Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Phoenix BIOS Starts Windows 7 Boot In 1 Second

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the nice-start dept.

Windows 437

suraj.sun excerpts from a tantalizing Engadget post: "Phoenix is showing off a few interesting things at IDF, but the real standout is their new Instant Boot BIOS [video here], a highly optimized UEFI implementation that can start loading an OS in just under a second. Combined with Windows 7's optimized startup procedure, that means you're looking at incredibly short boot times — we saw a retrofitted Dell Adamo hit the Windows desktop in 20 seconds, while a Lenovo T400s with a fast SSD got there in under 10."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

BIOS (5, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538093)

That is indeed really fast boot to desktop. I like it how it shows the Windows loading screen almost immediatly too.

This also brings a new friend for F5 hitting. To get to the bios menu you'll be smashing F12 as fast as you can during boot.

But the article is a little low on details of optimizations. As I've understood, BIOS isn't really that complicated nor does it do any heavy calculations. It basically just brings hardware up and tests it, which takes most of the time (not that the 5-6 seconds is so long wait anyway). So have they optimized something else, or are they just skipping those tests?

in 10 seconds... (-1, Troll)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538171)

...you can learn WHY [com.com] you don't want that piece of crap on your pc anyway...

Re:in 10 seconds... (1)

rcoxdav (648172) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538471)

I suggest you read the comments from the readers of that article, ripping the author's inaccuracies, before making such a statement.

Re:BIOS (3, Funny)

gmack (197796) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538175)

I wonder when they will get around to to doing this on servers. I have some that are pushing 5 minutes before the OS even loads.

Re:BIOS (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538239)

Could be a while. Given how infrequently most servers are rebooted, and how having at least a backup, better a hot spare, or better still on-line redundancy for servers you actually care about is fairly standard, there probably isn't nearly as much demand.

Also, I suspect, more of the server delays have to do with real needs(notably staggered spin-up of drive arrays) or coordination issues between vendors(your server manufacturer can't do much about how much time a 3rd party RAID controller's option ROM decides to waste once it takes over, and even integrated controllers are usually just 3rd party stuff with some degree of rebadge).

You'll probably actually see fast boot sooner in the cheap seats, which are much more likely to just be a basic business box relabeled as a "pedestal server" or reboxed as a cheap 1/2U and will thus be able to borrow the fast boot stuff directly from the consumer lines. That is also where servers are much less likely to be backed by any serious redundancy, which would make coming up quickly more of a selling point.

Re:BIOS (4, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538459)

Actually you'd think most people would want servers that are infrequently rebooted to come back up really fast.

But yeah, you can't spin up that many drives at once. I've heard a server where the drives were making up and down "pitch" changes during boot up... Not good :).

Re:BIOS (1)

pjr.cc (760528) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538523)

Personally, on the server side, i remember the top end of sun's line back in its peek (from the e250, e450 all the way of to the e10k, the e25k, and the sunfire range)

5 minutes would have been a blessing on those machines.

Re:BIOS (3, Insightful)

WoLpH (699064) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538249)

5? WIth a nice raidcard, full memory check and some other POST tests I've seen them easily go over 10 minutes. Some were definately close to 15 minutes from my experiences.

The question here is, what will you trade for this? Faster boot probably means something will be skipped.

Re:BIOS (1)

Jared555 (874152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538309)

Unless you design it to do multiple tasks in parallel, instead of sequentially. Then it doesn't matter how many checks you add as long as adding them doesn't significantly slow down the others.

Re:BIOS (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538417)

I'm sure that there is some slack in the process, largely because POST times aren't a huge point of competition; but, until SSDs take over, there will be real physical limits on how much parallelizing you can do.

With HDDs, especially the very fast ones, spin-up current is substantially higher than operating current. If you have a bunch of them in the same place, you either have to massively overspec the 12volt rail, or just stagger the spin-ups and do them in batches. Each drive can only spin up so fast, and you can only be sure they are all working after they have all spun up.

Re:BIOS (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538291)

That's because you don't want a server to just gloss over and ignore the fact your RAID array is fucked and data is being sent to oblivion and that sort of thing.

