Lol, someone didn't read the thread... just the title I think
This makes no sense.
You're comparing an operating system and a front-end software. The two are completely different.
Never mind that you applied conditions to your statement.
And having seen a few centrafuse installs with 20+sec load times, the whole slower then it takes XP to boot thing could be true.
YES! CF itself takes longer to load up than XP to boot. But yea I also think that the Linux FEs need to be a bit more polished and better looking as far as the UI goes. It's actually a pretty important reason why I chose CF...because it's so much more sexier than all the other FEs Ive tried.
I'd be willing to bet that they are a result of poor OS optimization and/or slower hardware.
Until you compare front-end load times on the same hardware setup, you will never have an accurate picture of which loads faster and which loads slower.
BTW... RevFE loads lightning quick. Just something to mull over.
IMO, for a front end to be easy to use I dont think it should require too much of the user having to optimize OS or hardware, or even poking around the settings too much. There is a common trend of users saying CF is slow to load, so it's not just me. But I guess from a developer's view, to cram all those features and still be fast is challenging.
I've compared FEs on the same computer using Microsoft virtual PC 2007, and in my experience so far, in terms of speed from slowest to fastest: Centrafuse < Road Runner < StreetDeck < FreeICE < LinuxIce2
And coincidentally, from a usability, good aesthetics, ease of use, and "best" front end standpoint, I would reverse the list such that the slowest front end is the best and vice verse. So I guess you cant have it all. But in choosing a front end, waiting a few extra seconds for it to load is often worth it for the extra usability.
The more plugins you have, the longer something will take to load. CF and RR have way more plugins than nGhost and RevFE combined due to their maturity. I think a longer load time is acceptable IF the frontend is quick once it loads. Waiting an extra 5 seconds to load is better than waiting an extra second for each screen when you switch screens. This is a point that is lost on many. I think the discussion on which frontend is the fastest to load is silly for this reason.
Not true at all and a very common misconception. Having to wait for everything to load is just bad design. For single threaded and outdated languages like vb6 in road runner that might be the only choice. But modern software should be able to load only whats necessary for the initial display, loading the rest on a background thread.
Slow hardware??!?! Come on lets be realistic....
I can do a comparison of load times on the same hardware for all the windows front ends...would that be useful to anyone or am i gonna get excuses like "its just my hardware"?? Would I need to do actual video or is a table of average timed runs good enough?
A couple more things to consider:
1. Most car psu's take around 3-5 seconds from ignition on to power being supplied to the pc
2. Most pc's take around 10-12 seconds to complete bios initialisation
So if cold booting or resuming from hibernation you're upto 17 seconds before the O/S gets a sniff!