 plug?
Booting into Ubuntu will be amazingly fast with this Phoenix BIOS. Can't wait until I can get something like this for my PC.
Most of us keep our machines running all the time. I would think a quicker return from suspend or hibernate would be more useful.
Phoenix Instant Boot BIOS **starts** loading Windows in under a second That means that the BIOS boots fast.
Well, they show this on a notebook which naturally have a rather fixed set of hardware components. On most notebooks the BIOS POST runs much faster than on Desktop PCs also.
this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Moderation needs an Undo
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
The reason PCs take so long to get to the part where it boots an OS is because it, by default, does a POST. POST is Power On Self Test. It is a diagnostic procedure to make sure the machine is working correctly before continuing on into the OS. This can save a lot of troubleshooting Suppose a second hard drive or some other system device that is not critical to booting the OS? You might think the problem is software/driver related. If the problem is memory failure of some type that doesn't manifest itself until it reaches a temperature or simply a bad bit somewhere up there that isn't read or written until a memory hungry application calls for it, a POST might catch it.
But if you turn POST off or do only a minimal check, your boot time becomes faster! What a surprise right?
And I noticed that it is called UEFI. Will it boot MacOSX?
And of course, "Will it run Linux?"
As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.
So, this means you get that much faster to the crap Windows OS. I am so happy that my company switched to Macs for all developers and that at home I have another Mac.
Windows is still Windows and so it doesn't matter how fast it boots.
Intel's Moblin boots incredibly fast. Their early prototypes got to desktop in 5 seconds. Here's a video of Moblin 2.0, possibly taking a bit longer than that but it's also probably a nicer desktop ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqmuPFZ1RWo
Moblin's aim, AFAIK, is to get you to a full *usable* desktop as quickly as possible. So unlike what Windows (unless they've improved this since XP, when I last checked!) and some Linux distros do you don't get your quickly loaded desktop bogged down by loads of services starting in the background. You get there, you're done (although you may still have to wait for the network to connect but whatever you do won't be wallowing whilst other stuff loads).
I Hate it when the system boots so fast and I do not have time to see what the bios is kicking out. There are times when I have to look at somebodies system and that info is useful. Yet, I have to go through multiple re-boots to be able to catch it. A simple debut switch that either slows it way down, or will pause it at more screens would be equally useful
The interviewer was an idiot.
"Don't take my word for it, take Microsoft's word" !!!
I think I'm going to trust a random schmuck any day rather than Microsoft.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
You're going to have to do something!
I use an Apple Macbook Pro. It's slow as hell. Especially when you run Firefox.
Actually, it has a lot to do with it.
I use Linux and I hate rebooting. Not because it takes a long time to boot -- it doesn't -- it takes maybe 30 seconds. It is because it is an interruption. When someone has to reboot frequently such as Windows users, reducing the time it takes to boot becomes increasingly important.
So when Microsoft hears "I hate rebooting all the time" they don't focus as much on the OS and the way it hosts applications, they focus on how fast the system can reboot. I will be the first to say that Microsoft has made terrific progress in patching their OS to make it better and more stable and reliable. But if the name "Apache" wasn't already taken by the web server, we would start using that name to describe Windows -- it is very patchy and requires reboots frequently... less frequently than before, but still a lot more frequently than others.
So by addressing the time it takes to reboot, they can improve the amount of uptime. And this actually enables more reboots too. If it takes 60 seconds to reboot before this new tech, that limits the number of reboots you can perform in an hour to 60 or less. But if it takes 10 seconds to reboot, you can reboot a lot more than 60 times in an hour.
now I can go from start to BSOD in less than a minute.
Nothing new here. My Mac has been doing this for the past 4 years or so. Ok, it's hibernation actually, but still: I can get to work almost immediately for over years now.
This is good news! Your bios will allow you to recover in small 1-minute increments those 20 hours you just spent upgrading to windows 7.
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/09/12/windows-7-upgrade-could-take-20-hours-reasons-to-do-a-clean-in/
Seriously. Hit the power switch and go occupy yourself for a minute or so. Drink some coffee. Read some Baudelaire. Have some private time on the john making twosies. Whatever.
I know that it's a nice goal to aim for, but having Windows up and running in 2.3 seconds just isn't a reason to get all frothy and rabid for me. YMMV.
