Boot Windows Faster, Using Linux

BiOFH writes "TechNewsWorld is reporting that InterVideo has a solution for slow boot times runing Windows XP MCE. 'The new Linux-based InstantOn software -- designed to help Windows XP Media Center Edition PCs boot more quickly -- is aimed at taking advantage of the power of Intel's Pentium processors, not at fixing fragmented hard drives. The software integrates into the computer's BIOS and the operating system.'" According to this article, the software uses a small Linux partition on the user's hard drive. I wonder how BIOSes with hard-wired Microsoft-based DRM would cooperate with this scheme.

Vaporware!

[LostCluster]

It doesn't make Windows boot faster. It's just a stripped-down version of Linux which of course is going to boot faster because it provides far less functionality. If you want to get to full Windows, you'll have to wait out the remainder of the boot process you interrupted.

Any CD-based Linux distro can achieve the a similar effect with far more functionality.

It doesn't boot windows faster!

[spun]

It boots Linux faster, offering a choice of several entertainment related programs, as well as the choice to boot windows, which takes as long as usual.

Common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

What About the old "Don't load programs you don't need to load at startup"? Prefetcher tweakage. (yay for bootvis) Killing ad / spyware, tweaking services? My XP boot fairly quick (if I *enter* out of my 30sec countdown from my Xp bootloader asking me if I want Linux Or windows today.) Who doesn't know that isn't very likely to install a seperate Linux partition just to boot quicker?

It isn't some kind of linux based boot loader...

[Valar]

Which is what I thought when I read the writeup. It is actually a minimal media-distro designed to boot quickly. To do windows stuff, you still have to wait for windows start time.

"Entertainment machines"

[TubeSteak]

A partition on the hard disk houses the Linux software in an area separate from the Windows operating system. The developer claims that with the new software, the boot time is brief -- a mere 10 seconds. When a user turns on the PC, the InstantON software preempts the Windows boot sequence and takes over, quickly loading basic entertainment functions.

Business Applications

Moving from the quick-boot entertainment functions into Windows, however, will take users more time than the initial 10-second boot because the InstantON software must hand off the user to the Windows operating system at that point. Still, the company believes that most users inclined to use PCs as entertainment machines in their living rooms are accessing those machines mainly for entertainment-related functions, rather than to run business applications like Microsoft Word or Excel.

1st step towards seperating 'entertainment centers' from general computers. "Ro foresees a market emerging for computers that don't have conventional operating systems but are used in the living room as entertainment devices, right beside TVs." And since this technology is being marketed towards OEMs, HP and Gateway etc, I can't imagine that it will compromise WINXP Media Center's DRM.

why not use hibernation?

[techvd]

When the PC is hibernated, it comes back up much much faster than a normal boot. Most PC/laptops on market have had support for hibernation for a while. Except when necessary, why not get rid of a complete boot process and just stick to hibernation? It's no Instant On, but a lot better than a complete reboot!

Re:Windows is already faster than linux

[bobthemonkey13]

Linux is a kernel. It takes very little time to boot up (it's done when you see INIT: Version such-and-such booting). On a modern PC, Linux will boot in a few seconds or less. From there, everything is in userland, and boot speed thus depends on what your distro chooses to initialize at startup. So if you're unhappy with bootup times, use a distro that loads less stuff, or cut yours down. For the network thing, I would suspect a failed attempt to get a DHCP lease.

Memory images on disk

[digitalhermit]

There was a project a while back to take a snapshot of a boot state then load this snapshot directly into memory. Any modern harddrive can move the 40M or so in a few seconds. The sticking points were mainly due to hardware that needed initialization and some OS design issues (beyond my understanding, but had to do with how control is passed to the operating system). If not for these issues, the machine could boot completely in seconds.

Re:why not use hibernation?

[mikeman14400]

Why even bother with hibernation if your looking for fast time up. Just turn your monitor off and when you need your computer turn your monitor on and Volia! No boot time no stand by wait time... Well i guess you still have to wait on your monitor to come up.

Re:Windows is already faster than linux

[MikeBabcock]

I've been using daemontools [cr.yp.to] for years to start up all my system processes in parallel. My start-up times are great (plus, I don't have to wait for timeouts on failed drivers before I get a login).

Timmy Stay in your Chair

[sPaKr]

Jebus. This doesnt boot MCE faster. Rather it uses Linux for some media operations.. but still boots MCE for other things. Timmy You make the most mistakes in posting. You post more dupes, and wrong descriptions then anyone else. Please stay in your chair.. and fondle your joystick.. and keep all your comments to saying only your own name. The world .. and slashdot will be a better place.

Re:Vaporware!

[gordyf]

How do you install Windows Updates if you're not rebooting?

Need to re-boot != instability always. THINK!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Tell me, how is it 100% stable if you have to restart it to install things or change settings?