It doesn't take a long time just for the sake of taking a long time, it takes a long time to make sure everything is correct as it should be.

How often do you reboot your servers anyway? It shouldn't be more than a few times a year at most.

Re:BIOS (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538401)

That's because you don't want a server to just gloss over and ignore the fact your RAID array is fucked and data is being sent to oblivion and that sort of thing.

It doesn't take a long time just for the sake of taking a long time, it takes a long time to make sure everything is correct as it should be.

How often do you reboot your servers anyway? It shouldn't be more than a few times a year at most.

Patch tuesday. : So a few reboots a year = b.S Also i compile new linux kernel i cron && reboot.

Re:BIOS (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538445)

Simple, just use a desktop machine for all your serving needs.

Re:BIOS (1)

grub (11606) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538533)

That's probably with hardware RAID, etc. loading up, right?

I don't get the endless fascination with boot times. How often does a person reboot? My desktop box at work has been up 22 days (power failure caused that.) Many servers for months and months.

Re:BIOS (1)

UnHolier than ever (803328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538293)

Is it just me, or are these boot times no better than what was usual until winXP started to take 2 minutes to boot? Or have I just become officially old by using "You know, back in my days....."?

Re:BIOS (5, Informative)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538359)

It's not really all that fast. With coreboot [coreboot.org] there's an option to flash a kernel directly to your bios chip, and skip bios and bootloader entirely. Makes kernel upgrades a pain, of course, but they got wall time from poweron to a working linux shell down to three seconds.

Re:BIOS (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538419)

New BIOSs are UEFI.

As much as they don't like to say it, UEFI is basically an operating system. UEFI supports byte code applications (that's right). It has a driver framework and drivers for many of your devices, a TCP/IP stack, etc...

I think that's a good question about how you enter setup. If you can through keypresses, that time is too short to include keyboard initialization I would think. Since this is a laptop, they would be using their own keyboard firmware and they cheat. So it probably wouldn't work on a desktop or with an external keyboard.

I haven't looked into details into their optimizations either, but I would assume, yes, they are skipping a lot of things. This is on a laptop, so they probably just assume fixed hardware. Many things which are detected are probably just saved.

I doubt you would be able to boot from USB or CD with that set up, since those devices are not initialized.

Intel have a document about the breakdown on UEFI BIOS boot time: http://edc.intel.com/Link.aspx?id=1039 [intel.com]

Out of interest, just having to change video modes to show the BIOS screen can be a couple seconds.

Re:BIOS (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538521)

The problem with BIOS is that right now you don't even _need_ it in Linux and Windows. Linux/Windows have their own device drivers, so BIOS is not necessary.

If I made this notebook, then I'll first check that 'Control' key is pressed (using hardcoded codepaths) and if it's depressed then jump directly into the bootloader, skipping device initialization (apart from hard drive and memory controllers, of course, but they usually are pretty fast).

If 'Control' key is pressed, then I'd just do a normal BIOS startup routine.

Re:BIOS (5, Interesting)

berwiki (989827) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538433)

Computers are lightning fast compare to a few years ago, there should be no need to 'poll hardware, wait 3 seconds, test next piece of hardware'.

If properly parallelized and you remove all the pointless Waits, a BIOS check should be damn-near close to immediate and still manage to check everything.

BIOS writers probably figured, eh, so what if it takes 10 seconds or so, thats still pretty quick, and never rewrote their crappy legacy code.

yeah, but... (5, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538105)

After you see the desktop it's another minute for all the system tray crap to load. And if you're stuck with corporate antivirus? May as well throw some cinderblocks in the trunk of that nice sportscar and watch it do 0 to 60 like an arthritic Ford Pinto.

Re:yeah, but... (3, Insightful)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538123)

... but if you're building a computer that requires a fast startup time - like an in-car PC - 10 second startup time is a godsend.

Re:yeah, but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538159)

There we go - I knew someone would find a down side to this. If it was a Linux OS that got this benefit everyone would be short stroking it all over their inflatable penguin love dolls, but since it's MS there has to be something bad about it. Way to be thing you claim to hate! Good going guys!