This is news for Windows users because they'll be rebooting all the time. I don't think the boot time is relevant to anyone else because they are not forced into rebooting all the time.
so they bypass the basic ram and other checks that should be checked and also makes it hard to get into bios as the window goes by to quick.
Boot Windows in 1 second. That's got to be a record time in how frustrated people are with Windows that they want to put the boot into it THAT fast!
Take Nobody's Word For It.
How quickly does it shut down?
Joking aside, I do usually find that OSX and in some cases Windows and even Linux can take longer to shut down than to start up. It makes logical sense as a startup environment is pretty much constant whilst shutdown always has different loose ends to tie. But until recently, it's always been the opposite.
That's not funny at all but the sad truth.
Try installing any Windows system and you'll be happy about any second you safe during the many reboots!
1. Windows install - reboot ... that sums up pretty quickly. And if you try to install something older, like XP, the reboots for Windows update alone will costs you an endless amount of time.
2. Some driver install - usually at least 1 reboot
3. Windows update - rarely with 1 reboot only
4. Some major application install - often another reboot
I suggest you read the comments from the readers of that article, ripping the author's inaccuracies, before making such a statement.
Most instructions take more than one clock cycle and I doubt the boot up takes great advantage of multiple cores.
Means Apple paid Intel to mangle it so it will not boot OS X. Is it any wonder that no EFI motherboards are on the market?
This is hardly some major breakthrough.
Asus came up with a nice hack on their EeePC dubbed "Boot Booster". It dumps the system state right after POST on a HDD partition, and on subsequent boots it reads that straight into memory, so you have 1-second "POSTs" going straight to the bootloader.
And then you have coreboot, which is as fast as the machine it runs on: without taking any shortcuts, it can do all the grunt work in 3 seconds or so.
Maybe the breakthrough is Windows booting fast, but that's a different story.
After running Windows 7 for a while, one of my favourite things has been not needing to restart for installing updates. I've gone weeks on Vista with the "please restart to complete updating" message popping up periodically because it's just too much hassle to note down everything I have open and arranged, pause or cancel any running operations (if possible), then restart everything afterwards. This can take a good half an hour start to finish, which usually gets traded for half an hour of doing something useful. Hopefully, this should at least mean more people will keep Windows 7 up to date, even if it's just that average users will never even notice the automatic update process and thus never get annoyed and turn it off.
I've had BIOS systems set to start to boot in under 2 seconds, I don't see any reason for the fanfare, especially since I got it to that time by telling it to skip all self tests and quick boot. Yawn.
I think its great. I love to see this come out very soon!!
I would greatly benefit from it, my carputer takes 9 secs to starting loading the OS.
For the record, the upcoming Ubuntu 9.10 already boots in 5 seconds using a SSD.
This is really good news for those of us who simply close the lid on the laptop at night. I do this (shutdown times aside) simply because I want it to start up quickly in the morning. This bleeds more out of my battery than shutting down properly (at least on my laptop). And as others note there is simply no reason why any other OS could not benefit from this too.
Great to be able to boot as fast as possible, but in normal usage I only put my Mac to sleep. It wakes up in the time it takes me to open the lid.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Really, this obsession with boot times is maddening. Having sane and reliable support for sleep/hibernate is much more important. Why? Because just booting up your system gets you only half the way. You will have to launch your apps, open files to work on and so on. If you can just suspend and wake a system you can start working were you left off.
I have only started to understand this after I got my Macbook. Close the lid, sleep. Open it, start working where I left it two seconds later.
...and with 10.6, shut-down speeds for an iMac go from 7 seconds to 4 seconds (and one second faster still for the MacBook Pro).
But as other people have pointed out: start up (and shut down) times are nice, but it's how fast you can use programs when the computer's awake that matters. Getting a computer working for you is like having a person work for you: sure, it's nice to know they can jump out of bed quickly first thing in the morning, but it's important that they don't spend most of the day sitting around doing nothing.
My eeePC does that same thing. The eeePC 901 jumps to GRUB in about second (haven't actually measured it, but it is fast).
I reboot XP about once a month. I guess it helps me that I am not a complete idiot (obviously, by using Windows at all, I must be some level of idiot), but I don't think there are all that many people rebooting Windows multiple times per day.
