10 second Windows Boot!

**Machinehead** · 09-28-2009, 10:48 AM

To be fair to Ubuntu, the 9.04 build installed without a hitch in a VM. I think they've worked through most of the driver issues at this point. It still booted slow as molasses though.

**UnusuallyGenius** · 09-28-2009, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Machinehead

To be fair to Ubuntu, the 9.04 build installed without a hitch in a VM. I think they've worked through most of the driver issues at this point. It still booted slow as molasses though.

why are you doing everything in VM? you will not get actual, real world results out of VM.
My ubuntu 9.04 works great, never had a driver issue on my Acer Aspire one, one of the pickiest laptops for drivers...winXP has serious problems when it comes to drivers, where Ubuntu worked out of the box

**Machinehead** · 09-28-2009, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by UnusuallyGenius

why are you doing everything in VM? you will not get actual, real world results out of VM.
My ubuntu 9.04 works great, never had a driver issue on my Acer Aspire one, one of the pickiest laptops for drivers...winXP has serious problems when it comes to drivers, where Ubuntu worked out of the box

A) it's a fair basis of comparison as long as I'm testing all the OS's under the same condition set.
B) I don't have to waste my time installed multiple OS's on real hardware, which is a huge waste of time.
C) I'd never wanted to run Ubuntu or any other Linux build as the primary OS on my desktop PC.

**justchat_1** · 09-28-2009, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Machinehead

A) it's a fair basis of comparison as long as I'm testing all the OS's under the same condition set.

Not quite...are they both getting access to both CPUs (if its a dual core)? Do they both have a realistic amount of ram (aka 1GB+)? Because if those type of conditions change the speeds wont decrease linearly. And even in those conditions virtually execution time is not constant like on real hardware.

**Machinehead** · 09-28-2009, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by justchat_1

Not quite...are they both getting access to both CPUs (if its a dual core)? Do they both have a realistic amount of ram (aka 1GB+)? Because if those type of conditions change the speeds wont decrease linearly. And even in those conditions virtually execution time is not constant like on real hardware.

As I said after that, I'm not going to install Linux on real hardware just to do cold boot speed tests. Or 16 different builds of XP or Win 7 for that matter.

**Blues** · 09-30-2009, 05:41 AM

Update: Here’s another demo, with explanation from Phoenix:

Phoenix Technologies Enables Uber-fast Boot http://www.gottabemobile.com/2009/09...uber-fast-boot

**bambam** · 09-30-2009, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by nobb

Oh wow, came across this and thought it is an interesting concept. 10 second Windows 7 boot:
.....

My nLite'd XP system cold boots into RoadRunner in 18 seconds. I can't see Win7 offering me anything better than what I already have.

**afterdigital** · 09-30-2009, 10:44 AM

anyone know if this bios app is avaible to download and test?

**tripzero** · 09-30-2009, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by afterdigital

anyone know if this bios app is avaible to download and test?

It's going to be very specific to your motherboard and has to come (usually) from your motherboard mfg. I highly doubt we'll see bios updates for old hardware with this. We'll likely just see it on new hardware.

**tripzero** · 09-30-2009, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by bambam

My nLite'd XP system cold boots into RoadRunner in 18 seconds. I can't see Win7 offering me anything better than what I already have.

The thread title is deceiving. This thread really should have had nothing to do with the OS. It's all about the bios and how fast it get's out of the way.