Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/09/14/12:53:24
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:28:23 +0100, Michelle Konzack <starone AT cybercable DOT fr>
wrote:
>At 18:55 13.09.1999 GMT, you wrote
>--------> This was the original Message:
>MK>michael AT toobie DOT demon DOT co DOT uk (Michael Kearns) wrote:
>MK>>
>MK>> My knowledge of Linux isn't as good as it should be, but whenever I have
>MK>> used it, it has the following 'aspects' which I don't see as very
>DOS-like.
>MK>> Boot time - This is generally quite long, even compared to windows.
>
>Are you sure ???
>
>I am using a 486DX4-100 and 64 MB of Ram with Debian 2.1 and it boots cold
>in less the 30 Seconds to KDE 1.1.1.
>
>WinSuck 95 need around 23 second on my AMD K5-133 wit 128 MB of Ram
I've always found that until Linux is streamlined, it takes a fair while to
boot. This is as opposed to DOS, which starts out very streamlined, and you
add things to it. I realise that this may depend on distribution, etc., but
it's the way things seem to be.
I'm not trying to compare the boot times of different OSs, loading the same
amount of drivers, etc.. The point I was trying to make way that DOS starts
off with a very fast boot, which you can add to as you want, whereas Linux
(In my experience) starts off by adding most things it can, and then
requiring you to trim it down.
>MK>Well, not compared to windows NT.
Not said by me, but never mind.
I shouldn't have generalised 'windows' as NT does indeed take a while.
>And WinSuck NT 4.0 neds 58 second on my Double PPro 200 with 2x 512 MByte.
>Somtimes it makse scandisk too, but I do not know why...
>..and it needs around 8 Minutes
Scandisk doesn't count, as fsck can take just as long :o)
Michael.
- Raw text -