I often do stupid things like ignoring automatic updates for several weeks at a time (if none of them are fixes for remote exploits of software that I use, where's the hurry?).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
How often do you have to reboot? I use Vista at home and when doing something get interrupted to reboot maybe... once or twice a month for those important updates. A pain yes but hardly inconvenient. Or are you one of those people who demands their home computer stay on 24/7? Lemme rephrase that. Or are you one of those people who doesn't have to pay an electric bill and your computer stays idle for those 16 hours a day you're at work and sleeping?
Fast booting is important because it means that you can actually turn your machine off instead of keeping it on all the time. I have a Mac Mini PowerPC which we never turn off because booting takes way too long.
However, Windows "cheats" because it starts the sign on process before it is actually ready to begin. Various background processes are still starting up by the time you see your desktop. Other OS systems are taking similar approaches now. My Ubuntu Linux system comes up in less than 10 seconds after the BOIS check, but I still have to wait several seconds after I see my desktop before I am able to connect to my network. I can bring up FireFox as long as I don't have to load any remote webpages. I can create an email as long as I don't have to send it anywhere. So, fastbooting and shaving off the other 9 seconds doesn't exactly do me a world of good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=SzkQhHaFE0I
That took me 2.5 seconds to find. And the PC is probably slower than that in the article. And it's probably nothing more than a fast bootloader and desktop boot on a normal EEEPC BIOS.
So, given the lack of time it took to find this online with only a vague search and stopping at the first entry I found, what's new here?
I believe you have misinterpreted the meaning of the previous post.
What decade are you living in? Please describe what you mean by rebooting a Windows box "frequently" I am not a MS fanboi, but seriously, if rebooting once a month or once every two months (for an home PC not a server) is defined as "frequently" I am shocked.
And why are you still sitting on your chair and watching the turning off screen while its going down?
People have to sit through "Log out", which forms the first part of any shutdown, because applications present "Save changes?" alert boxes.
People have to sit through "Install updates and shut down" because some updates to Windows (e.g. Internet Explorer, Malicious Software Removal) require acceptance of a license or otherwise have an interactive setup assistant.
People have to sit through "Shut down" because they want to pack up the computer and take it elsewhere. Either it's a laptop whose drivers don't bring it out of suspend properly, or it's a desktop being taken to a LAN party.
Loading kernel / drivers, running init (including loading the libraries that it and its child processes need), starting the X server, and even reaching a login screen in 10 seconds would be impressive.
YouTube has a video of GRUB to desktop in five seconds.
I use Linux and
Oh stop it.
My uptime is currently some 350 hours on my Game/Dev/browsing/multimedia WinXP machine. That's quite enough for me.
The Amiga was doing this in 1985
The classic Amiga Operating System consists of Kickstart (including System API) and Workbench. In the Amiga 1000 model, Kickstart is first loaded from a floppy disk, followed by Workbench, or other bootable disk. Later models hold Kickstart (and system API) on a ROM, improving start-up times. Models can be upgraded by changing the ROM.
Several third party vendors produced switchable socket doublers to allow two ROM chips to plug into the single ROM socket on the motherboard. This became more popular as later versions of the Amiga OS suffered some backwards compatibility problems with earlier Amiga software titles. The effect of these switchable doublers was a convenient dual boot system, with a choice of two distinct OS versions via a pre-determined key sequence at reboot, or via a two way switch installed in the case, depending on the specific version installed.
The ROMs themselves are generally known as "Kickstart" and start with version 1.0 (A1000 floppy) and end with Kickstart 3.1. There are hardware and software packages that can "shadow" Kickstart into memory. This resulted in faster operation for functions dependent on the ROM, at the cost of system memory to store the ROM data.
But why on earth would you start the X server before you get a login prompt?
To start GDM. It's possible to preload a user's desktop environment while the user is typing his password. It's even faster if your PC has only one interactive user, in which case no login prompt is necessary.
One thing that used to annoy me with "getting to my lag-free desktop" (and lets face it, thtas what its all about) was that i'd turn on and have to wait for a login prompt... then login and wait for a responsive desktop. When fed 9 came out I decided to use the luks encrypted disk - this turned out to be quite a massive bonus in some ways because the thing asks me for a password so early in the boot process.
I then turned on auto-login at the login screen and made firefox and evolution startup programs and wah lah my lifes (generally) alot simpler. i.e. turn on computer - 5 seconds later type in luks password - go make tea - come back to responsive desktop with my most used applications already open. A fast post is going to shave 5 seconds off my booting life? I really dont think im going to be that excited.
