XPost: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, alt.os.linux
From: bbolsoy@norway.nospam
Hawk wrote in
news:10okeiqtorej36d@corp.supernews.com:
> Gary Beeton wrote:
>> Hawk wrote:
>>> Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:
>>> Of course a single purpose machine is going to start up
>>> faster. It's orders of magnitude more limited in it's use and
>>> flexibility as well.
>>
>>
>> As long as you're happy with that. Personally, I'm with
>> Bjørnar in that I'd rather have an instant-on computer.
>>
>>
>
> Of course we would all like that. I'd take it right now, but we
> live in reality where processor speed, memory, and storage space
> are finite.
>
> Posing the argument that all computers should be able to start
> instantly because a C-64 could do it 20 years ago is just plain
> silly. Good luck squeezing all of the functionality you are
> used to with a modern PC into 20kb of ROM. Your average windows
> icon would have trouble fitting into that...
All in all what most people do with technology are simple
things, and the average PC is a substantial overkill for the
practical utility it represents. Technically there are few
obsticles for an instant-on philosohy on computers, even MS
manages to have XP come to live, with apps, after a few seconds
of hibernation.
My XP setup boots in about 12 seconds, sans BIOS post, on
a mediocre 80GB IDE disk. Typical app takes than 2-3 seconds
to launch uncached. That's on a 800Mhz P3 and fairly outdated
BX motherboard. Well the chipset dates back to '97 anyway.
Needless to say I've tweaked for all it's worth to the
effect that I at one point had it running in 6.24 seconds,
I think, with basic services.
It's not hard to imagine a slimmer, more I/O optimized and
special purpose OS on a faster storage medium come to live
in a couple of short seconds, especially on something like CF.
I mean if a PocketPC can why shouldn't a desktop.
Regards...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
