Or,
The bootup time problem I'm speaking of has absolutely nothing to do
with the OS being used on the system.
Let me go down the list of things that take longer than they have any
right to:
1. Old computer checked the memory once & was satisified; new computer
checks the memory three times if you don't hit ESC quickly enough.
2. Old computer didn't check for IDE or any other type of built-in
stuff; it checked to make certain that the controller cards were
controlling what they were supposed to -- and they did it quickly.
3. Old computer didn't try to hand out Interrupts for things like
monitors. Old computer could care less about checking "green" settings.
4. Old computer didn't screw with Plug'n'Pray or [it can only get
worse] USB or some sort of V-something pool.
5. Since first computer didn't have HDD, there was no 10 second wait
for each of the 4 SCSI devices to be identified ... but that's only 10
seconds.
6. In old computer the BIOS only had to do some very limited things
during boot-up, like seeing if drives responded. In new computer the
BIOS requires that the various controllers jump through all their hoops
a second time during config.sys when all the now-necessary drivers are
reviewed and checked out a second time around.
In other words, although I have a more complex config.sys & autoexec.bat
set up now than then, the long delay each & every time I boot is because
of the chipsets on the new computers. :>
l.d.
====
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:28:28 +0200, Or Botton wrote:
> Basicly what you are describing here is a design inefficency.
> The technology has alot of potential - Ok, that was wrongly put.
> An -amazing- potential, if used correctly. So far i've heard that
> Amiga computers with only a fraction of the power the today's PC
> own are capable of getting similiar results in similiar speeds
> simply because their software and design is very efficent.
> So just think about that same Amiga with the 700MHz implementation.
> A "Beast" cannot describe the result.
> So besides the obvious "Windows is bloated" reason, what else
> cause the PC to be so inefficent as it could have been? I've seen
> some people using alternative OSs (Linux and BSD) and it took
> awhile for these platforms to load as well. Its abit weird to see
> an old 286 loading faster then a super zippy 1GHz computer!
> Obviously the first reason that comes to mind is that the new OSs
> are alot more heavy and complicated then the OS we used on a 286.
> But does it really have to be so slow?
> With those processors, ultra fast HDs, BUS and memory, I would have
> expected the computer to be on after 4 seconds or less, after the
> basic POST check is done.
> This really is puzzeling me.
-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
