4 ms·
I worked with someone who had previously been a senior engineer at one or maybe more than one hard drive manufacturers. He told me about a project he had worke
by phaedrus 3y ago
I worked with someone who had previously been a senior engineer at one or maybe more than one hard drive manufacturers.
He told me about a project he had worked on where they collaborated with Microsoft to make something that would make the OS boot significantly faster working with their hard drive. I'm filling in blanks in my memory here, but I think it involved a combination of putting some files in flash memory (hybrid disk) as well as storing files on the spinning disk in the order they'd be accessed.
It worked! They were able to make boot process significantly faster. But consumers would never see it.
The punchline was, it turns out many peripheral devices and drivers rely on the boot process being slow that all kinds of race conditions and intermittent bugs and glitches turned up as soon as they started testing on a wider range of PCs. Even if you solved the dependency and order of scheduling problems on the main thread of the OS loading, devices may have microcontrollers that are slow to come online or drivers initializing independently.
(You might object well doesn't the hardware or driver have a "ready for first query" flag or something like that. Well that depends on hardware manufacturers doing the right thing, thinking of that ahead of time to add it to the interface, and implementing it correctly. This would be something that had never been tested because previously there was always XX seconds before the OS tried to query the device for the first time.)
So the moral of the story is the boot process of x86 PCs is still slow because it has always been slow...
- wvenable 3y agoIs the PC boot process slow though? All my computers boot in a handful of seconds.
- WorldMaker 3y agoWindows Vista started a crackdown on hardware boot times that Windows 7/8/10 completed. It was one of the reasons Vista was sometimes considered unreliable because it would actively quarantine bad-acting XP era bootup hardware based on timing telemetry. Windows would tell it to boot up minutes or hours after actual system startup, sometimes leaving users with hardware "not working right" because Windows decided it didn't trust that hardware to wakeup right and decided to just not wake it up at all until it was good and ready. If the hardware kept acting up it would sometimes disable the hardware entirely and suggest to the user it was broken hardware. That's a running thread in the article above and its related posts: "the PC boot is slow, let's do weird BIOS and dual boot hacks" only made sense for one weird, brief moment in around 2009 between a dying breed of XP-era hardware and just before/as Windows itself decided to be judge, jury, and executioner of hardware boot up times.