boot test

[stopthegop]

Ok, I'm a little bored tonight..   :idea:

Did a quick reboot test to confirm what I already knew, but now I have some "official" numbers to throw around.   First my hardware:  

Amiga:
A4000D in Elbox tower, CyberstormPPC 233/68060 @ 65MHZ, (2) 147GB SCSI 10K drives, 10 SFS partitions, Voodoo5, 2M Chip ram, ~200M Fast RAM, DVD r/w, CD0, sdlt320 scsi tape drive, x-surf, z3 fastlane, and delfina.  Software loaded at boot time: OS3.9/bb2, Powericons, WarpOS5.1a, Rexxmast, asyncwb, WarpWB, NewMode, AISS, deficons, rawbinfo + ~40 assigns made in s:user-startup.

 
PC:
6 month old Dell Latitude laptop running OEM Windows XP sp1.  Intel Mobile Pentium 3.0GHZ.  1 partition (C:), 140GB stock IDE hard drive.  1GB RAM.  Fresh defrag of drive as of yesterday.  Software installed is WinDVD, Citrix client, MS Office 2K, and Windows itself.  
 

Warm Reboot:
Dell - 95 seconds
Amiga - 13 seconds

Cold Boot:
Dell - 58 seconds
Amiga - 18 seconds


Draw your own conclusions on this one...  

    :roll:

[stopthegop]

If I take the sdlt drive out of the equation on the Amiga, you can subtract 3 seconds from each of the Amiga's boot times.  

So x86 fans,why does a brand new PC reboot thirteen times slower than a 15 year old Amiga even though it has a processor thats (supposedly) forty-seven times faster??    

[zefiro]

My C=64 boot in about 3 seconds.. :-D

[Piru]

So x86 fans,why does a brand new PC reboot thirteen times slower than a 15 year old Amiga even though it has a processor thats (supposedly) forty-seven times faster?

Because boot time is not dependant on processor speed. Most time is spent on disk I/O and waiting for hardware to become ready. 15 year old Amiga loads maybe 1/50th of the data the modern Windoze installation does, too.

Then again you only need to wait Windows boot up once, whereas Amiga keeps crashing frequently... ;-)

[adolescent]

My PC boots to the Windows logon in 21 seconds, post is about 10 seconds more (more on a cold boot).  

But, you're comparing apples to oranges here.  Of course it's going to take longer to load more things into memory.  Are you really comparing the functionality of the 15 year old Amiga OS to a modern OS like Windows XP?  :crazy:

[stopthegop]

Then again you only need to wait Windows boot up once, whereas Amiga keeps crashing frequently

Maybe your Amiga keeps crashing, but mine works fine.  And even if I do on occasion need to reboot the Amiga its not big deal because it only takes 10 seconds.  I think you must really have your beer goggles on tonight if you're suggesting that Windows does not need to be rebooted constantly.    Well, let me qualify that.  Windows needs to be rebooted frequently, and in a server environment, constantly.  

[adolescent]

I believe that was sarcasm.  

BTW, my desktop never gets rebooted (unless it needs a patch, update, or software installed.).  I simply put it in suspend when I leave and resume when I come back.

[stopthegop]

Are you really comparing the functionality of the 15 year old Amiga OS to a modern OS like Windows XP?  

Yes.  Please tell me what great advances micro$oft has bequeathed the world of computing these last 15 years? Besides 'innovative' new ways of squashing or stiff-arming competitors, I mean...  Its a gimme that, ok, you can play DVDs and watch digital video faster and in higher resolution than on any Amiga.  But thats a credit mostly to hardware manufacturers, not micro$oft.  Thats really about the only thing I can think of that my PC actually does better than the Amiga..  Maybe web surfing, too, come to think of it.  But again, thats only because micro$haft has been playing with a corked bat for so many years so that most websites are only functional with their software; ignoring set standards, and endlessly declaring new ones, often without providing documentation.      