Re:yeah, but... (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538261)

Actually, if it was a Linux OS, there would also be some folks bashing it. It's the "group mentality" that makes people so much partial.

To the point: my Aspire One booted Linspire in 15 seconds, and now boots Ubuntu Netbook Remix in 25 seconds, so I can't see the revolution they're talking about.

Re:yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538263)

I'm not so sure this is just a Windows 7 optimisation, everything in the video indicates that it's a POST optimisation that would benefit any OS installed there. In fact, he even says that they DIDN'T optimise it, that it was just the standard product they offered to OEMs. Windows is just a good way to demonstrate it because 99% of people are more familliar with its startup process. Plus, if they demonstrated say Ubuntu starting up, its easy to say "oh well they probably modified the Kernel and disabled some subsystems" and such.

Re:yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538453)

I'm also pretty sure they need to do some more work on it to make sure they are not violating the security spec that says if the TPM is turned on and owned that they have to do a clear of all memory on boot/reboot. Now, sure some folks won't use that - but in a corporate environment these days folks tend to use BitLocker and the TPM will be on and owned. If they are failing to spend the time to do that once the TPM is on it could be a security problem. For comparison on a T400 machine with normal old style BIOS (what ships on them today) that clearing of the RAM (for whatever reason) takes about 15 seconds extra for a machine with 4 GB RAM. You can easily see the difference between a reboot with the TPM active and owned and a reboot with the TPM off. (Cold boot performance doesn't seem to be as affected, but warm reboot definitely is).

Re:yeah, but... (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538315)

Vista and Win7 are much better about responsiveness during that initial phase right after log-in, where background applications start. I won't deny that the system still slows down, but it's nothing near so bad as XP where if you didn't wait until the system was DONE with loading, it would actually take *even longer* before you could do anything useful.

Multi-core helps too, but a lot of it is differences in the OS. Both the kernel's scheduler and the background process initialization were improved (although some would certainly argue that on the whole, Vista's scheduler was worse... they fixed those issues well before Win7 shipped, though).

Re:yeah, but... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538421)

Actually with Windows 7 on an Intel X-25M Gen2 SSD, there is zero lag once you hit the desktop. You can immediately start loading applications. Windows 7 is fantastically better than both XP and Vista at UI responsiveness during system tray application loads. Try it for yourself on a machine with a good solid-state disk. Also, that is on a machine with Symantec Endpoint Corporate Anti-Virus on it as well as a full bevy of applications including Pro/Enginer 4.0, National Instruments Labview (which loads a gazillion services), Office 2007, Acrobat Pro 8.0 etc.

Re:yeah, but... (2, Insightful)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538517)

Your confusing hardware and code. it's more to do with the ssd then windows code.

Awesome! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538109)

Sweet! So the total time to boot Windows 7 will be 23 minutes and 1 second!

Re:Awesome! (0, Troll)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538173)

Have you ever actually used Windows 7?

Re:Awesome! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538215)

Trolled

I have an idea (3, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538113)

If they could get rid of the vacuum tubes, Windows could turn on instantly.

Boot logo is nice but? (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538147)

How long does it take before the desktop is usable? Did they login all the way or just stopped the clock at the login prompt? Vista for eg. boots quickly but it takes a while until its usable.

Its fairly easy to speed up the bios if you just scrap all internal testing, key pauses and such. Does it recognize a new ide/sata disk/other devices without going into bios manually?

Re:Boot logo is nice but? (0, Troll)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538183)

Watch the video.

Re:Boot logo is nice but? (1)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538251)

Anecdotal evidence: Lenovo T500, Vista x86, 3GB usable RAM, 120GB SSD - boot time until usable in under 30 seconds, reboot is actually faster than resume from hibernate.

Lenovo Thinkpad BIOSes have been booting in about a second and a half for years, when network boot was disabled and HDD was the first in boot order.

