user-startup -- Really useful?

[Mad-Matt]

I find the feature very useful.  Its a place to stick all those startup slowing patches and additinal assigns without cluttering up the main startup.

The startup-sequence is prolly one of the most important filesonthe system and the less programs messing about with it the better.  The user startup at least is an easy place to look for allthose nasty extra progs that get launched which can help finding issues i guess.

There is absolutly no speedup befit of any kind by merging the files.  since they get joined into one big script and executed durring the startup anyway. (Usualy find it lurking in T:)

Its important this feature stays in os4 for 100% AOS Compatability anyway

[Borut]

If I am not wrong the User-Startup wastes less memory and programs are started earlyer the in WB-Startup.

[jaokim]

Actually I usually create a user-startup for my Harddisk:-partiton, and execute this script from my user-startup.
"Why?" i hear you rave. Because I use multiple OS:es. BetaOS4, Os3.9 and my own cd32-thingie.
The progs on HD has it's own startup-scripts.
Thus I can reinstall the OS without having to reinstall my progs.

And why not use the installer when it exists? They usually work, and it's a lot more convenient. (Ok, so you can acuse me of beeing irradical by doing my own startup-script in Harddisk:, which isn't very convenient, but, hey, it keeps me occupied ;-))

[Framiga]

by JoNty on 2003/10/24 11:12:29

Useless.

Be a man, use your hand!

-
JoNty

If you are still using only hands, you aren't a "so called" man  :-)

Ciao!

[scholle]

@Lo: If it's 2 seconds on boot-up I can gain, then I want to have them. Yes, I'm a speed-freak. :-)
But the biggest plus for me is: clearness. Before it was very hard to determine which of the commands in the startup-sequences is executed first. (o.k., this is only a problem for those who are called in the startup-sequence after user-startup is started). I had some troubles with this and only could avoid occasional gurus by inserting some wait commands at different places. Alltogether it may be about 8-10 seconds I gained...

[nac]

I got rid of mine ( but kept a backup ).

All the assigns that were in it were moved over to be handled by MCP.

Seemed to be faster boot.

[Colin_Camper]

Years ago I would have agreed with you.
Unix was always more complicated and fragmented in it's initialization than AmigaOS, DOS or MAC.
However now, once you get to know where things are (or are likely to be), Unix is a lot easier to deal with than Windows.
In Windows you have this vast monolithic thing called the registry which makes 'the matrix' look simple - maybe it IS the matrix - ####! I'm starting to sound like Tim Rue!  :-D
Humm - I like the startup-sequence but in the modern day I think we need more scripts to make it more intuitive.

[carls]

I find the idea of separating system-specific and application-specific startup commands useful. In my user-startup I have application assigns, my own assigns and a few other things. In my startup-sequence I add things like FastIPrefs, MCP, the Ram Disk icon etc.

[platon42]

It is useful. I've even cleaned it a bit up, putting only Assign and path instructions into the User-Startup, adding a new subscript called "ExtUser-Startup", where tool programs and patches are started and another script called "AfterExec",
that starts with a Wait 5, so the rest of the stuff is done after the Workbench has loaded. My startup-sequence has no similarity with the original one. My machine boots into workbench in about 15 seconds from a cold boot.

[lempkee]

heh , ok..here is an example why i use a user-startup.

i install a dodgy patch/hack from aminet or anywhere else , it crash on boot.

IF i had removed my user-startup and it would have been in Startup-sequence , then i wouldnt know whats going on, because my gfx card drivers starts in the end of the startup process (startup-sequence) , so i would have to rig up a tv or whatever to see what went wrong , instead i just use user-startup

anyway if anything crash in userstartup then you could normally just break it and loadwb/endcli.


..

anyway i know why you wonder if its useless/should be removed because for new users or not so experienced ones will think of it as " A MESS" , anyway i really dont see how u an win boot time on removing user-startup , my userstartup is only a few lines , its not a big messy file, and its sorted well out and i would recomend everyone to do so, clean it up! , remove all reduant #### in it.

cheers

[Karlos]

I have to admit, I find this discussion somewhat pointless. The user-startup file is completely optional and always has been.

If you don't think it's a good idea, don't use one, if you do, then do. To my mind, the existing concept of an 'if present then execute' script is fine and simply reflects the modular design of the OS as a whole.

Personally I haven't found any speed penalties as a result of executing the script compared to 'inlining' its contents into the startup-sequence. If you want to speed up assigns and what not, use a specific late-assignment tool or MCP.

[that_punk_guy]

Well, the main advantage I can think of with having a seperate user-startup is it removes clutter from the startup-sequence so you can see what you're doing...

But I'm agreeing with Karlos here, still a thread like this bumps the post-count, huh?

Says me ;-)
:lol:

[Karlos]

It does indeed :-D

[scholle]

So do useless replies...

[vortexau]

For some, they can get their StartUp with a coffee!

Irish Coffee is a even better StartUp! ;-)

[cecilia]

this entire thread proves why Amiga OS is better than any other: everyone can make their system as they see fit and you don't have to be a major Tech-head to do it!

i like my user-startup just because it gives me a convenient list of programs that need assigns.

and, as my system starts up faster than windows or even linux, it's fast enough for me.