First off, I think that "slow" is relative. To me, a 30 second wait for my PC to resume from hibernate and settle into music is not "slow. To others, it is extremely slow.
So anything we're discussing here is a purely subjective judgement.
Quote: Originally Posted by
justchat_1 
DarquePervert:
Slow hardware??!?! Come on lets be realistic....
Realistic?
OK. How many users are still running a Via EPA board with a C3 or C7 processor?
Compare a C3 CPU which is used in the M10000. IT clocks at 1.0 ghz, and is roughly the equivilant of a 1.0ghz P3. That's right, a P3. No typo there.
You can't compare the load time of an OS on that CPU to a system with an Intel Core 2 Duo or even an Atom. The architechture and processing capability is completely different.
And I didn't say "slow" hardware. I said "slow
er hardware". Hell a 7200rpm hard drive will yield faster boot times than a 5400rpm hard drive.
Why?
Because the 5400rpm drive is
WHAT, boys and girls?
SLOWER HARDWARE
A PATA hard drive is slower than a SATA hard drive.
RAM modules have different timings, even though they are rated for the same speed. Never mind that RAM modules come in different speeds.
Even different chipsets utilize resources in different ways. Some are faster than others.
Quote:
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"??
First of all, nobody said your hardware was slow.
And is you want a true comparison of fornt-end load times, you need to do it yourself on your hardware.
Look, I've never argued the point that CF is slow to load. And I won't. I can't because everyone has a different concept of "slow". In my case, I'm going through my ritual when I get in my truck while CF loads, so I don't notice it. And I have music playing by the time I put the truck in gear, so I have no complaints.
Is CF slower to load than other front-ends? I don't know. It is not slower than SD 1.0, at least on my system. I can't compare to SD 2.0 because I never used it.
My point is that to get an accurate comparison of front-end load times, you need to do it yourself on your hardware with the way you have your system optimized and configured.
While it's highly unlikely that you could tweak WinXP to the point where you get CF to load faster than RevFE (as an example), you can tweak your system to improve load times so it won't be "slow"... Or at least not as slow...
Quote: Originally Posted by
NibbleIT 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!
Bull. On both points, so it makes it double bull.
Both your points are wholly dependent on setup. My DSATX starts the bootup of my system as soon as it senses power on the ACC line. There might be a delay of a quarter second or less.
My system goes through the BIOS in well under 10 seconds. And it's an older setup.
im serious though, his hardware is holding him back so much more then software its not debatable. even though the atom is new architecture, its designed to be extremely low power consumption (and price), at the cost of performance. in my eyes, the atom is too weak for carpc's. for some people they seem to work, but nobody ever brags about how well they perform. hell, even my core solo 1.8 ghz chip runs a steady 40-50% load while im driving (music, gps, net radio...) but one thing is for sure, it doesnt take long to load anything...
It actually does.....even though they're completely different concepts both an operating system and the front end that run on it have a load time.
Linear Mode