Re:Boot logo is nice but? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538411)

I've never understood those claims, or perhaps you've just managed to get a computer that has no background processes running. My Dell Precision M70 is about 4-5 minutes from cold boot to usable, and Bios is maybe 10 seconds of that, at most. Resume from hibernation (with 2GB of RAM and a 5400RPM IDE drive) is between 25 and 30 seconds.

Re:Boot logo is nice but? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538389)

This is nothing to do with the OS, this is about reducing the time before the OS starts to load. There's not much the BIOS can do from then on.

Very important (2, Funny)

poptones (653660) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538161)

It's very important they minimize windows boot times because, you know, windows users have to reboot so frequently...

Re:moderation goof (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538243)

this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Moderation needs an Undo

Re:moderation goof (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538319)

Actually, it has a lot to do with it.

I use Linux and I hate rebooting. Not because it takes a long time to boot -- it doesn't -- it takes maybe 30 seconds. It is because it is an interruption. When someone has to reboot frequently such as Windows users, reducing the time it takes to boot becomes increasingly important.

So when Microsoft hears "I hate rebooting all the time" they don't focus as much on the OS and the way it hosts applications, they focus on how fast the system can reboot. I will be the first to say that Microsoft has made terrific progress in patching their OS to make it better and more stable and reliable. But if the name "Apache" wasn't already taken by the web server, we would start using that name to describe Windows -- it is very patchy and requires reboots frequently... less frequently than before, but still a lot more frequently than others.

So by addressing the time it takes to reboot, they can improve the amount of uptime. And this actually enables more reboots too. If it takes 60 seconds to reboot before this new tech, that limits the number of reboots you can perform in an hour to 60 or less. But if it takes 10 seconds to reboot, you can reboot a lot more than 60 times in an hour.

Re:moderation goof (3, Interesting)

EdZ (755139) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538507)

After running Windows 7 for a while, one of my favourite things has been not needing to restart for installing updates. I've gone weeks on Vista with the "please restart to complete updating" message popping up periodically because it's just too much hassle to note down everything I have open and arranged, pause or cancel any running operations (if possible), then restart everything afterwards. This can take a good half an hour start to finish, which usually gets traded for half an hour of doing something useful. Hopefully, this should at least mean more people will keep Windows 7 up to date, even if it's just that average users will never even notice the automatic update process and thus never get annoyed and turn it off.

Re:Very important (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538295)

It would be nice if PCs could just switch off just as fast, too.
Really, what is there to do? Kill everything with extreme prejudice and flush the cache. Unless you've got gigabytes of pending writes it really shouldn't take as long as it does.
Though, the power switch achieves (almost) the same effect with no waiting at all.

Re:Very important (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538425)

Though, the power switch achieves (almost) the same effect with no waiting at all.

Yeah thats a good idea. And why are you still sitting on your chair and watching the turning off screen while its going down? It will turn off itself, you know.

Why is parent moderated funny? (1)

fadir (522518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538461)

That's not funny at all but the sad truth.
Try installing any Windows system and you'll be happy about any second you safe during the many reboots!

1. Windows install - reboot
2. Some driver install - usually at least 1 reboot
3. Windows update - rarely with 1 reboot only
4. Some major application install - often another reboot ... that sums up pretty quickly. And if you try to install something older, like XP, the reboots for Windows update alone will costs you an endless amount of time.

It will also "start to boot" Linux in 1 Second! (3, Interesting)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538163)

Great BIOS!

But there is no special relationship between this bios and Windows 7, meaning that Linux can't also start-to-boot in 1 second!

The Upcoming Ubuntu 10.04 is going to start up in 10 seconds, meaning that from you hit the power button until you have the system ready are only 11 seconds on this system.

Re:It will also "start to boot" Linux in 1 Second! (0, Flamebait)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538301)

But there is no special relationship between this bios and Windows 7, meaning that Linux can't also start-to-boot in 1 second!

Somewhere in Redmond a troll just snorted battery acid and gasoline all over its keyboard.

Re:It will also "start to boot" Linux in 1 Second! (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538347)

Boots OS, logs in user, loads desktop environment (including all its background processes) and is ready to use in 10 seconds? Highly doubtful (theoretically possible, but I won't believe it until I see it).

