Hmm, what have we here? A recent
Microsoft survey sent out to select users has us wondering what on Earth the mega-corp is planning to do next, and judging by the looks of things, it has everything to do with
Instant On. We've seen
a number of these lightning-fast boot
applications, with the most recent being ASUS'
Splashtop OS and the iteration loaded onto Dell's
freshest Latitudes. The survey makes mention that the "Instant On experience is different from 'Full Windows' because it limits what activities you can do and what applications you have access to." The survey also asks about which applications would be most important to have quick access to, and it very plainly states that in this "scenario," your PC would "be usable in eight seconds." So, is Instant On coming to Windows? Who knows -- but it's clear someone at Redmond is giving it some thought.
[Thanks, Anonymous]
posted Oct 15th 2008 8:06AM
When I can boot into XP in 30 seconds, or resume from standby in 2, 8 seconds is just too slow.
You must have a much cleaner install than I do.
My G5 Mac desktop takes 20 seconds to get to the user screen.
My Vista laptop takes 20 seconds to the User screen + 15 seconds to be usable after login.
My Dell desktop on XP takes about the same time as the Vista computer.
Unless your talking about high speed SSD, we are gonna be waiting for a long time for a while. It will be a while before we get to push button-ON systems like the NES or the ATARI.
god thats slow, my xp desktop takes 8 seconds to boot, my dual boot asus eeepc 901 takes 7 seconds to boot xp and over 1 minute for ubuntu
On a clean install on my gaming PC, after my usual service tweaking, I can have XP at the desktop, ready to go, 10 seconds (or a hair under) after power button press. That's mostly due to the 10k RPM HDD.
With Vista (SP1, which is supposed to boot faster than without), after service tweaks, same PC...it takes close to 45 seconds.
IMHO, they should derive this off of XP.
8 seconds slow? really? That would do me just fine tbh.
The progression of technology is supposed to make things faster, So why aren't new computers booting faster? Windows 98 on my old P3 booted faster and felt more responsive than Vista on a much more powerful CPU.
Have we all forgotten what the word "instant" means?
Start up speed is debatable. When are you timing it from? The instant you see the BIOS screen or the instant you see the OS loading screen?
I know on my PC, I see the video card BIOS first, then my Motherboard load screen (ASUS motherboards use images when loading, similar to newer motherboards on the market) and then a detailed list of all my allocated IRQ's for all the cards, drives, etc. in the system.
Then it goes to the XP Boot screen. If I did it from the XP boot screen I would say 20-25 seconds at most. But you add in the all the stuff before that, and you could easily get to 35 sec. My point though is that for a lot of people, getting past these BIOS things and IRQ summaries is still going to take about 8-10 seconds depending on your build.
I see a Mac fan has already chimed in. Another point I wanted to make is how bloated have you allowed your OS to become? In Windows this is quite easy, with a number of programs setting up system tray programs, you have to be careful about what you install, load too much crap and you'll have slow start ups. If you are smart, you can keep your OS lean and fast with weekly defrags and generally being aware of what you're installing.
Then you have to get into how much RAM does someone have, what speed is it operating at? These types of things also have an impact on start up times.
Dubb, When I say 30 seconds, I mean from the time I push the power button. That includes the BIOS screen, RAID status screen, and then Windows loading. By the way, I don't install any third party software besides Firefox, Flash, Java, Acrobat Reader and MS Office save for some drivers. My Mac which is much more typical in terms of having third party software still goes from power on to desktop in 35 seconds.
My point is this, I would love to have the option of having an "instant on" "Windows" OS, but it's a stretch to call 8 seconds instant. I can keep my computers in standby mode and resume at full-functionality in less time than their instant solution. I understand the power saving implications of all this, but I'm generally going to do what's most convenient, and leaving my computer in standby is just that. Now if Microsoft can whittle down those precious seconds to a more reasonable number like 3-4, then I'm sold.
The only downside is it will take 30-45 seconds to lead to BSD...
at
dubb
Mine take 8 seconds from pressing power on to windows desktop screen
and 7 for the eeepc, as i tweaked the both xp's on them to run faster by removing many un needed windows xp system files.
@Tobias
2 seconds is all right if you are doing Stand By -> Power On. But, I bet, if you are starting from Hibernate -> Power On it will definitely take more than 8 seconds. And it doesn't depend on what's installed on your machine but number of windows that you have open.
Personally, I like to power down my laptop while traveling not just to conserve power, but also the protect the hard drive since powering down is the sure shot way of putting the HD Head in park position.
So, instant on would be a nice thing, if I could just power up to check couple of emails, docs and calender. And I am not sure what apps will be loaded in 8 seconds. Maybe it can be user customized to load just one or two app and it may turn on in 3 - 4 secs.
BTW, I am auditioning for the Blue Man Group. Any tips?
@IndiaTech
Well, on windows you have hibernation available only if *all* drivers can handle hibernation. Specifically for HDD it means that drivers handle shut down and hibernation almost the same (in terms of safety at least). And I think the only risk of hibernation - is lost of current data in RAM (if wake up can't proceed for some reason).
I prefer to use Hibernate.... much more safer if the power goes.
yeh I agree Funke, 8 second is too much, make it 4-5 seconds, or better yet make the stand-by option more robust. when I put xp in stand by i can only pray it would power back on!
I'm so excited to meet Windows Seven. It feels like Microsoft is going to put it all right from the start with this release. :)
I agree, for two reasons:
1. By calling it 'Windows 7' they're deliberately distancing themselves from Vista. I believe this is because they realise that the release was a flop (release - the act of releasing, not the version) - and admission is the first step to reform.
