• Welcome to OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum.
 

News:

This is an old OS2World backup forum for reference only. IT IS READ ONLY!!!

If you need help with OS/2 - eComStation visit http://www.os2world.com/forum

Main Menu

Boot Times... does it really matter?

Started by RobertM, 2008.09.24, 02:05:47

Previous topic - Next topic

RobertM

Hey all,

I saw a forum thread on ecomstation.ru the other day (but could not create an account for some reason) about OS/2 boot times and speeding them up to make them comparable to Vista "boot" times.

The discussion also pointed a link to MS's "work" planned for Windows 7.

"Work" and "boot" are in quotes because, in my opinion, contrary to Microsoft's new definitions, the terms are being used erroneously.

Yeah, OS/2 boots slower... and maybe it's boot process can be optimized to help with that (though it really seems to be hardware dependent in many aspects).

But the fact is, Vista does not boot faster. It boots slower. Considerably slower. Now... Vista resumes from S3 or S4 faster than OS/2 boots, yes... and Microsoft has renamed "resume" to "boot" - but again, that's Apples to... steak. Not nearly the same. And that doesnt even take into account that OS/2 is ready as soon as the desktop is up... while Vista and XP still have a lot of work to do.

Thus I am not sure why the heck people are comparing the two in such a manner. I have an ancient IBM Thinkpad with Warp Server for e-Business, that boots (no quotes) pretty slowly... but, I can suspend it, and it resumes (err... "boots") instantaneously... or I can hibernate it, and it resumes (err... "boots") far faster than Vista manages even that type of boot. And of course, this is on ancient hardware (PII 300, 288MB RAM).


If we want OS/2 to "boot" faster, then what we really are asking is for full S3/S4 support. If we want OS/2 to boot (no quotes) faster, then that is entirely a different issue (delayed loading of services, optimizing other boot processes, etc) - but even in that event, (1) it still boots (no quotes) faster than Vista does a real boot, and (2) I for one prefer the system to be up, running and fully usable when I see the desktop.

But yeah, appearances and perceptions can be everything... so do we want the perception of faster booting, or the reality of it?

Rob


|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


ddan

Not for me. I have a 250G that I got for free because takes 3-5 minutes to
initialize (on top of any other delays), though once going seems entirely
reliable for data, and benchmarks at 27M/S. -- I just go make coffee.

More seriously, I've long wondered what the hold up is; for me, seems to be a
fairly constant 2.5 minutes regardless whether a P166 with 4M/S SSD, or this
2800+ with 40M/S HD. Visible part of the delay seems to be IBM1S506.ADD
(though the Dani drivers don't seem to speed it up much), and I conclude that
it's mostly a FIXED delay due to IBM typically being as careful as possible in
testing the system (Aptivas can test your patience getting through BIOS), and
that much of such testing is unnecessary.

<time passes> I'll skip some musing on possible mere tweaking to jump to a
sheer wish that perhaps ECS could also skip tweaking and jump to what I
conclude is the only way to REALLY get past boot delays: supply custom ROMs
with an OS/2 loader on them. Now THAT would be a marketing advantage.

Saijin_Naib

I don't either. XP is way faster than eCS to boot and to open things like Firefox, SIM, and OpenOffice.

ddan

Time to boot has a high importance to Crimosoft types because they'll be doing
it often. A bit wider total of time spent sheerly tweaking and maintaining the
system ── on tasks mostly unnecessary with OS/2 such as defragging, recovering
from random BSODs and various infections, or even recovering from an
accidental double click on one of a group of selected files that insanely
copies them into the same directory ── gives a more realistic measure.

Saijin_Naib

Or, its important to everyone who uses GUI. Linux asshats and OSX fanatics included. It's important to have a quick boot sequence because it's just nice. Myself, I power down whenever I'm not using my computer, have not had any Blue Screen Of Deaths, but a great share of Black SODs.

ddan

#5
To rebut one line leaving the rest without comment emphasizes my point for
that post: a narrow focus on one aspect of an OS, which we can indeed hope
will be quickly over, but is a tiny fraction of the total spent using.

Crimosoft presents some Vista SP1 data on the "blog" that I've mentioned
before, that "75% of systems boot in 50 seconds or less". However, one doesn't
know exactly what they mean by "System Responsive", but definitely doesn't
include BIOS delays (which I do), besides that we have to take THEIR word for
the reliability of the data, when their own flaws, such as failing to start
the timer first thing, would make them look better.

And as is pointed out in that "blog", the boot times don't include anything beyond a "clean" install, understandable, but you just can't discuss Crimosoft unless the delays due to anti-virus programs, AND the inevitable viruses are included (the latter frequently cause infinite delay until a re-install).

Andi

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.09.24, 05:19:55
I don't either. XP is way faster than eCS to boot and to open things like Firefox, SIM, and OpenOffice.
Don't have any W2k or XP installation on my machines which is faster than OS/2 - eCS on the same machine. Neither boot, nor opening Seamonkey or Star Office. Not sure about OpenOffice cause I rarely use it. Slow starting applications are in most cases a harddisk and harddisk driver and file system issues. For harddisk speed, there's no difference which OS requests data. My Intel and VIA disk controllers perform very well thanks Danis drivers. And using JFS or HPFS386, there's no obvious speed difference even with big applications.

