tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5650649138973583402.post7186105404127033707..comments2023-09-20T07:28:27.572-05:00Comments on Linux in Exile: Still a minute fasterJim Hallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11598443864678006773noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5650649138973583402.post-41349360057802547182009-06-22T01:01:28.624-05:002009-06-22T01:01:28.624-05:00@Ben Zvan: "A properly secured system is neve...@Ben Zvan: "A properly secured system is never transported without first being shut down"<br /><br />Um, what's your objection to sleep and hibernate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5650649138973583402.post-56611620561919868152009-06-18T18:04:59.468-05:002009-06-18T18:04:59.468-05:00Greg: A properly secured system is never transport...Greg: A properly secured system is never transported without first being shut down. If it's a laptop, that means it will be booted at least daily, meaning that the differences in boot time will directly corrolate to the daily productivity of an organization.<br /><br />There is still a liklihood that the Windows machine will need to be booted at some point during the day though, but that's less of an issue once you leave XP behind.<br /><br />JH: I'd like to see this as a long-term study. Maybe you could do a boot speed test on the first Monday of every month and graph the results after a year.Ben Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12985694779451169100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5650649138973583402.post-75480182258381152882009-06-17T22:51:09.299-05:002009-06-17T22:51:09.299-05:00Damn damn damn damn... I just got a (used) new l...Damn damn damn damn... I just got a (used) new latop, and it had vista on it. I wiped the drive and now it has Linux on it. But before I wiped it I did NOT try a boot speed test!!!! Why? (Kicking myself)<br /><br />But, as I mention in my post pointing over here, it would not matter much if one OS was faster than another. What matters is that one OS has to be booted frequently for simple upgrades and system adjustments, while the other almost never has to be booted. THAT makes a huge difference.Greg Ladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857616630819182647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5650649138973583402.post-46241258709679028552009-06-16T11:59:21.925-05:002009-06-16T11:59:21.925-05:00I've got both the Windows 7 release candidate ...I've got both the Windows 7 release candidate and Kbuntu on my laptop, so I can run that test. I've only had them installed for a short while so they'll be relatively clean; if anything it should be biased in favor of Kbuntu since I have a couple IBM things (like a battery monitor) starting up in Windows.<br /><br />Unfortunately, neither OS is bootable right now since I was mucking with the boot loader to solve a minor issue* between Win 7 and XP (yes, triple boot system!) did more harm than good, and haven't put any effort into fixing it yet beyond getting XP working.<br /><br />I'll try to put up some example times when I get around to fixing that.<br /><br />* If you're curious, the problem is the following. Grub correctly detected that I had Win7 (well, it called it Vista, but whatever) and XP istalled and presented both in the menu. However, the XP option didn't boot and just lead to a "missing boot loader" error or something like that. However, the Vista option loaded MS's boot loader, which now presents the option between Win 7 and XP, so both were still accessible.<br /><br />The only problem with this is that if I hibernated one of the Windows installations, the boot loader wouldn't ask what it should do and always booted the one that was hibernated. This is not a completely unreasonable behavior, but I really wanted to be able to hibernate one version of Windows then boot into the other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5650649138973583402.post-52351772418229673652009-06-16T06:45:30.313-05:002009-06-16T06:45:30.313-05:00Thanks, Alex.
The Fedora 11 Live USB is definitel...Thanks, Alex.<br /><br />The Fedora 11 Live USB is definitely running with all the default services running.<br /><br />I'm pretty sure our office desktop support folks have my Windows Vista install in the almost-default mode. They disable certain things for security reasons - but nothing to tweak performance.<br /><br />So this should be a comparison of default settings in Windows vs. default settings in Linux.JHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05264061238864151815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5650649138973583402.post-50913017815522732652009-06-15T22:59:09.564-05:002009-06-15T22:59:09.564-05:00I have found the same thing when booting my vista ...I have found the same thing when booting my vista partition vs my ubuntu one, though not to the same degree. The vista one is only a little slower, maybe 10 seconds, but I have removed a lot of components from it (aero, printing services, a lot of non-essential networking stuff).Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08345844882894801472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5650649138973583402.post-71578796107851425462009-06-15T16:56:06.956-05:002009-06-15T16:56:06.956-05:00Before anyone catches this: in another post I ment...Before anyone catches this: in <a href="http://linuxinexile.blogspot.com/2009/06/bookmarks-and-favorites.html" rel="nofollow">another post</a> I mentioned that when Vista boots remotely (i.e. at home) it takes approximately another 2 minutes for me to log in. It seems that whenever I log in to Windows, Vista checks that my bookmarks are accessible. And my bookmarks aren't reachable when I'm not on the office network, so I guess Windows wants to wait for the remote connection to time out before presenting my desktop.<br /><br />The boot comparison here was done <em>on the office network</em> so Windows was logging in to the local AD. It's drive mappings didn't need to time out.<br /><br />IIRC, we don't run extraneous programs at login when we login to AD - the login action just maps some network drives.JHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05264061238864151815noreply@blogger.com