The Future of Fedora.

[Keith G. Robertson-Turner]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:42:06 -0200, Luiz Rocha wrote:

>> > 3) Boot: FC1 boot times are significantly longer than in Windows XP,
>> > however except few optimizations nothing could be done here. (or am I
>> > wrong). Running on Athlon XP 1800+ with 512MB of RAM, I can boot DOS
>> > in few seconds, WindowsXP in about 40 seconds, and FC1 Linux in more
>> > than 2 minutes. That's poorly acceptable for home users. (but for me
>> > that's almost OK)
>> >
>> >  Bottom Line: optimize boot times, if possible.

>   I have a similar computer, Athlon 1800+ w/ 512 RAM. My FC boots twice as
> fast as a WinXP, with the graphical boot on.

>   If this guy FC is taking 2 minutes to boot, he must have screwed the
> installation of the system itself (by using 'root' as its user, maybe?)

Yeah, I was going to say ... that just doesn't sound right at all.

I have WinXP Pro and FC1 on this machine (P3, 1GHz), and FC1 boots in
about 25 seconds, while XP takes a full minute+. The faster than average
boots, may have something to do with the U160 SCSI raid :)

If, as I suspect, the guy has some paranoid thing about passwords, then
maybe as you suggest, he's screwed something with his tinkering.

Also bear in mind, that the number of services (server components etc)
that a V.everything install FC1 runs at startup, is maybe double that of
XP Pro. I tuned mine for my requirements, which is something you're always
encouraged to do with Linux. With Windows, you wouldn't even know about
disabling unnecessary services unless you're the type that reads articles
on the hacking sites. So if anything, Linux *should* boot slower than XP.
The fact that it doesn't is testimony to it's efficient optimised code.