The Simpleton1405241582 0 Report post Posted June 9, 2010 I definitely agree that Windows 7 is much better than Vista in many aspects. Not many people complain about 7 regarding the booting time. I guess after seeing what Linux offers, any speed by Windows just seems too slow! It does have to load quite a lot of things which Linux doesn't do (or need). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yordan 10 Report post Posted June 9, 2010 lol i think somebody spends a little too much time surfing the web hey yordan? lolSorry, can you explain somewhat more ? Do you mean that a personal computer could reasonably be used for something else than surfing the web? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Simpleton1405241582 0 Report post Posted June 9, 2010 Sorry, can you explain somewhat more ? Do you mean that a personal computer could reasonably be used for something else than surfing the web? laugh.gifUsing a PC for something other than surfing the net?! Now that's a challenge! If there was a reason, the concept of "netbooks" wouldn't come into play Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
8ennett 0 Report post Posted June 9, 2010 Sorry, can you explain somewhat more ? Do you mean that a personal computer could reasonably be used for something else than surfing the web? lol hmm, people who think that way would cringe at the site of my laptop and pc. the pc is running 10 different servers and is broadcasting through out the house, also contains all my 3D design software, DirectX SDK, FPSC, in fact all my game designing stuff. My laptop is crammed full of web development software, media playback, auditing, design and conversion software, EvoX tools and libraries crammed full of goodies, and so so so much more. It's a wonder I ever get time to surf the web lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mahesh2k 0 Report post Posted June 9, 2010 well yordan i do use personal computer for things other than internet. this is because when i go to my grandfathers place i can't access internet there because it is in town area. so there is limite distribution of internet lines and telephone. you can guess people still use computer without internet. i try to connect using gprs but with poor speed i can hardly manage to chkc mails. so there is life without internet for some pc owners @simpleton, with development and possibility of things on linux i'm quite dissapointed with the community. there is hardly any money making chances in linux or free software world. so though it is slow i prefer windows these days. slow booting is fine for me comparing to no programs/boring environment in linux. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
8ennett 0 Report post Posted June 9, 2010 slow booting is fine for me comparing to no programs/boring environment in linux.I cannot believe you said thatThe difference between linux and windows in terms of software development is that people develop most software for linux for free in the spirit of the entire linux project. You will find a lot of popular software vendors offer their software for Windows, Linux and Mac, but regardless, there is a tonne of linux apps out there which are very similar to windows software, and just as powerful, however they are FREE. For a prime example of this have a look at this list:http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Linux_indows_softwareAlso, the linux environment seems boring? Probably the most adaptable environment available to anyone lol the fact it uses multiple desktops as standard now is a small indication of how adaptable it is. There are definately more available options to completely modify the desktop environments than in winblows as well.Once you have learned the basics of the linux environment (I would recommend the KDE desktop) then you will find it's just as easy to use as windows itself, if not simpler. Package managers make downloading and installing trusted software a breeze, networking is just as simple and in a lot of cases more secure. Just check the link I've posted above and reading that is enough to change your mind lolAlso don't forget, it's possible in linux to emulate the windows environment to run windows only apps with ease. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Simpleton1405241582 0 Report post Posted June 9, 2010 lol hmm, people who think that way would cringe at the site of my laptop and pc. the pc is running 10 different servers and is broadcasting through out the house, also contains all my 3D design software, DirectX SDK, FPSC, in fact all my game designing stuff. My laptop is crammed full of web development software, media playback, auditing, design and conversion software, EvoX tools and libraries crammed full of goodies, and so so so much more. It's a wonder I ever get time to surf the web lolwow it's a wonder you got the time to make over a hundred posts here! You seem just too busy well yordan i do use personal computer for things other than internet. this is because when i go to my grandfathers place i can't access internet there because it is in town area. so there is limite distribution of internet lines and telephone. you can guess people still use computer without internet. i try to connect using gprs but with poor speed i can hardly manage to chkc mails. so there is life without internet for some pc owners biggrin.gifA computer without internet - I used to have one of those some years ago, before dial-up and later broadband came and spoiled the party!