3 ms·
35 seconds is still kinda ridiculous when you consider the ludicrous speed of modern computers. If every cycle of a single core of a 3Ghz processor were a subje
by AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
35 seconds is still kinda ridiculous when you consider the ludicrous speed of modern computers. If every cycle of a single core of a 3Ghz processor were a subjective second, then in that 35 seconds the core experiences a subjective 3327 years.
- xboxnolifes 6y agoHalf of the 35 seconds in this case is from decrypting a drive and menu screens from having multiples OSs. Removing that and using fast boot BIOS options could easily drop this under 10 seconds.
- sandworm101 6y agoAnd time waiting for the wifi to reconnect. That is an entirely different wait cycle.
- AshamedCaptain 6y agoYes, my desktop usually boots in around 10 seconds. Or at least feels like 10 seconds; no more. In fact it takes more time for it to wake than to boot from full power off, albeit that says more about Linux sleep/wake support than anything else. But my point is that, for most of the time, I just leave it on. It consumes almost the same power sleeping that fully on, at idle.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoYou say that like the decryption steps should be slow. The decryption is orders of magnitude faster than reading from the drive in the first place. And 10 seconds is still nearly 1000 subjective years. A Commodore 64 boots faster than the CRT can warm up and, while certainly doing less in the process, does it with a 1Mhz processor. Which, for reference, is 3000 times slower than our single core 3Ghz example not even accounting for CPI=>IPC inversion. Computers are ludicrously fast, but we've apparently worked hard as an industry to slow them down as much as possible even for the simplest of tasks.
- AshamedCaptain 6y agoSeriously, why would you complain about this these days? In 2012, I was _impressed as hell_ when the SSD MacBook Air would fully boot OSX in 1 minute 30 seconds, being used to computers taking minutes to start and then spending even more minutes being unusable with the HDD thrashing like hell. These days my Linux desktop computer boots in around 10 seconds (much faster than either Windows or macOS on similar hardware, but at least on windows the boot time improvements have been incredible too). My desktop literally boots in less time than it takes for my DP monitor to power on from zero and start displaying frames. This is the wrong year to complain about boot time. I remember being on an airplane with no wifi and a brand new MacBook Air and spent most of the time idly turning it off and on, since I was really impressed :) . And today that > 1 minute boot time I would consider crap.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago> Seriously, why would you complain about this these days? Because we have ludicrously fast computers, but they feel slow. I have an period appropriate XP laptop in my office and every time I have to pull it out and use it I'm momentarily shocked by how responsive it is compared to modern OSs. We should be better than this, but our industry sucks at its job and I'm kinda sick of it. > These days my Linux desktop computer boots in around 10 seconds [...] > My desktop literally boots in less time than it takes for my DP monitor to power on from zero and start displaying frames. Your monitor takes more than 10 seconds to power on, and you seriously don't think this is ridiculous? What the hell is it doing that could possible be taking that long?
- AshamedCaptain 6y agoYou claim that XP is snappy? Even on a 2020 machine VM, it still takes more time to boot that 10!
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoI've confused the argument here, because it is true that it does not have an impressive boot time. However, once booted it is significantly more responsive than any modern OS I've ever used.
- giantrobot 6y agoWhile CPUs are ridiculously fast, pretty much everything involved in booting a system involves a lot of polling or hard coded waits. Modern peripherals also contain only the barest of firmware in ROM and need the drivers to actually upload their operating firmware. No matter how many cores the CPU has or how fast they're clocked they're not going to make all that IO faster. They also can't run a hard coded 10ms sleep faster than 10ms. Even once you get into a booted kernel and PID 1 you're still going to wait on IO to get daemons running. If you've got services (in systemd parlance) waiting on Networking you can have totally variable wait periods depending on local network conditions. SSDs and parallel starting of daemons has improved boot times a lot over the past decade but there's still hard minimums just based on booting up low level crap before the kernel turns things over to PID 1.