What's fast is with XP is hypernate as Robert pointed out well. I would like to have it for eCS too.  But with 4GB of RAM in my main machine this will probably never work for eCS. Only on the ancient Thinkpad 365 hypernate works out of the box. If there is a step by step instruction anywhere to make it run with eCS1.2 and a R52 (APM), I will test it on my notebook.

Back to the question, yes boot times matters. Unfortunatly eCS sometimes hangs cause of Realteak 8111 network driver, or uniaud or genmac. Or I simply want to try different uniaud versions which needs reboots in between. Or I messed up the WPS with my self programmed xwidget. It would be good if I didn't have to wait 70s but 30s instead. But much more important is a working ACPI and for my next system a graphic driver which supports 1920x1200 or more on DVI with newer cards than the now obsolete X300.

Saijin_Naib

Ddan, my timing starts from after I choose the OS to boot from the IBM boot manager as I find that to be the most fair assessment. I'm also not doing it from a clean install and I have xp running Avast! and it's still faster to boot and load apps than eCS. Now, with eCS on JFS it's much closer, but with eCS on HPFS there is NO contest, XP is worlds faster. I can not comment on Suspend/resume because it simply does not work in eCS for me. My computer will just freeze with screen corruption and I'll need to either use the power switch on the back to cylce it or unplug it.

I think that having eCS's boot be graphical (as was also mentioned in that Perfect eCS Forum) would be more important than speeding it up (which probably cant be done without the source anyway).

ddan

Plainly I refer to Crimosoft's figures and methods; perhaps you identify with
them? Since you don't give any figures (while I do), I can only guess from
"way faster" and "worlds faster" that your ways and worlds serve your purpose.

But your graphical notion gave me the solution: someone please create new
splash screens (unfortunately are a peculiar format) that duplicate OS/2 and
ECS desktops complete with mouse cursor, then we can say that the desktop is
up when those appear. It's the Crimosoft way: put something out that LOOKS as
though it'll be ready in just a second.

Saijin_Naib

#9
Search is a great feature, you should use it more  ;).

http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/topic,509.msg2391/#msg2391

ddan

The real objective looks like to run up your number of posts here, without
actually helping.

So I should do a global search in case you mentioned something relevant months
ago? Instead of you just typing in a few numbers? Phooey.

But I HAVE used search. I've YET to find you anything but praising XP and
bashing OS/2, which seems ODD for here.

Here are your words which suggest a certain futility of method, at least:
http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/topic,748.0/

"eCS? I have installed it over 50 times on this computer alone, not to mention
the 10s of times I tried to get it working proper on my sister's laptop, or my
Compaq laptop, or my roomate's laptop, or my RA's laptop or..."

That's mighty slow learning for someone who also says there "[XP is] ... No
longer fun to use because I have really nothing new to learn about how it
works". REALLY? How about a few DETAILS, then, of the differences that make XP
boot so much faster than OS/2? Or at least an outline of XP's boot process?

Saijin_Naib

#11
Certainly not.
Compaq Laptop: Need to use a downlevel DANI driver to install and no out of box USB support so I have to install all USB updates via floppies, painful.
Sisters Laptop: Corrupt VESA tables so cant use native with panorama, and Intel's OS/2 driver traps the laptop before WPS loads.
Roomate's Laptop: same issue with VESA tables and IRQ issues between network card and audio.
RA's laptop: USB issues (possibly due to ACPI incompatibility) that we never worked around, install would fail at step 2 every time.
My desktop: messing with WPS-WIZARD and eSchemes usually results in fun that I reinstall to fix. I've also done a rash of reinstalls trying to get the Lan Requester to work properly like the one time it did (under rc4)

Also, I dont just bash OS/2, I actually like it alot. But I will not give it praise where I dont find it's due. You should read a few more of my posts or not use such a narrow selection of them as to suit your goal of painting me as a hater. Frustrated user more..

And finally, I don't appreciate your personal attack on my learning ability. I've made no such remarks at you and I don't deserve them in return.

(Actually, I think I've been very helpful in many cases and I do try and offer the best help I can when it's needed. This thread has no such goal and is merely talk of personal opinion and perception and as such, I'm not padding my post count by just talking.)

Oh yeah, and would I really try and fund these 3 things if all I did was hate OS/2? Think about it..
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/18316/71/
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/18315/71/
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/14873/71/

ddan

You misconstrue my pointing out inconsistencies of your own post as a personal
attack ── your own words are MY fault? ── besides blithely suggest that I
failed to search (or understand) the entirety of your work here.

But that diversion and another recitation of OS/2's flaws ── complete with
usual disclaimer that you actually like it "a lot" ── isn't going to avoid my
previous questions: IF you've nothing left to learn about XP, I expect some
DETAILS of its boot process.