first_main_article” class=”article readability=”49″>

few months ago was very fashionable to debate on instant start operating systems (Splashtop was the most popular system) and boot times also be reduced to the minimum pursued in various distributions , and especially one of them: Ubuntu.

 Ubuntu 500x378 11.10 UbuntuBoot slower start, what was the fast start, Canonical?

Canonical

was very heavy with the topic : in MuyLinux we, for example, claimed that some time down the 10 seconds or even 5 seconds to boot a system with Ubuntu, and distribution developers seemed particularly aimed at achieving this reduction in boot times.

Let’s jump

this: today and Canonical or other developers talk about reducing boot times . The focus is on the desktop environments in the cloud and in-store applications. That aspect has been neglected so fundamental that seemed just a year ago.

study shows they have done on Phoronix, and which have compared the start of a preliminary version of Ubuntu Ubuntu 11.10 to 11.04, and WIN have shown the charts and start times with different teams , from netbooks to basic desktop PC hardware configurations pretty decent. Data:

ASUS Eee PC

  • (Intel Atom 330, HD SATA): 31.4 s in Natty, 59.62 s in oneiric
  • NetTop ASRock (Intel Atom 330, HD SATA) 25 s in Natty, 58 s in oneiric
  • MSI

  • NetTop (Intel Atom 330, HD SATA) 25 s in Natty, 27 s in oneiric
  • AMD Opteron 2348 (quad-core, SSD) in Natty 7.78 s, 11.09 s in oneiric
  • Intel

  • Sandy Bridge, SSD: s in Natty 24.66, 35.26 s in oneiric
  • Intel Core 2 Duo T9300, SATA HD: 23.20 s in Natty, 31.69 s in oneiric
  • Ocelot takes a lot more (in some cases, twice) to boot than its predecessor (I would say that in turn also lost about Maverick Meerkat bellows) and Canonical seems clear that this factor has been neglected.

    The question is, of course, if the start times were really important to Canonical (and for us, the users), or was simply an effort to give that talk . Personally I think those are important start-up times for users, but not crucial, and Canonical’s attitude in this regard is at least disappointing.

    Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement | WordPress Tutorials

    class=”article first_main_article” readability=”42″>

    May 3, 2011 – by MetalByte

    11 comments

    Firefox works worse in Linux than in Windows as far as performance is concerned, and who does the verification as going to notice. There are always dissenting voices, of course, but there is no discussion possible: Mozilla has admitted it and are prepared to work on it .

     Why slow firefox Firefox is slower in Linux than in Windows?

    handicap performance on Linux versions of Firefox has been debated for a long time, justified by the faithful to the browser because of the importance of caring the user base Windows , for the development of free software. But if something does not happen nor Opera nor with Google Chrome , why another with Firefox

    Mike

    word Hommey, Mozilla developer:

    Finally we managed to get our Linux versions (and obviously Linux64) be built using GCC 4.5 , with aggressive optimization (-O3 ) and profile-guided optimization enabled.

    This means that we are now using a set of modern tools, opening up opportunities for things such as statistical analysis. This also means that now we are producing a Firefox much faster, closer to Windows on the same hardware , according to various performance tests.

    InternetNews

    given in, there is still enough time for Linux users enjoy these advances, they would not enter the main line of work until the release Mozilla Firefox 6 , although change in its policy release version has accelerated this process.

    Here there is everything, and part of the work rests with packagers different GNU / Linux and optimizations held in their collections, noting especially, in the good sense-the work of Canonical with Ubuntu Firefox .

    Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | WordPress Plugin Hud 1