Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Jun 2011 23:39 UTC
Permalink for comment 476681
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-12
Uh...you might ask from when I start the clock before you assume I am trying to appear special: cold boot, from before my BIOS posts. Also, you might like to ask which init script I'm running and from what I/O device.
But I digress...
The point was (obviously) a different one than the 30 (or 20) second boot time, but that a computer with an order or two faster cpu and ditto I/O (and specifically 8000 times as much RAM) because of design still doesn't appear faster.
This is what an end user sees, technical jerk-off attitudes of OSNews readers aside, and no amount of fine tuning (except perhaps a 24-channel SSD raid) will bring my Linux box to boot as fast as my Amiga 1200, period.