Loading kernel / drivers, running init (including loading the libraries that it and its child processes need), starting the X server, and even reaching a login screen in 10 seconds would be impressive.

Re:It will also "start to boot" Linux in 1 Second! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538447)

Don't forget the Gnome menu delay upon first use where it can take up to 5 seconds to respond to a mouse click as it loads in the menu configuration and icons and so on. Why this isn't preloaded is anyone's guess.

Re:It will also "start to boot" Linux in 1 Second! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538493)

The Upcoming Ubuntu 10.04 is going to start up in 10 seconds, meaning that from you hit the power button until you have the system ready are only 11 seconds on this system.

I guess it's time for me to try Ubantu. I tried various dostros years ago and settled on Mandriva, but the boot time is about the only drawback to it that affects me.

And to those who say "you don't have to reboot Linux all the time like Windows", I have to pay for my electricity. The PC is shut off when it's not in use. Waste not, want not.

Ubuntu 9.10 + SSD = 5 seconds boot (4, Informative)

Graftweed (742763) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538519)

For the record, the upcoming Ubuntu 9.10 already boots in 5 seconds [arstechnica.com] using a SSD.

Re:It will also "start to boot" Linux in 1 Second! (2, Informative)

David Jao (2759) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538541)

But there is no special relationship between this bios and Windows 7, meaning that Linux can't also start-to-boot in 1 second!

The Upcoming Ubuntu 10.04 is going to start up in 10 seconds, meaning that from you hit the power button until you have the system ready are only 11 seconds on this system.

Indeed, 20 seconds to boot is not "incredibly short" by any means, unless you've been trapped in Windows for so long that your standards have lowered. Fedora has been at the 20 second mark [fedoraproject.org] for a while now. On "retrofitted" platforms (similar to what is used in the article), Linux has achieved five second boot times [lwn.net] .

It's worth noting that in the Linux world, "Done booting means CPU and disk idle" as per Arjan van de Ven, whereas in the Windows world your computer is still loading up services and anti-virus programs even after you get to the desktop. So Linux is booting up faster despite measuring itself against a tougher standard. Hmm...

This whole thing is a non-story except to sufferers of inferior operating systems. The so-called "incredibly short" boot times are merely normal on alternative operating systems, and have been for quite some time.

Windows Just Pops Up? (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538179)

I would like to try to: connect to a network, print, or anything else that needs those background services to run.

I'm thinking that they turned just about every service off in order to get it to pop up that fast.

If it is booting up as a fully functional system, then kudos to them! But I am skeptical.

Re:Windows Just Pops Up? (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538439)

They're only demonstrating the time it takes in BIOS (almost nothing), not in OS.

wait, wait... change the headline (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538197)

wait, wait.... from what I read and from what I know about Slashdot...shouldn't the headline read "New Phoenix BIOS Starts LINUX boot in 1 second"?
Or how about "New Phoenix BIOS Starts OpenBSD Boot in 1 second"? or even "New Phoenix BIOS Starts OS X Boot in 1 second"?

Windows 7? (1, Insightful)

Haiyadragon (770036) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538205)

What's with the Windows 7 plug?

Booting into Ubuntu will be amazingly fast with this Phoenix BIOS. Can't wait until I can get something like this for my PC.

I don't understand the obsession... (5, Insightful)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538207)

I don't understand the obsession with short boot times.

Most of us keep our machines running all the time. I would think a quicker return from suspend or hibernate would be more useful.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (5, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538269)

And if a PC booted in sub 1-second, more people would switch off and stop wasting power - and then marvel at the savings they make.

The two reasons for ever-on PCs is either when the user doesn't like to wait the (in my case) minutes for the boot sequence to run through: whether that's Linux or Microsoft, it's far too long.
The second reason is when they're running stuff in that background: a server or data collection, or just a long download,. Obviously in this case, faster booting won't help but ignoring these power-users (which is probably a big proportion of the /. base, so there's no need to identify yourselves - I get it), if it gets a few million more PCs turned off then it's a good thing.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (2, Informative)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538337)

The two reasons for ever-on PCs is either when the user doesn't like to wait the (in my case) minutes for the boot sequence to run through: whether that's Linux or Microsoft, it's far too long. (...)

