7 ms·
> Tell me why Windows shouldn't be able to start up in a few seconds, as a C64 did? Why don't you tell us why it should? On an SSD it boots in <1min which is
by kaoD 6y ago
> Tell me why Windows shouldn't be able to start up in a few seconds, as a C64 did?
Why don't you tell us why it should?
On an SSD it boots in <1min which is a feat considering how much functionality is just there on boot, unlike a C64 which literally does nothing on boot except show a BASIC prompt.
A modern computer can boot into UEFI shell in seconds which is comparable to what a C64 boots to... but why would I do that?
Even if you get your OS to a bare minimum like a bare Arch Linux install it takes a while to load for a reason.
We trade off some boot time for a lot of functionality and smooth experience once the initial RAM has been set up with the needed data structures for normal operation.
- Symbiote 6y agoRISC OS running on the early ARM 250 CPU in 1992 booted to a GUI desktop in about 15 seconds. https://youtube.com/watch?v=r2gro6XUJVk https://youtube.com/watch?v=r2gro6XUJVk When my dad's new job meant we needed a PC instead, we all grumbled that Windows 95 took longer to load.
- noir_lord 6y agoI recently upgraded my primary boot ssd to name m.2. From pressing enter on grub to desktop is ~6 seconds on a cold boot. It was noticeably faster than booting from even a sata ssd. Was pleasantly surprised.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago> Why don't you tell us why it should? Because each core is 4 orders of magnitude faster and it has multiple cores?
- kaoD 6y agoBoot is probably IO and not CPU bound, hence why NVMes take the boot times down to <10s.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoThat ignores a lot of things, like why it has to load so much information off the disk to boot. The entirety of Windows 95, the interface of which is not much less computationally intensive than modern Windows, fit in <50MB. Loading that from disk today, even with spinning rust, should be nigh-instantaneous. What justifies orders of magnitude more data loading?