4 ms·

TVs are digital had come with all sorts of other features that require processing. This used to be handled by "secretly" leaving them on all the time. This woul

TVs are digital had come with all sorts of other features that require processing. This used to be handled by "secretly" leaving them on all the time. This would waste a decent amount of power, and as brands seek better power ratings they actually turn off now. It's the price you pay for HD. I also suspect that in general Bluetooth headsets always had a similar startup latency.

mikeash 11y ago
I don't buy it. Nothing about "processing" or HD means it has to take twenty seconds to boot. It's the price you pay for TV programmers thinking a full-sized Linux counts as an embedded OS.
- simoncion 11y ago
  Given what I understand the power of the machine inside these TVs to be, there's no reason a large-enough Linux shouldn't boot in a few seconds. The manufacturer could get even smarter and use something like CRIU [0], along with opportunistic hybrid suspend [1] to dramatically speed up start times. [0] http://criu.org/Main_Page http://criu.org/Main_Page [1] Which would work like this: A little while after you power your TV off, it suspends to RAM, and disk. If you power your TV on, the system TV restores its state from RAM. If AC power goes out, when AC power is restored and stable, the TV performs a background operation that uses the on-disk suspend image to get back to its hybrid suspend state.
  - jschwartzi 11y ago
    The problem is that these features don't work out of the box. Any feature is going to be judged by whether the increased time-to-market and R&D cost is justified by additional sales. It's worth noting here that nobody buys TVs based on how quickly they turn on.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > The problem is that these features don't work out of the box. What? No feature works out of the box. Engineering effort has to be expended to make something work when designing and building any new product. Did you maybe misphrase what you were trying to say? > It's worth noting here that nobody buys TVs based on how quickly they turn on. [citation needed] A big part of my criteria for purchasing a display device is device and control responsiveness. My non-technical family members who care about TV made "time between the time you turn the thing on and time it becomes usable" their #3 priority when purchasing their second "smart TV". [0] It's pretty clear that many (most?) techies are really disappointed in how shitty, slow, and poorly designed most "smart TVs" are. [0] #1 Picture quality. #2 Overall value per dollar.
thescriptkiddie 11y ago
Bullshit. My computer monitor takes a fraction of a second to power on. Why should a TV be any different?

mikeash 11y ago

I don't buy it. Nothing about "processing" or HD means it has to take twenty seconds to boot. It's the price you pay for TV programmers thinking a full-sized Linux counts as an embedded OS.

simoncion 11y ago
Given what I understand the power of the machine inside these TVs to be, there's no reason a large-enough Linux shouldn't boot in a few seconds. The manufacturer could get even smarter and use something like CRIU [0], along with opportunistic hybrid suspend [1] to dramatically speed up start times. [0] http://criu.org/Main_Page http://criu.org/Main_Page [1] Which would work like this: A little while after you power your TV off, it suspends to RAM, and disk. If you power your TV on, the system TV restores its state from RAM. If AC power goes out, when AC power is restored and stable, the TV performs a background operation that uses the on-disk suspend image to get back to its hybrid suspend state.
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  The problem is that these features don't work out of the box. Any feature is going to be judged by whether the increased time-to-market and R&D cost is justified by additional sales. It's worth noting here that nobody buys TVs based on how quickly they turn on.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > The problem is that these features don't work out of the box. What? No feature works out of the box. Engineering effort has to be expended to make something work when designing and building any new product. Did you maybe misphrase what you were trying to say? > It's worth noting here that nobody buys TVs based on how quickly they turn on. [citation needed] A big part of my criteria for purchasing a display device is device and control responsiveness. My non-technical family members who care about TV made "time between the time you turn the thing on and time it becomes usable" their #3 priority when purchasing their second "smart TV". [0] It's pretty clear that many (most?) techies are really disappointed in how shitty, slow, and poorly designed most "smart TVs" are. [0] #1 Picture quality. #2 Overall value per dollar.

thescriptkiddie 11y ago

Bullshit. My computer monitor takes a fraction of a second to power on. Why should a TV be any different?