 

[stopthegop]

I believe that was sarcasm

I know.  I'm being sarcastic a lot of the time, too, and it never comes across that way.  Sarcasm is hard to convey in text.    

[neon32]

Piru wrote:
Because boot time is not dependant on processor speed. Most time is spent on disk I/O and waiting for hardware to become ready. 15 year old Amiga loads maybe 1/50th of the data the modern Windoze installation does, too.

Then again you only need to wait Windows boot up once, whereas Amiga keeps crashing frequently... ;-)

Nuh uh.. I thought that too, but that doesn't appear to be so. There's been a few tests done recently using new RAM drives instead of Hard disks to boot up XP, i can't rememeber where the tests where done, toms hardware i think. But the difference between a 10k Western Digital Raptor booting up XP and a RAM drive booting up XP was barely different, apparently they put it down to processor and system waiting.

[amyren]

I agree with stopthegap on this one.
The m$ OS has grown more and more sluggish during the years, only if you can afford to always upgrade to your hardware you may not notice so much.
I think many people use their PCs just to read mail and browse the internet, occasionally use an office product or play a game. My opinion is that they have thrown to much into the OS and to be pre-loaded at startup, instead of providing just a user interface and let the programs start when the user calls for them. Most users never need all the functionality in the "modern OS" like XP.
I prefer to turn off the machine every day after using, cause its rather noisy and is in the living room, and doesnt have a suspend mode. Ok its a rather old PC, but still  least 100 times faster than my A4000 was when looking at the specs - but it sure doesnt feel that way.
Just to open a File Explorer window feels like it takes forever sometimes, makes me wonder what the heck is going on inside the box...

If the Amiga could keep up with the web and the file standards commonly used today it would be my number one choice for everyday use. Sadly today it doesnt...

Are you really comparing the functionality of the 15 year old Amiga OS to a modern OS like Windows XP?  

Yes.  Please tell me what great advances micro$oft has bequeathed the world of computing these last 15 years?.....
 [/quote]

[fx]

Need to restart Windows constantly? On my desktop computer it usually runs for about 2-3 weeks between my reboots, and it hasn't crashed one single time, it does get sluggish over time though.

Not that my Amiga is crashing much either, it usually only crashes when I try suspicous stuff from Aminet or sometimes with odd games, but Windows is definitely alot more stable than AmigaOS.

[stopthegop]

Windows is definitely alot more stable than AmigaOS.

Windows is to stable as a piss biscuit is to fragrant.  Clearly we have different definitions of 'stable'.. If you only have one or two PCs to babysit then I think Windows can lull you into forgetting (or forgiving) what a royal pain in the ass it is.    Multiply your babysitting responsibilities by about 1500 or so and it becomes a never ennding game of tactical reboots ("zone here, mirror there, reboot here, etc..", service packs ad nauseum, updates, LCRs, CSRs, patches, bug fixes, virus killers, etc, etc.. ).    Don't get me wrong.  In a perverse way, I actually really like Windows.  For one thing, I've always been kind of amazed that Windows works at all, despite being sloppily written.  And two, because of Windows, I have a decent job.  If commodore had been able to continue developing the Amiga and if it was Amiga, not Wintel, that was the dominant platform in large data centers today, no question about it; the "IT" business as we know it today would probably not even exist.  

[neon32]

@stopthegop

Dont forget to factor in the time you have to wait for the system to SHUT down as well. Thats another 10 seconds at least. God knows what it's doing in that time, it still baffles me what on earth it's "saving" during that time, and then there's the whole well known issue of shut down times suddenly increasing for no apparent reason which plagues so many people, and often the only way to sort it out is a re-install of windows. Being an IT technician for Windows computers you really do realise how often these same problems crop up, and is why I reeally want my Amiga OS back.

[stopthegop]

The 95 seconds for the dell to warm boot is including the time it took to shutdown. That part alone took almost 35 seconds.