To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"yet the 68020 still boots faster into a usable user interface than what you have on your 140 times higher clocked x86....."
*sigh* So it boots faster, now what?
Your 020 box will take hours to perform some tasks than the Ghz machine can do in minutes/seconds. Under that scheme of things, a few seconds saved in the booting process seem fairly irrelevant really.
But if that floats your boot, by all means enjoy.
And my phone boots in ~1 second, point? It's easy to boot quickly when you actually _do_ nothing.
Though i have to admit a lot of modern OS's have been pretty fail on even attempting to bring boot times into a more reasonable time frame. Some have made an effort; Upstart for Ubuntu is getting there and XP boots very quickly.
Other linux distros, Vista and Mac OS X are often quite a lot slower though. Arch linux is incredibly fast but then again that's not down to better technology, it just does less on boot and is more optimized for the architecture than most.
Its silly to compare boot times like that. DOS booted quickly on my 286 too but I'm not going to use that am I?
Edited 2007-10-03 16:36
ooohhhh, so I'll be able to enjoy all those modern apps and hardware. What, no PCI-E bus? No AGP? No built in Ethernet? No USB? Perhaps the more modern system takes longer to boot because it has to power up and configure so many different interfaces and buses. Also, it may take longer to do a quick check of 1G of ram compared to say...16M.
You point is moot
Edited 2007-10-03 18:42
My AmigaOneXE takes quite a long time to boot up. Part of that is scanning for a bootable CD disk, but I'm not going to change that, since I am likely to need to reboot and restore due to driver development test/debugging. This is a fair comparison IMHO as my PCs are set to boot from CD as well if anything is found there. I would not bet on my AmigaOne with OS4 winning the race with my AMD64 and WinXP. It's been ages since I booted my A4000T with 68060 CPU, I don't recall how long that took.
"yet the 68020 still boots faster into a usable user interface than what you have on your 140 times higher clocked x86....."
Correction: it will boot faster into an interface that was usable in 1991. You would probably have a hell of a time launching, oh, say BioShock for example.
Here is how I roll nowadays: S3 resume - 10 seconds, launch WinUAE - 2 seconds, boot AmigaOS 3.5 10 seconds. And yes, UAE on a modern x86 is faster than any real 680x0 processor. It's also more backwards and forwards compatible than any real Amiga ever was (no using degraders to get program x to run)
But if you really want to talk boot times, a Vic20 boots to a "usable interface" in about 1 second with just 5k of RAM! WOOT! I win!
>>Here is how I roll nowadays: S3 resume - 10 seconds
It took ages to boot my vista-book (C2D + 2GB) to the point until it becomes responsible.
And de-hibernation isn't much faster.
On the other hand, my OS3.1 setup can boot in 2 secs under UAE
I can move icons, launch programms in both cases.
What is so special in 2007 vs 1991 desktop?





Member since:
2006-03-23
yet the 68020 still boots faster into a usable user interface than what you have on your 140 times higher clocked x86.....