What I would prefer though is a rock-solid hibernate/restore strategy, and the idea (a little while ago) about a machine that shutdown, boots up and then hibernates does actually appeal but what kills that strategy is my laptop (where it would be useful) cause at home i have no docking station and at work I do and the thing can never hibernate between the two.
Isn't a faster boot into windows like a faster elevator into Hell?
Most (good, current) servers have Bios settings to extensively test hardware, as well as sometimes separate Raid Bios'sses. Win7, from what i understand is not a server OS, so why would it matter?
I close the lid and my laptop suspends. I open the lid and it resumes with no audio or, worse, a black screen.
From a helpdesk point of view, they'll suffer one heck of a beeting everytime it goes down...
Arg! Support says the server's down again. Let's throw beets at them!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
wow this is great i have to get one of those...
http://www.techandgizmo.com
I use Linux and I hate rebooting. Not because it takes a long time to boot -- it doesn't -- it takes maybe 30 seconds.
That's a long time.
Boot time is almost as fast as my Amiga 2000HD, running a 7.14 MHz CPU back in 1987!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Dwk98gb7o
http://www.myoldcomputers.com/museum/comp/amiga2000HD.htm
Paul
Or you could, you know, use a non-obsolete version of Windows that doesn't require a reboot every system and driver update.
XP came out in 2001. A lot has changed since then.
More than a speedy bios, an SSD makes a bigger difference in boot times. I use PCs all day, but my new MacBook with SSD boots fast! From the "chime" to the login screen is 5.5 seconds.
It's about time! There isn't a single reason BIOS should take so long to boostrap nowadays. Even the slowest of PCs have the processing power to detect whether or not there have been any hardware changes. The only reasons to wait are a) for a memory test b) for the user to enter setup and c) to stagger hard drive spinup (and RAID enumeration when required). Otherwise, just go with the previous hardware configuration and hand things over to the boot device.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
>>I don't understand the obsession with short boot times.
What if peoples TV's took 60+ seconds to "turn on"? People would consider the unit broken and take it back.
Why shouldn't a computer turn on fast? I mean no flying cars and it's almost 2010, we should at least get the amazingness of hitting the "Turn On" button of our PC and it being ready to use.
After running Windows 7 for a while, one of my favourite things has been not needing to restart for installing updates.
Hey, cool. Looks like Windows is growing up. Welcome to, like, 15 years ago.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Becasue it matter so much~
My machine at work, a three year old laptop loaded with anti-virus and altiris take 2 minutes to load.
During which time I'm either writing down my daily task on my white board, or talking to other developer about what's going on.
How many peopole with making a 20 second boot time really matter to in everyday work?
Seriously, if you think about it how much will this really effect your life at work?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Figures a fast boot would be from a windows platform and not MAC, WINDOWS FTW!!!!!!!! (sorry MAC commercials)
Being able to actually use a Windows desktop before it stops fussing and fidgeting with the hard drive light on continuously is something else. At least when I get my KDE4 desktop, which is quite soon these days, I can use it straight away.
My Pentium4 1700 256k
256M 90G disk Geforce3 64M
boots my tweaked XP3Pro in 16 sec. Not counting BIOS-time.
Btw, i've seen a Pentium3 1100MHz boot a fresh installed XP just as slow
as a high-end PC from 2009 boots a fresh install of 64Vista. ouch!
(someday i'll test my tweaked XP on one of those...)
"we saw a retrofitted Dell Adamo hit the Windows desktop in 20 seconds, while a Lenovo T400s with a fast SSD got there in under 10."
It's frustrating that this is what we're supposed to get excited about. I have a Win XP box I built years ago that boots in 10 seconds. It uses hardware that might cost you $400 today. All I did was pick a Bios that didn't have a lot of silly prompts you couldn't turn off, put in a fast hard drive, and, well - ran XP which doesn't eat up every last resource like 7 and Vista do.
What's even sadder about these numbers is that seeing the "Windows desktop" in XP means I can begin browsing the web or watching Hulu right now; in Windows 7 it means you've still got a long road ahead of you before anything actually WORKS.
I don't get it.
Maybe people have boot races. Everyone sits around and watches two machines race to get past the BIOS.
Maybe this is useful if you have an O.S. that crashes all the time, but how many ancient Windows PCs and Macs are there, and do their owners really care about a minute or two of boot time?
I reboot machines maybe once a month, so forget me. How about someone who reboots every day. Let's say they save a whole two minutes at boot time. By my arithmetic, this important advance saves them 0.001388ths of their computer time.
