Microsoft survey hints at Instant On OS concept
[Thanks, Anonymous]
[Thanks, Anonymous]
Relevant Posts
- New screenshots of Windows 7 emerge (26 days ago - 170 Comments)
- Vista, Server 2008 could get their SP2s before Windows 7 kicks them out of the house (2 days ago - 80 Comments)
- Windows 7 to be officially named... Windows 7 (5 days ago - 207 Comments)
- Poll: Is Microsoft's new ad working? (43 days ago - 220 Comments)
- Microsoft may extend Windows XP "downgrade" deadline by six months (14 days ago - 140 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Funke, Tobias Dr. @ Oct 15th 2008 8:15AM
When I can boot into XP in 30 seconds, or resume from standby in 2, 8 seconds is just too slow.
Joebob @ Oct 15th 2008 8:20AM
You must have a much cleaner install than I do.
Flashpoint @ Oct 15th 2008 8:26AM
My G5 Mac desktop takes 20 seconds to get to the user screen.
My Vista laptop takes 20 seconds to the User screen + 15 seconds to be usable after login.
My Dell desktop on XP takes about the same time as the Vista computer.
Unless your talking about high speed SSD, we are gonna be waiting for a long time for a while. It will be a while before we get to push button-ON systems like the NES or the ATARI.
Fusion Fuzo @ Oct 15th 2008 8:31AM
god thats slow, my xp desktop takes 8 seconds to boot, my dual boot asus eeepc 901 takes 7 seconds to boot xp and over 1 minute for ubuntu
Kamokazi @ Oct 15th 2008 8:57AM
On a clean install on my gaming PC, after my usual service tweaking, I can have XP at the desktop, ready to go, 10 seconds (or a hair under) after power button press. That's mostly due to the 10k RPM HDD.
With Vista (SP1, which is supposed to boot faster than without), after service tweaks, same PC...it takes close to 45 seconds.
IMHO, they should derive this off of XP.
Esat Dedezade @ Oct 15th 2008 9:02AM
8 seconds slow? really? That would do me just fine tbh.
Evan @ Oct 15th 2008 9:06AM
The progression of technology is supposed to make things faster, So why aren't new computers booting faster? Windows 98 on my old P3 booted faster and felt more responsive than Vista on a much more powerful CPU.
meh @ Oct 15th 2008 10:37AM
Have we all forgotten what the word "instant" means?
Dubb @ Oct 15th 2008 11:07AM
Start up speed is debatable. When are you timing it from? The instant you see the BIOS screen or the instant you see the OS loading screen?
I know on my PC, I see the video card BIOS first, then my Motherboard load screen (ASUS motherboards use images when loading, similar to newer motherboards on the market) and then a detailed list of all my allocated IRQ's for all the cards, drives, etc. in the system.
Then it goes to the XP Boot screen. If I did it from the XP boot screen I would say 20-25 seconds at most. But you add in the all the stuff before that, and you could easily get to 35 sec. My point though is that for a lot of people, getting past these BIOS things and IRQ summaries is still going to take about 8-10 seconds depending on your build.
I see a Mac fan has already chimed in. Another point I wanted to make is how bloated have you allowed your OS to become? In Windows this is quite easy, with a number of programs setting up system tray programs, you have to be careful about what you install, load too much crap and you'll have slow start ups. If you are smart, you can keep your OS lean and fast with weekly defrags and generally being aware of what you're installing.
Then you have to get into how much RAM does someone have, what speed is it operating at? These types of things also have an impact on start up times.
Funke, Tobias Dr. @ Oct 15th 2008 12:41PM
Dubb, When I say 30 seconds, I mean from the time I push the power button. That includes the BIOS screen, RAID status screen, and then Windows loading. By the way, I don't install any third party software besides Firefox, Flash, Java, Acrobat Reader and MS Office save for some drivers. My Mac which is much more typical in terms of having third party software still goes from power on to desktop in 35 seconds.
My point is this, I would love to have the option of having an "instant on" "Windows" OS, but it's a stretch to call 8 seconds instant. I can keep my computers in standby mode and resume at full-functionality in less time than their instant solution. I understand the power saving implications of all this, but I'm generally going to do what's most convenient, and leaving my computer in standby is just that. Now if Microsoft can whittle down those precious seconds to a more reasonable number like 3-4, then I'm sold.
