Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Unique Linux Tool for Boot-charting; 21 Video Console Emulators

Hash: SHA1

Slow startup? Bootchart reveals all

,----[ Quote ]
| Ever wondered what takes your Linux box so long to boot up? You can see for 
| certain with the Bootchart package. Bootchart logs the entire startup process 
| and produces a clean, graphical representation of its results suitable for 
| everything from troubleshooting to good old-fashioned bragging rights.   


21 of the Best Free Linux Video Console Emulators

,----[ Quote ]
| Emulation refers to the duplication of functions of one system using a 
| different system. Specifically, an emulator is software specifically written 
| to emulate aspects of the original console or computer, primarily the CPU, 
| I/O and memory system.   



Improving boot time on a general Linux distribution, not an easy task

,----[ Quote ]
| We have just just released Mandriva Linux 2009 RC2 (with GNOME 2.24 final
| version, among new features ;), as well as reduce boot time on a lot of
| systems.
| I thought it would be interesting to explain the various things we tried to
| save some seconds when booting, since it is a hot topic these days, with
| impressive results from various people, including Arjan Van de Ven 5s boot on
| a EEE 901 PC, even if I don't agree with all Arjan conclusions, mostly
| because it is not always possible to achieve the same kind of tuning with a
| flexible distribution which can run on many hardware platform, in contrast of
| a stripped installation and on a single (and now underpowered) hardware
| platform (Unfortunately, Mandriva folks couldn't attend to LPC this year,
| because we were busy working on Mandriva 2009 release ; let's hope new year
| LPC schedule won't conflict with our own schedule).



Startup times

,----[ Quote ]
| PCLinuxOS 2007 (on my home laptop, a middle-of-the-road machine): 40 seconds
| Mandriva 2008: 40 seconds
| Xubuntu 7.10: 45 seconds
| openSUSE 10.3 (clean install, OSS/KDE): about 45 seconds
| Fedora 8: about 50 seconds (a huge improvement over the last few versions :-)
| Windows Vista: 3 minutes 45 seconds
| ...What?


Ubuntu vs. That Other OS

,----[ Quote ]
| Both machines have the same exact specs, both have been used for the same 
| time (to be fair I have tweaked the OS on the left quite a bit to optimize 
| it). Ubuntu is already idle by the time the video ends; while the other PC 
| takes 30 seconds more than what I’ve uploaded to idle the hard drive.   


Is your Anti-Virus software slowing down your Vista boot time?

,----[ Quote ]
| When Microsoft first announced the feature set for Vista, one of the things 
| they claimed was that you would actually have shorter startup times, but we 
| later discovered that what they meant was that there would be power saving 
| features that would make it easy to put your PC into sleep mode when you're 
| not using it and quickly resume.    


The Vista Sleep of Death

,----[ Quote ]
| Ok, I have to admit I did have issues with the Vista Sleep of Death 
| (so-called). Sometimes my computer would go into sleep mode and be difficult 
| to wake up.  


Windows Vista's Hideous Wakeup Support

,----[ Quote ]
| One thing we just can't wrap our mind about is the terrible,
| broken, and completely pitiful support for waking Vista up from
| a Deep Sleep or hibernation.' Any time you attempt to wake Vista
| up from Hibernation or "Deep Sleep" (S3-induced sleep mode), it
| dies. It's either a BSOD, or a driver error, or a broken network,
| no DWM, lack of sound... the list goes on, and on. So much for an
| operating system to "power" the future! (No pun intended!) That's
| with properly-signed drivers and no buggy software on
| multiple PCs...


Vista SP1 a Performance Dud

,----[ Quote ]
| After extensive testing of both RTM and SP1-patched versions of Windows 
| Vista, it seems clear that the hoped-for performance fixes that Microsoft has 
| been hinting at never materialized. Vista + SP1 is no faster than Vista from 
| the RTM image.   
| Bottom Line: If you've been disappointed with the performance of Windows 
| Vista to date, get used to it. SP1 is simply not the panacea that many 
| predicted. In the end, it's Vista's architecture - not a lack of tuning or 
| bug fixes - that makes it perform so poorly on systems that 
| were "barn-burners" under Windows XP.    


Vista Irritations

,----[ Quote ]
| According to this Slashdot article, copying, moving and deleting
| files is slower under Vista. At least now I know why extracting a
| compressed file under Vista is like watching paint dry/grass grow
| (I've only tried using Winzip 11).
| [...]
| Now we name our directory and it?s done right? Not quite, because
| after typing your directory name and pressing enter, it's time
| for yet more prompts...


Vista: Slow and Dangerous

,----[ Quote ]
| Most of the time I spent testing Vista was with sluggish pre-release
| versions. I expected things to improve when I ran the finished software
| on PCs configured for the new Windows version. I now realize that
| Vista really is slow unless you throw a lot of hardware at it.
| Microsoft claims it will run with 512 megabytes of memory. I had
| recommended a minimum of a gigabyte, but 2 GB is more like it if
| you want snappy performance.
| [...]
| The most exasperating thing about Vista, though, is the security
| feature called User Account Control. UAC, satirized in an Apple
| ad as a security guy who constantly interrupts a conversation, 
| appears as a pop-up asking permission before Windows...


Copying files across LAN with Vista is deathly slow

,----[ Quote ]
| Copying files from my XP video capture pc to my Vista pc is 3 times
| slower than copying from my XP video capture PC to my old XP PC.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index