Kind of makes you wonder why they were so slow in the first place:)
Arg! Support says the server's down again. Let's throw beets at them^W^W^W^W make them eat beets!
There, fixed that for ya
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
I have a system that has both NVidia and JMicron RAID chipsets, which both hook in during the POST process and add a LONG delay to it. It would shave ten seconds off my boot process if there weren't those long waits for input as each one initializes. Those wait times aren't configurable AFAIK, either.
Boot up Windows on a new computer from Dell or Lenovo these days. The amount of crap loading in the background is mind boggling. I've run Task Manager on a Vista machine with no user-installed applications on it yet and seen upwards of 60 processes running.
By the time you load a common suite of applications, you'll have added a crapload more autostart processes that load "speed launch" programs, check for Java updates, update your antivirus definitions, monitor which browser is set as default, etc. It's one thing to see the desktop appear. It's another thing to wait another 4 minutes until the machine stops trashing enough to use it.
I've seen quick-start options in BIOS for years. What I'd like to see if for every damn software maker to stop adding cruft that needlessly requires memory allocation, CPU cycles and disk I/O the second my computer starts up. When I want to run your damn program, I'll start it myself, and if it takes three seconds longer to load because I haven't been running your speed-launch application since boot, I'll live with it.
How ironic it is that my 25 year-old Commodore 64 still blows the pants off what is touted as 'fantastic' today. Even my Atari 800 boots in less than a second. My MacBook 165 boots in about 8 seconds and powers down in 2... I have an HP DV8000 notebook running Windows 7 that boots in 'just minutes' ahh progress...sometimes you CAN beat it.
Almost as fast as a Mac!
Here's the issue I have with "boot" times:
Windows XP gets to the "start sound" with desktop displayed fast enough, but what takes a snail's ass of time is for it to then load up all the extra processes. Strangely, Windows let's you interact and click app icons etc which only slows everything down even MORE until its all finished.
So... how about we get a boot time where EVERYTHING is loaded ASAP as fast as possible and THEN let the user start interacting?
Seriously. Hit the power switch and go occupy yourself for a minute or so. Drink some coffee. Read some Baudelaire.
I don't always have that kind of time.
I carry my laptop into work daily with the power off. I walk into work and realize, "Shit, I have a meeting in 5 minutes. What room is it in again?" I turn on my laptop and 4 minutes later I finally get Outlook open to check.
Could I get into work earlier or check the meeting location before I leave the house? Sure I could, but shouldn't the technology accommodate me rather than the other way around?
Yeah, and not much for the better. At least those things that I care about.
One of my friends has DashDAQ GPS Navigation, and then there is that company called TomTom.
If you are talking about the Open Source options, http://gpsdrive.de/ and tangoGPS for two. Naturally none of the above does me any good as I don't have a GPS receiver, but as I already have a computer in the trunk running Linux.
Windows 7 Server is coming and the downtime will lead to beetings that'll make your piss turn pink.
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;
Listen, already at couple of hundred comments and none of you realize the gravity of the situation. Faster boot times, think about it. You won't have time to make coffee! I've switched to instant coffee already! I keep the powder stuff in my mouth, wait for login, enter my password and then I have to make another dash to get the hot water and gulp them down together! Yup! No sugar! Cream? Maybe later, during the anti-virus scan! (Sugar can be added later when a virus has been detected--I happen to be the only one glad when that happens; see this smile?) This has got to stop! Are you with me??
Stop the insanity!
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
.. My Mac Mini with Snow Leopard installed boots in under 20 seconds. Of course this is great for Windows, but this isn't anything new either. And I bet you can tweak Linux to boot in this time too, if you manually tweak it for a year or something ;)
GeoKone.NET
My vista machine takes longer to shut down than to boot up, and as a desktop it is on 90% of the time. Probably 99% of the time I need to reboot my computer so I care more about shutting down than booting up. It takes up to like 7 mins for my Vista to shut down and like 2 or 3 to boot.
This is a great advance for laptops, because as far as I'm concerned, the faster my machine boots, even those few seconds that are being shaved off, the better. If more manufacturers, for example Apple, could do this, it would be a great incentive for me to upgrade from my current machine. My current laptop takes a good 2-3 minutes to fully boot now, and as far as I'm concerned, that's unacceptable.
http://www.cctvhotdeals.com