Testies, Testies, 1, 2... 3? @ Oct 15th 2008 12:53PM
The only downside is it will take 30-45 seconds to lead to BSD...
Fusion Fuzo @ Oct 15th 2008 1:40PM
at
dubb
Mine take 8 seconds from pressing power on to windows desktop screen
and 7 for the eeepc, as i tweaked the both xp's on them to run faster by removing many un needed windows xp system files.
IndiaTech @ Oct 15th 2008 2:02PM
@Tobias
2 seconds is all right if you are doing Stand By -> Power On. But, I bet, if you are starting from Hibernate -> Power On it will definitely take more than 8 seconds. And it doesn't depend on what's installed on your machine but number of windows that you have open.
Personally, I like to power down my laptop while traveling not just to conserve power, but also the protect the hard drive since powering down is the sure shot way of putting the HD Head in park position.
So, instant on would be a nice thing, if I could just power up to check couple of emails, docs and calender. And I am not sure what apps will be loaded in 8 seconds. Maybe it can be user customized to load just one or two app and it may turn on in 3 - 4 secs.
BTW, I am auditioning for the Blue Man Group. Any tips?
ujn @ Oct 15th 2008 2:21PM
@IndiaTech
Well, on windows you have hibernation available only if *all* drivers can handle hibernation. Specifically for HDD it means that drivers handle shut down and hibernation almost the same (in terms of safety at least). And I think the only risk of hibernation - is lost of current data in RAM (if wake up can't proceed for some reason).
harbino @ Oct 15th 2008 3:51PM
I prefer to use Hibernate.... much more safer if the power goes.
Saad Rabia @ Oct 15th 2008 8:24AM
I'm so excited to meet Windows Seven. It feels like Microsoft is going to put it all right from the start with this release. :)
j_g_puff @ Oct 15th 2008 9:15AM
I agree, for two reasons:
1. By calling it 'Windows 7' they're deliberately distancing themselves from Vista. I believe this is because they realise that the release was a flop (release - the act of releasing, not the version) - and admission is the first step to reform.
2. Windows 7 has workspaces (multiple desktops). This suggests that they're actually focusing on productivity, which is a good thing.
I'm hoping I can leapfrog Vista all together.
Jash Sayani @ Oct 15th 2008 9:25AM
I am waiting for Windows Cloud. aka Windows Strata....
BTW, if PC is turned off (no power), then how can you remotely switch it on and access it....?!?!?
j_g_puff @ Oct 15th 2008 11:20AM
First, Windows Cloud is now Windows 7:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/13/windows-7-to-be-officially-named-windows-7/
(or do you mean 'cloud' as in 'cloud computing'?)
Second, Wake on Lan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake-on-LAN
Scott @ Oct 15th 2008 4:38PM
But then again, have you ever NOT been excited about any Microsoft product?
Finity @ Oct 17th 2008 9:24AM
TO j_g_puff:
Windows has had multiple desktops for a while, they just weren't "built-in" per-se. They were included with Windows PowerToys, and I'm sure they('ll) have some for Vista as well:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx
Sam Zebian @ Oct 15th 2008 8:24AM
This is going ot be awesome on my eeepc 1000. Not, actually it will be better on my super slow booting desktop (it boots slow because I have lik 12 USB devices plugged in an takes forever to recognize them all)
Chris @ Oct 15th 2008 8:35AM
Yay hubs :]
Str1ker @ Oct 15th 2008 8:32AM
Not good enough! I want 8seconds with the whole OS loaded properly.
When will we have computers that are actually fast? What I mean is as hardware speeds up, software becomes more demanding so it's always the same crap. So when will be able to start a computer in 1 second, and do a hundred things at once without any slowdown? It seems like never. I'm sick of computers crashing because I clicked at a wrong time and the whole damn computer goes crazy.
I want speed...I want reliability.
ben @ Oct 15th 2008 8:43AM
Uh... I'll get the enginners on that right away.
ben @ Oct 15th 2008 8:46AM
^engineers, it's too early for spelling
Also as far as reliability goes: garbage in, garbage out
Amir @ Oct 15th 2008 8:48AM
hhh u kill me ben
KarlW @ Oct 15th 2008 9:22AM
"Also as far as reliability goes: garbage in, garbage out"
Not strictly true. You can verify data to make sure it's not garbage at both sides of the process.