@simpleton, with development and possibility of things on linux i'm quite dissapointed with the community. there is hardly any money making chances in linux or free software world. so though it is slow i prefer windows these days. slow booting is fine for me comparing to no programs/boring environment in linux.Ah, 8ennett has already commented well enough on your words; I'll add a few more. The chances of making money are slim in the open source community but that doesn't mean it's all they do. Most open source programmers have regular jobs as well and if their work is well appreciated, the community doesn't shy away from making generous donations. (Take Mozilla Firefox, which is an open source project and is yet raking in good money) As for the apps/programs, there's no way Windows can beat what Linux has to offer. The only problem is that the Windows community has a much wider reach and better marketing, which is why Windows' (and even Mac's) programs get popular and famous easily. The linux community's problem is that there is simply too much variety, which confuses new users. Since all the programs are new to them, they don't know which one to choose and end up ditching the community and go to Windows. There are a lot of ways in which one could prove how Linux is better than Windows, but writing all that in this thread would mean writing against the topic, which I've already done a lot On the fastest PC available today, Ubuntu Linux 10.04 claims to boot in less than ten seconds. Can Windows 7 claim that? No. Ubuntu shuts down even faster. In Windows the user has to do some tweaking to reduce the shut down time. I guess this one example is enough for this situation to prove how Linux scores over Windows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mahesh2k 0 Report post Posted June 10, 2010 Most open source programmers have regular jobs as well and if their work is well appreciated, the community doesn't shy away from making generous donations.these jobs are either in windows enivironment or any other coding field which pays in comparison to open source which pays less or nothing. The linux community's problem is that there is simply too much variety, which confuses new users. Since all the programs are new to them, they don't know which one to choose and end up ditching the community and go to Windows.i think problem is how much you can seed to a tree which gives no returns in reality but more virtual (i'm referring to money). programmers lack motivation most of time if they're doing full time job and part time open source thing. without money there will be hardly any motivation and as programming communtiy is too dense there is hard chances of getting famous in comparison to commercial environment. There are a lot of ways in which one could prove how Linux is better than Windows, but writing all that in this thread would mean writing against the topic, which I've already done a lot tongue.giflinux is better for server and security i have to agree and it is cheap especially in case of hosting and server side. other than that i don't find it's worth in terms of making money. On the fastest PC available today, Ubuntu Linux 10.04 claims to boot in less than ten seconds. Can Windows 7 claim that? No. Ubuntu shuts down even faster.In Windows the user has to do some tweaking to reduce the shut down time. I guess this one example is enough for this situation to prove how Linux scores over Windowswhat's the point in starting and shutting down faster if there are no apps for me inside .. good for normal users and surfers .. for tweaking part i don't think windows 7 needs much tweaking or anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yordan 10 Report post Posted June 10, 2010 Ubuntu Linux 10.04 claims to boot in less than ten seconds.That's a matter of defining what does "boot" mean.If "boot time" is only the time for having the ascii console available, I agree.If "my" time is accepted, this time has to be from poweron to the moment where the "sar" command says "idle 100%", and Firefox has opened the Xisto forum login page.I have several Linux servers which need one hour booting, because about one thousand Tuxedo services are started in order to serve the thousands of simultaneous connections, and the server is not available as long as the whole thing is started. So, we cannot say that Linux boots faster than Windows, we can only say that some developer's linux system boot faster than some home standard Windows PC's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Simpleton1405241582 0 Report post Posted June 10, 2010 If "my" time is accepted, this time has to be from poweron to the moment where the "sar" command says "idle 100%", and Firefox has opened the Xisto forum login page.Ok, if you consider that time, then on my PC Windows needs at least a whole minute before it is ready to open firefox and load