Stability and having to re-boot to install *certain* software packages have nothing to do with each other. Yes, the need to re-boot for certain installs is a weak point for Windows, but that's not the same thing as stability.

It's understandable that many here do not like Windows. But many people also understand that certain applications don't run on Linux, nor have *nix equivalents. We who must use these apps are stuck with Windows. But the need to re-boot is not the same as instability, and indeed many Windows machines have up-times that rival the average Linux server. It's true.

By the way, it it "instability" that after making changes in a Linux configuration, you often have to re-start services?

Harp on some other point that makes more sense.

Re:Vaporware!

[AstroDrabb]

It is not pointless. Linux is USED for all the multimedia in the device and not MS Windows. The DVD, TV, FM, etc are all handled by LinDVD. This allows the device to boot really fast when you want it for multimedia purposes. If you want/need to do normal desktop stuff, that is when you boot up full MS Windows.

Two things

[ev1lcanuck]

1) My XPMCE laptop boots in about 20-30 seconds, much faster than my XP Pro desktop or SuSE 9 desktop.

2) Does it really matter? I mean, in the home environment (I hope to god our corporations aren't stupid enough to buy MCEs for workstations) what is 45 seconds at maximum to wait for the computer to boot. If you REALLY need your computer to boot that fast then just put it into standby or hibernation - both options are excellent and give you almost instant gratification. Standby in my MCE laptop takes about 1.5 seconds to get up and running and coming back from hibernation takes about 5-6 seconds.

Re:Vaporware!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. On my machine (1.8Ghz P4) Redhat 9 and Windows XP Professional both take about the same amount of time from power on to CPU idle (ie: waiting for something to do). Windows XP is faster to present a login screen, but the machine is still not useable until quite a while longer after login.

Re:Vaporware!

[aardvarkjoe]

so turning a computer off doesnt 'save' any energy.

A computer is hardly an efficient space heater. (An effective one, yes, but mostly because current systems use huge amounts of power.) If you want to save energy, turn off the PC when you're not going to be using it and use the furnace.

Too complicated...

[ByteSlicer]

If you really want to boot Windows XP fast, configure your BIOS to do a suspend to RAM on sleep. When you hibernate XP, the computer will be completely off (except for a tiny current for self-refreshing the DRAMS). From this state, booting will take only about 5s. And all programs you had previously running will still be there. Even music will continue playing where it left off.
The only drawback is: if you lose power, the DRAMS will be cleared. That could be solved by a UPS or maybe some built-in battery.

Re:Vaporware!

[ortholattice]

But there is NEVER a reason to shut down a Windows XP computer (if you're not installing anything or changing settings). My computer has been on for 92 days and is still as stable and fast as it was on day 1 (super fast and 100% stable).

Since you don't install the security updates (which require a reboot) I certainly hope your computer isn't connected to the Internet. Otherwise it's probably been turned into a zombied relay for spammers who are all too happy with your 92 day uptime.

Re:Too complicated...

[ByteSlicer]

I meant 'Standby' instead of 'Hibernate'. Hibernating will write your RAM to disk. It is controlled by the OS instead of by the BIOS. Reading half a GiB worth of RAM back is significantly slower than resuming from suspend to RAM. But in hibernation state the computer is really off, so no risk of losing DRAM content.

Re:Vaporware!

[NemoX]

If you use your computer once a day, it is more energy efficient to just put it in stand-by. Most monitors take up more energy then the actual computer does. So, turn off your monitor, and stand-by your computer to be the most efficient.

Don't believe it? Electricity spikes whenever an appliance is powered-on. This is why many people rightfully recommend to turn your monitor on before turning your computer on, so to shield the computer from the electricity spike. That spike takes up a lot of electricity on its own. When I first learned about this in high school, I remember I did a test at home and had my brother turn on the vacuum at while I looked at the power meter on the house. It is true. That meter dial sped up like crazy for a few seconds, then dwindled back down to the vacuum's running electricity level (and of course slowed back down after it was turned off). As you know, it is that meter that determines your electric bill.

Oh yeah, and there are reasons to shut down XP...like when it crashes, and the only thing to do is to power it off, because not even reset works! ;)

Re:Memory images on disk

[Jerf]

Current hibernation modes would not be able to do that because they end up storing various memory-based file-system caches in the hibernation as well. You do not want those caches to get out of sync with the real contents of the disk; big lossage.

"So avoid saving those caches...", well there's a reason they are saving them. If you don't save them, you have to first close all open files, and now your "suspension" isn't transparent. So you've opened the door to two "modes" of program starting, "suspended" and "not suspended", or some such other crap. And re-loading the cache with new, valid data on startup takes time, which defeats the point of this in the first place.

My point is not that there are no solutions to these problems but to try to give a taste of how these things cascade rapidly. OS design is a subtle and tricky work, which only becomes truly apparent once you actually try to sit down and code solutions to these problems.

