Most "quick boot" systems are - at least in part - making a tradeoff
by slowing things down later. I would not want to "succeed" with a
quick boot only to have people think the machine was slow because the
next 5 things they did took a long time.
I think we need to be careful about being sucked into the "quick boot"
ideal. How often do you reboot your machines? I just rebooted my
MacBook Pro this morning for the first time in several weeks, for a
software update. It took over a minute to boot, and that fact has
been completely irrelevant to me as a user. If we provide good
suspend/resume and power management support, users aren't going to
reboot very often.
I certainly agree that moving from a six-minute boot to a one-minute
boot makes a substantial difference in the user's perception of the
system (if not a difference in usability) and that's a very important
goal. But striving for incremental improvements in boot time is, I
think, much less valuable to user than an excellent suspend/resume
experience (which my MacBook Pro does very well).
- Ed
On Dec 3, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Samuel Klein
> with all due respect, 'business applications, youtube, ppt, &c'
> doesn't sound like an insurmountable target.
To be more specific, fast boot time, business apps, and video/flash
playback have all been demonstrated on their own. The question is how
to combine them.
I would guess fast boot time that loads extra bits in the background
to support more elaborate apps would be acceptable.
SJ
> SJ
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mikus Grinbergs <mikus(a)bga.com>
> wrote:
>> From a post that included the following quote:
>>>>
>>>> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as
>>>> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds
>>>> have to
>>>> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds)
>>>> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing.
>>>> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF
>>>> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice.
>>>>
>>>> What do we need to do to make this a reality?
>>
>> I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are
>> at least
>> three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1)
>> rugged physical
>> design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low
>> power draw.
>> But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer
>> business
>> applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ?
>>
>> My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic"
>> capabilities
>> go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead.
>>
>> mikus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
>> Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
>>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list