google.com. Ubuntu, on the other hand, opens firefox within 2 seconds of reaching the desktop. On today's average PC the speed for Windows 7 and Ubuntu might be even faster, but the gap between them is still the same! You've shown how complicated Linux can get in advanced environments, but isn't this topic about the regular computer (PC??) I think Linux clearly wins here no matter how many angles you try to see it in. i think problem is how much you can seed to a tree which gives no returns in reality but more virtual (i'm referring to money). programmers lack motivation most of time if they're doing full time job and part time open source thing. without money there will be hardly any motivation and as programming communtiy is too dense there is hard chances of getting famous in comparison to commercial environment.You seem to be stressing a lot on making money and getting famous! The general public doesn't know a lot about any famous programmers so fame comes for programmers only within the coding circles and its plenty in both open source and closed source programming. And you said open source programmers will lack motivation if they're not paid. This isn't true - many open source projects have been developed for many years and a majority of the programmers hardly get paid - a good example is the development of the various distros of Linux. They've been here for many years in spite of the fact that not every developer of the project gets paid! Oops writing a lot off the topic again - if there is a thread relating this matter, let's discuss there; otherwise if you start a new thread everyone can jump in and argue freely Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yordan 10 Report post Posted June 10, 2010 Oops writing a lot off the topic again - if there is a thread relating this matter, let's discuss there; otherwise if you start a new thread everyone can jump in and argue freely OK, I started this new thread. If you wish to express yourself concerning the important question "to be, or not to be" (rich and/or famous), let's switch to this topic : http://forums.xisto.com/topic/97580-topic/?findpost=And continue posting in the current thread if and only if you want to stick to the subject "how long is yourPC boot time".RegardsYordan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Бојан 0 Report post Posted June 11, 2010 Well now, with my new E5300 2.60GHz Dual Core processor and Windows 7 32-bit, the boot time is around 1 minute and i'm pretty satisfied with the results of my PC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ahsaniqbalkmc 0 Report post Posted June 20, 2010 How long does ur pc normally take to boot up?I've got a 3GHz CPU, 512mb RAM, ATI RADEON 9600 graphics, 200gb hard drive yet my PC takes like 2 minutes to fully boot up and be usable. (excluding typing password) Is this normal? It seem a bit long?Any thoughts?_________________ Mine is dell optiplex desktop with only 1.8 GHz processor and 512 mb of ram. I have installed some heavy softwares like Office 2007, dragon natural speaking etc but still I fell that my PC is better in terms of loading speed than my friends' computers. It takes a little more than 50 seconds to become fully functional. I think this is because I have a smaller hard disk (though I have a lot of data installed into it) but still my hard disk is smaller 20 GB with only about 2 GB free space. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yordan 10 Report post Posted June 20, 2010 The small size of the disk is not the real point. The real point is the size of the data having to be loaded from disk at boot time.And the huge disks available today are faster than the small disks available a couple of years ago, probably due to the embedded disk cache. So, probably, the same OS on your PC on a faster modern disk would still boot faster, even if the available disk space is bigger. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ahsaniqbalkmc 0 Report post Posted June 20, 2010 The small size of the disk is not the real point. The real point is the size of the data having to be loaded from disk at boot time. And the huge disks available today are faster than the small disks available a couple of years ago, probably due to the embedded disk cache. So, probably, the same OS on your PC on a faster modern disk would still boot faster, even if the available disk space is bigger. You made a very valuable addition to my knowledge. Thanks for that. But here I would also like to mention that I have seen computers go slow down as far as the loading of the windows is concerned when the hard disk is full of none other than movies and songs and softwares that are not started with system boot. I also had an experience that smaller hard disks tend to perform faster although as you mention that technology makes it possible for larger hard disks to perform faster than the smaller ones but still the comment remains the same when the technology is the same that is two hard disks built on the same technology if tested then the smaller is liable to work faster than a bigger one. This is my speculation. If it is wrong please please correct it for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
