
Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 - habs
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/06/ubuntu-aims-for-ten-second-boot-time.ars
======
mapleoin
I'm surprised the article doesn't mention Fedora's boot time. Fedora already
has 20 seconds (<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/20SecondStartup>) and
their last release was 30 seconds. So I guess they've got a head-start

~~~
TallGuyShort
For me, Ubuntu 9.04 already boots in under 20 seconds. I'm at the login screen
18 seconds after pushing the power button (so that includes the time BIOS
still has control). I'm using a pretty low-end laptop.

~~~
stcredzero
Clueless help-desk techs often count "boot time" as the time it takes for you
to boot, then log into your account. Then when you follow their instructions
and call them back "after it boots" they get irate at you for making them wait
another few seconds.

------
philwelch
Steve Jobs would be pleased:

[http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Saving_Lives.txt&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium&search=boot)

------
buugs
Since Ubuntu wants to become the one true desktop distribution, or so it
seems, they should focus more on usability and improving user interface
because to be honest as long as it boots faster than windows xp (excluding a
fresh install) they should be fine.

~~~
albertni
Overall I agree with you, but usability and user interface don't do anything
for someone who doesn't even consider using Ubuntu. Boot time is one of those
things that, if you get it beyond a certain threshold of speed, can really
jump out and grab someone's attention. For those people who power down their
computers and start them up again for whatever reason, it'll be extremely
noticeable every single time, both when they start up their own 10.04
machines, and when they go to non-10.04 machines that start up way more
slowly. This seems like one of those things that will serve a specific group
of people very very well, and doesn't hurt for everyone else. As long as
they're not sacrificing too much effort for this, it seems like it could be a
good use of effort.

~~~
wvenable
In the land of laptops, powering down is a lot less frequent. Vista's "power
button" by default suspends. The hardware power button suspends. I suspect a
lot of Windows users almost never reboot.

~~~
hs
it's truer in osx. i never booted my iBookG4 except for updates.

the more important is the sleeping wake up time. in mac, you can just close
it, travel half the world, open it and instantly everything works(tm) just
like nothing happened

it seems ubuntu again is copying the wrong model. reboot is sooooo
microsoftie, solving it is like premature optimization.

------
Zak
I certainly won't complain about faster boot times, but it seems like an odd
thing to focus on for the netbook market. Do people really power down netbooks
instead of just suspending them?

~~~
mapleoin
it's good for the environment ;) . I always power down my notebook at night.

------
jsonscripter
This will vastly improve the usability of LiveCDs.

~~~
zcrar70
Live CDs will still boot slower than full installs, because accessing the CD
is a lot slower than accessing the HDD. I'm wondering whether the boot time
for Live CDs will be fast enough to avoid displaying the progress bar, or
whether they will have to boot Live CDs differently than HDD installs.