If the verification's garbage, the system chants "epic fail" at an annoyingly loud volume.
THJ @ Oct 15th 2008 1:12PM
Oh, the hours I've billed for 'clicking at the wrong time'
Benson @ Oct 16th 2008 3:28PM
Garbage in, "EPIC FAIL" chant out?
I think that might be even worse.
EI8HT @ Oct 15th 2008 8:32AM
when i saw the rikki rockett picture posted here yesterday i was turned "instant on" in a fraction of a second. micro$oft has nothing on me!!!
Alex Padilla @ Oct 15th 2008 8:33AM
This is an interesting concept. While I'm all for the idea, I don't think it would apply to me so much as to other people. I tend to leave my computer on through the day, only turning it off when I leave my apartment or go to class. This Instant On idea sounds great, but how many people (primarily those on our community) are going to benefit from it?
NHAnimator @ Oct 15th 2008 9:20AM
What I'd like to see is Instant-On for features like web browsing, while the system does a full power-up in the background. Specifically, it would be nice to turn on the system, immediately get online for e-mail/websites while my system does the rest of its booting. Then, by the time I'm ready to use a "real" app, like Word or 3D Studio, the system is ready to go.
jakem @ Oct 15th 2008 9:23AM
Because of the limited nature of an instant-on OS I think it's designed for quickly accessing PIM data or accessing the internet. As a result, it's best suited to laptops rather than desktops.
ace1000_x @ Oct 15th 2008 8:35AM
It's good to see Microsoft listening to what customers want. I believe they took the same approach a few months ago with a feedback page for Windows 7.
Definitely good to hear.
I am personally also looking forward to Windows 7 too.
KarlW @ Oct 15th 2008 8:36AM
I don't like this. I don't like "instant on" operating systems in general. I've never used one, so I can't comment on that, but I don't like the concept.
Instead of creating a dummed-down experience for marketing bullet-points, why doesn't Microsoft try just speeding up the Vista boot process?
This is what I don't like about Microsoft. Now they're under Steve Ballmer (the sales guy), product features aren't coming from engineers, they're coming from sales people. They'll do things like this so they can boast "boots instantly!" on a star-shaped sticker, rather than making real technological progress (like sorting out the clusterf**k that is Windows x64).
Technex @ Oct 15th 2008 5:01PM
Totally agree.
m @ Oct 15th 2008 10:52PM
huh? how can you be against not waiting? and why would that not not be a technological advance? most of all, what have you got against gold stickers?
Amir @ Oct 15th 2008 8:37AM
yeh I agree Funke, 8 second is too much, make it 4-5 seconds, or better yet make the stand-by option more robust. when I put xp in stand by i can only pray it would power back on!
ScooterDe @ Oct 15th 2008 8:37AM
for work, I want instant-on email (MS Outlook), Word
at home, instant-on browser (Firefox, not MSIE), music (iTunes)
Bring it on. Well overdue.
Presumably this will feature in Windows 7.
telepheedian @ Oct 15th 2008 10:13AM
iTunes on Windows is anything but instant-on.
Stereotype @ Oct 15th 2008 11:13AM
Agreed...iTunes takes forever to open. As does Firefox for the first time. Annoys me like crazy.
Andir3.0 @ Oct 15th 2008 12:10PM
Firefox seems to take a bit to open on my Windows gaming machine, but my Linux laptop it opens in practically no time at all.
Zane @ Oct 15th 2008 12:19PM
What are you guys talking about? It takes 3 seconds for iTunes to load up on my Thinkpad T400 and 5 seconds on my four year old T42. (XP on both)
mdm-adph @ Oct 15th 2008 1:01PM
Yeah, what are you talking about? *in great Internet tradition, provides example that's completely different from what you said*
ahdok @ Oct 15th 2008 8:38AM
Eight seconds doesn't feel *very* instant...
r3loaded @ Oct 15th 2008 8:42AM
I challenge you to do better than that.....
Didn't think so.
Andir3.0 @ Oct 15th 2008 9:57AM
How about 5 seconds: http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/07/eee-pc-modded-by-intel-engineers-to-boot-in-five-seconds/
Zunavio @ Oct 15th 2008 8:39AM
Insta-Crash, Ahuh.
My Vista Ultimate already crash more than 3 times a day.
Amir @ Oct 15th 2008 8:54AM
cut back on the pr0n man....