Getting the the boot sequence to go down to a few seconds is a great step forwards, but after that I still need the following applications open: Mail, Browser, Media Player (and possibly a couple more, depending whether it's the work computer, home desktop, or home laptop). Plus having those apps' sessions just right.

A good sleep implementation allows you to easily pick up where you left off, which is still a serious advantage.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538407)

A good sleep / hibernate implementation that doesn't use much (or any) power would be indistinguishable from hyperfast booting.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538413)

Waking up after a hibernate or sleep is down to the operating system - but the BIOS still has to boot, so this improvement will help your wake-up time just as much as your boot time.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

ejtttje (673126) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538543)

Yeah, I've always just preferred to 'sleep'. I never turn my laptop off, I just close the lid.
The obsession with the boot time benchmark has always struck me as rather strange considering it's something I only do once every month or two.
On the other hand, I guess 'PC's generally go through BIOS check when coming back from a full hibernate, so this would help their response time there. But I've never really noticed significant battery drain on my Mac in normal 'sleep' mode, which then wakes up instantly. *shrug*

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (2, Interesting)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538289)

Most of us keep our machines running all the time.

Yes, we do, and that is wasteful. With faster boot and support for wake-on-lan in routers, we could be making significant energy savings.

I would think a quicker return from suspend or hibernate would be more useful.

Returning from hibernate performs a full hardware boot (including BIOS POST) -- hibernate merely restores the user-space memory from disk.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538399)

Yes, we do, and that is wasteful. With faster boot and support for wake-on-lan in routers, we could be making significant energy savings.

Boot times have exactly zero to do with why I leave my PCs on all the time and, I suspect, the same is true for the vast majority of people who also do so.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538323)

Sure. That's fine for a desktop or a laptop that you hardly ever travel with. However, if you need to reboot a server boot time matters and if you travel a lot (even just on a corporate or college campus) boot time matters.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538343)

Most of us keep our machines running all the time. I would think a quicker return from suspend or hibernate would be more useful.

And I don't understand why you need your PC to run 24/7. Have you ever noticed there's a bright yellow spot in the sky? You should check it out sometime..

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538469)

Have you ever noticed there's a bright yellow spot in the sky? You should check it out sometime..

Didn't anyone ever tell you that looking directly at sun is bad for your eyes? Are you trying to kill us or something?

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538349)

Yes, exactly. I keep my 7-year-old iMac asleep most of the time, so that I have a completely usable machine in two seconds. As a bonus, it's exactly where I left it last, with all windows and programs still open. Rebooting isn't a common activity.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

ozydingo (922211) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538539)

"I keep my [computer] asleep most of the time, so that I have a completely usable machine in two seconds."

And you don't see the potential benefit of a quick boot time?

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538361)

I don't get what the big deal is either. How about just making systems more stable, so you don't HAVE to reboot? Hell, other than the occasional bluescreen because the unsanctioned nVidia driver is acting up, or mandatory reboot after a driver update, I don't think I've rebooted my laptop since I got it (going on 5 months now). It was the same with my previous system - as soon as I got working drivers installed for everything, crashes disappeared and the thing would run for months on end... all on XP, mind you.

Even faster resume-from-suspend times wouldn't really be interesting at all - even on XP (supposedly they're faster already on Vista and Win7 - didn't notice much of a difference, TBH) they're already so fast that the amount of time I spend waiting for the system is lower than the amount of time I spend typing my 20 character password - and I'm a pretty fast typer.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538363)

laptops. even for suspend, bios can eat up a good few seconds. and if the os boots in 10 seconds, well... that's faster than the suspend on my laptop.

If you only have like 30 minutes to use a laptop (say during commute), you don't want to waste a minute (or 2-4 minutes) starting up your machine.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

klubar (591384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538365)

It's just the annoyance factor... not only has your machine just crashed, but now you have to wait -- what seems like a long time -- for it to reboot. Because desktops are rarely rebooted, the the restarts generally occur when someone is watching (no one cares how long the reboot takes at 3 AM after the updates are downloaded).