Re:Vaporware!

[Rasta Prefect]

But there is NEVER a reason to shut down a Windows XP computer (if you're not installing anything or changing settings).My computer has been on for 92 days and is still as stable and fast as it was on day 1 (super fast and 100% stable).

You know, when you're not using your computer for long periods of time (say, 92 days) you should shut it off. Needless to say, my experiences with XP's stability have been a bit less sterling than yours. (Generally after a few days it's good and ready for a reboot. If I'm developing, once a day minimum).

Re:Vaporware!

[Schmucky The Cat]

Most modern machines can only be completely shut down by pulling the power plug.

Hibernate is called the S4 sleep state. It is still using power because some peripheals can wake the machine. Wake-on-LAN, Wake-on-Ring, etc.

Re:Vaporware!

[jrockway]

I call BS. On my family's XP box (a P4@2.6 GHz) it takes about 20 seconds from the "login" screen to when icons actually appear on the desktop.

My linux box is started up 8 seconds (with services) after LILO passes control to linux. My BIOS takes a bit of time to init, which is why I doubt your 15 second number. My old motherboard took exactly 15 seconds from power-on to taking the monitor out of standby. The new one takes about 3.

Anyway, I think you're lying. To be fair, though, starting services, etc. is going to be time consuming unless you happen to be using a RAM-based disk (which you're not :), no matter what OS you use. At least Linux tells you what it's doing, though.

Re:Vaporware!

[GigsVT]

Most of it is being converted to light and mechanical energy

I'm not sure what you are running in your computer!

All the kinetic energy in your computer eventually turns to heat, unless your computer is rolling across the room or something.

A front panel LED is negligible light, less than 1 watt. That's the only light escaping the closed system, so any other light (like a CDROM) turns to heat too.

A computer is very nearly 100% efficient, compared to any other resistive heater. A heat pump will beat a resistive heater any day though.

Re:Fujitsu Lifebook

[crimson30]

The only downside is the screen is very small so if you're at all far sighted, it's hard to read. Not a problem for her so she's happy.

I wouldn't say it's the only downside. The graphics capabilities are quite slim, crippling an otherwise decent laptop.

I will admit I was surprised the first time I closed the lid and forgot about it. It didn't look like it lost any battery power whatsoever in the 10-12 hours I left it on.

Re:Vaporware!

[plusser]

When approximately 10% of the world's electrical power is spent on powering computers, then there is a real reason why your electricity supplier might want you to turn your computer off when you are not using it. It is so they don't get in the neck when they need to build more power stations to cover the additional demand, saving you money in the long term.

Re:Vaporware!

[kfg]

You are arguing semantics. . .

Certainly. It was about semantics before I arrived and I've already admited to feeding the troll.

. . . that have nothing to do with the discussion.

The only thing I'm discussing is power consumption.

'Hibernate' uses the exact same amount of power as choosing 'Shutdown' or pushing the power button. The fact that that isn't truly 'off' isn't incredibly important to anyone.

Since I've already provided myself as a counter example this could be considered an insult I suppose.

. . . which rather obviously requires it to have power all the time.

Which supports my premise.

And there's no way in hell that airport security can tell the difference between a hiberating laptop and a powered off laptop, because a hiberating laptop is a powered off laptop...it's just one that's going to load memory from disk the next time it boots.

The test is simple. Power up the machine. Power it down. Turn the switch to the "off" position. This last they consider critical. A machine that is put into hibernation mode from the shutdown menu or by closing the lid may still be drawing current and providing functionality. See your own above comments.

And, BTW, you can have a computer that's 'hiberating' and is truely off...you just have to hiberate and pull the power cable. It will boot just as fast when you plug it back in and turn it on.

Yes, it will post and restore, and a bit faster than a normal boot because the memory image is compressed, however, while the plug is out some funtionality may well be lost that would otherwise be available because the machine has no power to provide it.

If you want to save as much power as possible turn it off.

Which is where I came into this movie.

KFG

Re:Vaporware!

[L0rax23]

sorry... gotta jump in on this one. A electronic device does NOT produce anything near the heat output of an electric heater. Even given the same wattage, you have one device who's energy is being directed to some other form of work and is designed to run LESS hot versus another with at least 95% (controls and what-not) of it's energy being directed toward producing heat, and designed to run MORE hot. Power is a by-product of resistance and thus heat disipation is an indirect by-product of resistance. Electronic devices are design to be less resistant so as to make better use of energy. We don't use 300-400 watt power supplies cuz we want to. We use them cuz we must. And most of that energy is put very efficiantly to work.

But on a lighter note.... it is nice to think that it does make a good heater and I often use the reasoning myself when talking smack...

o)

Just cuz I spell bad and use run-ons, doesn't make me wrong... being an idiot does...