That said, our Windows XP machines almost never crash--probably over a year between an unexpected reboot (most are from software installs.) If you want to keep your XP (Mac, Linux) desktop machines stable, don't install crap drivers and don't run as administrator. Almost all the problems come from bad drivers (just say no to unsigned drivers) or mis-use of admin rights.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538369)

if computers didn't had such a long boot time then there wouldn't be such a need for suspend to RAM, let alone suspend to disk. A basic auto desktop session save feature, which is already present for years in DEs such as KDE, would do the trick just fine, no added tech needed nor extra kernel voodoo.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538431)

My office is 90% laptops. (5000 of them). We are obsessive about boot times, because people travel to a client site, then boot up the machine to get to work. When they have to wait 10 minutes to have a usable computer, and they might be going to 2-3 (sometimes more) client sites in a day.. that adds up real quick. But then again, you have to have encryption software, AV software, etc. Its a constant battle.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538443)

I don't understand the obsession with short boot times.
Most of us keep our machines running all the time. I would think a quicker return from suspend or hibernate would be more useful.


This quote perfectly illustrates the extreme disconnect between the typical slashdotter and the average user. Most computer users do not in fact leave their computers on all the time. And they also reboot after installing an application or if something starts acting funny (they don't know which processes to kill in top or Task Manager). So yes, this will be an enormous benefit for the majority of computer users.

Re:I don't understand the obsession... (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538457)

This BIOS will give a quicker return from hibernate.
Hibernation, of course, involving powering down the machine. The rest is just loading enough of the OS to read the hibernation file back into memory and restore the appropriate state registers.

at least read the title! (1)

marjancek (1215230) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538211)

Phoenix Instant Boot BIOS **starts** loading Windows in under a second That means that the BIOS boots fast.

Re:at least read the title! (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538385)

True, but if you at least read the summary you'll see that they had test scenarios of Windows 7 Desktop in 20 seconds on a dell and under 10 second on an IBM.

On a Notebook! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538223)

Well, they show this on a notebook which naturally have a rather fixed set of hardware components. On most notebooks the BIOS POST runs much faster than on Desktop PCs also.

So they just took out the POST? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538247)

The reason PCs take so long to get to the part where it boots an OS is because it, by default, does a POST. POST is Power On Self Test. It is a diagnostic procedure to make sure the machine is working correctly before continuing on into the OS. This can save a lot of troubleshooting Suppose a second hard drive or some other system device that is not critical to booting the OS? You might think the problem is software/driver related. If the problem is memory failure of some type that doesn't manifest itself until it reaches a temperature or simply a bad bit somewhere up there that isn't read or written until a memory hungry application calls for it, a POST might catch it.

But if you turn POST off or do only a minimal check, your boot time becomes faster! What a surprise right?

And I noticed that it is called UEFI. Will it boot MacOSX?

And of course, "Will it run Linux?"

Lipstick on a Pig (0, Troll)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538265)

As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.
So, this means you get that much faster to the crap Windows OS. I am so happy that my company switched to Macs for all developers and that at home I have another Mac.
Windows is still Windows and so it doesn't matter how fast it boots.

Combine it with Moblin (4, Interesting)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538267)

Intel's Moblin boots incredibly fast. Their early prototypes got to desktop in 5 seconds. Here's a video of Moblin 2.0, possibly taking a bit longer than that but it's also probably a nicer desktop ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqmuPFZ1RWo [youtube.com]

Moblin's aim, AFAIK, is to get you to a full *usable* desktop as quickly as possible. So unlike what Windows (unless they've improved this since XP, when I last checked!) and some Linux distros do you don't get your quickly loaded desktop bogged down by loads of services starting in the background. You get there, you're done (although you may still have to wait for the network to connect but whatever you do won't be wallowing whilst other stuff loads).

Debug mode? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538287)

I Hate it when the system boots so fast and I do not have time to see what the bios is kicking out. There are times when I have to look at somebodies system and that info is useful. Yet, I have to go through multiple re-boots to be able to catch it. A simple debut switch that either slows it way down, or will pause it at more screens would be equally useful

interviewer (0, Flamebait)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538297)

The interviewer was an idiot.

Hilarious video (5, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538313)

"Don't take my word for it, take Microsoft's word" !!!

I think I'm going to trust a random schmuck any day rather than Microsoft.

Hey Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538317)

You're going to have to do something!

I use an Apple Macbook Pro. It's slow as hell. Especially when you run Firefox.

This is progress... (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538321)

now I can go from start to BSOD in less than a minute.

OSX (0)

iLLucionist (956046) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538325)

Nothing new here. My Mac has been doing this for the past 4 years or so. Ok, it's hibernation actually, but still: I can get to work almost immediately for over years now.

Why the obsession with instaboots? (1)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538339)

Seriously. Hit the power switch and go occupy yourself for a minute or so. Drink some coffee. Read some Baudelaire. Have some private time on the john making twosies. Whatever.

I know that it's a nice goal to aim for, but having Windows up and running in 2.3 seconds just isn't a reason to get all frothy and rabid for me. YMMV.

Re:Why the obsession with instaboots? (1)

ozydingo (922211) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538487)

When you're working on the go with a laptop rather than casually on a desktop the story changes. Frequently doing the former, I personally would love faster boot times.

Re:Why the obsession with instaboots? (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538509)

Seriously. Hit the power switch and go occupy yourself for a minute or so. Drink some coffee. Read some Baudelaire. Have some private time on the john making twosies. Whatever

You are right that boot times on user workstations don't matter so much.

However boot times on servers are much more important. Say you have a power cut, your UPS fails and you have 10 racks of stuff to get up and running PDQ. You really will care about the 3 minutes extra per server you spend watching it POST check ram and scan for SCSI disks before it even gets to the filesystem checks.

Those extra minutes could be spent fixing the things that came up in the wrong order and testing the critical services are serving.

A Windows only concern (1)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538341)

This is news for Windows users because they'll be rebooting all the time. I don't think the boot time is relevant to anyone else because they are not forced into rebooting all the time.

so they bypass the basic ram and other checks that (1, Informative)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538381)

so they bypass the basic ram and other checks that should be checked and also makes it hard to get into bios as the window goes by to quick.

Fast (3, Funny)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538397)

Boot Windows in 1 second. That's got to be a record time in how frustrated people are with Windows that they want to put the boot into it THAT fast!

More importantly (1)

Cloud K (125581) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538449)

How quickly does it shut down?

Joking aside, I do usually find that OSX and in some cases Windows and even Linux can take longer to shut down than to start up. It makes logical sense as a startup environment is pretty much constant whilst shutdown always has different loose ends to tie. But until recently, it's always been the opposite.

2 Billion instructions a second? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538479)

Most instructions take more than one clock cycle and I doubt the boot up takes great advantage of multiple cores.

Highly Optimized UEFI (2, Insightful)

Bruha (412869) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538499)

Means Apple paid Intel to mangle it so it will not boot OS X. Is it any wonder that no EFI motherboards are on the market?

Fast BIOS done before. (2, Informative)

xlotlu (1395639) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538501)

This is hardly some major breakthrough.

Asus came up with a nice hack on their EeePC dubbed "Boot Booster". It dumps the system state right after POST on a HDD partition, and on subsequent boots it reads that straight into memory, so you have 1-second "POSTs" going straight to the bootloader.

And then you have coreboot [coreboot.org] , which is as fast as the machine it runs on: without taking any shortcuts, it can do all the grunt work in 3 seconds or so.

Maybe the breakthrough is Windows booting fast, but that's a different story.

Ain't we lucky we got em.... Boot Times! (2, Informative)

gjyoung (320540) | more than 4 years ago | (#29538511)

I've had BIOS systems set to start to boot in under 2 seconds, I don't see any reason for the fanfare, especially since I got it to that time by telling it to skip all self tests and quick boot. Yawn.

carpc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29538515)

I think its great. I love to see this come out very soon!!

I would greatly benefit from it, my carputer takes 9 secs to starting loading the OS.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?