2. Windows 7 has workspaces (multiple desktops). This suggests that they're actually focusing on productivity, which is a good thing.
I'm hoping I can leapfrog Vista all together.
I am waiting for Windows Cloud. aka Windows Strata....
BTW, if PC is turned off (no power), then how can you remotely switch it on and access it....?!?!?
First, Windows Cloud is now Windows 7:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/13/windows-7-to-be-officially-named-windows-7/
(or do you mean 'cloud' as in 'cloud computing'?)
Second, Wake on Lan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake-on-LAN
But then again, have you ever NOT been excited about any Microsoft product?
TO j_g_puff:
Windows has had multiple desktops for a while, they just weren't "built-in" per-se. They were included with Windows PowerToys, and I'm sure they('ll) have some for Vista as well:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx
This is going ot be awesome on my eeepc 1000. Not, actually it will be better on my super slow booting desktop (it boots slow because I have lik 12 USB devices plugged in an takes forever to recognize them all)
Yay hubs :]
would be interesting to see the survey results. booting up a computer in 8 secs for web browsing will all the addons, music, video and VOIP and pdf reader would be too good. Forget word, Excel, ppt etc. to use them we can boot up in full mode(light weight readers for word execel, ppt and pdf would do)
Not good enough! I want 8seconds with the whole OS loaded properly.
When will we have computers that are actually fast? What I mean is as hardware speeds up, software becomes more demanding so it's always the same crap. So when will be able to start a computer in 1 second, and do a hundred things at once without any slowdown? It seems like never. I'm sick of computers crashing because I clicked at a wrong time and the whole damn computer goes crazy.
I want speed...I want reliability.
Uh... I'll get the enginners on that right away.
^engineers, it's too early for spelling
Also as far as reliability goes: garbage in, garbage out
hhh u kill me ben
"Also as far as reliability goes: garbage in, garbage out"
Not strictly true. You can verify data to make sure it's not garbage at both sides of the process.
If the verification's garbage, the system chants "epic fail" at an annoyingly loud volume.
Oh, the hours I've billed for 'clicking at the wrong time'
Garbage in, "EPIC FAIL" chant out?
I think that might be even worse.
when i saw the rikki rockett picture posted here yesterday i was turned "instant on" in a fraction of a second. micro$oft has nothing on me!!!
This is an interesting concept. While I'm all for the idea, I don't think it would apply to me so much as to other people. I tend to leave my computer on through the day, only turning it off when I leave my apartment or go to class. This Instant On idea sounds great, but how many people (primarily those on our community) are going to benefit from it?
What I'd like to see is Instant-On for features like web browsing, while the system does a full power-up in the background. Specifically, it would be nice to turn on the system, immediately get online for e-mail/websites while my system does the rest of its booting. Then, by the time I'm ready to use a "real" app, like Word or 3D Studio, the system is ready to go.
Because of the limited nature of an instant-on OS I think it's designed for quickly accessing PIM data or accessing the internet. As a result, it's best suited to laptops rather than desktops.
It's good to see Microsoft listening to what customers want. I believe they took the same approach a few months ago with a feedback page for Windows 7.
Definitely good to hear.
I am personally also looking forward to Windows 7 too.
I don't like this. I don't like "instant on" operating systems in general. I've never used one, so I can't comment on that, but I don't like the concept.
Instead of creating a dummed-down experience for marketing bullet-points, why doesn't Microsoft try just speeding up the Vista boot process?
This is what I don't like about Microsoft. Now they're under Steve Ballmer (the sales guy), product features aren't coming from engineers, they're coming from sales people. They'll do things like this so they can boast "boots instantly!" on a star-shaped sticker, rather than making real technological progress (like sorting out the clusterf**k that is Windows x64).
Totally agree.
huh? how can you be against not waiting? and why would that not not be a technological advance? most of all, what have you got against gold stickers?
for work, I want instant-on email (MS Outlook), Word
at home, instant-on browser (Firefox, not MSIE), music (iTunes)
Bring it on. Well overdue.
Presumably this will feature in Windows 7.
iTunes on Windows is anything but instant-on.
Agreed...iTunes takes forever to open. As does Firefox for the first time. Annoys me like crazy.
Firefox seems to take a bit to open on my Windows gaming machine, but my Linux laptop it opens in practically no time at all.
What are you guys talking about? It takes 3 seconds for iTunes to load up on my Thinkpad T400 and 5 seconds on my four year old T42. (XP on both)
Yeah, what are you talking about? *in great Internet tradition, provides example that's completely different from what you said*
Eight seconds doesn't feel *very* instant...
I challenge you to do better than that.....
Didn't think so.
How about 5 seconds: http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/07/eee-pc-modded-by-intel-engineers-to-boot-in-five-seconds/
So is this like asus splashtop where it takes 7 seconds to access the internet or msn and email.
How about just getting the damned thing to work? That may be a new concept for Microsoft to explore...
Survey this, Survey that. Microsoft, Just do the job properly this time and make sure the software is cheap as well.
Lord Jobs doesn't even do a survey. He just 'instantly' rapes you and your wallet.
Insta-Crash, Ahuh.
My Vista Ultimate already crash more than 3 times a day.
cut back on the pr0n man....
There really are Mac Fanboys who still stick with Windows.
Then either you're an idiot.. there's something wrong with your install, your hardware or all three. I'm inclined to think you're an idiot.
This sounds like a very, very bad idea - an overengineered solution that will lead to more, not less, user confusion. How many times do you think your grandma is going to call you because her computer won't do X, Y, and Z, and you'll have to explain the difference between "sort of on" and "really on"? Users who read Engadget could probably make better use of a feature like this, but typical consumers will be baffled. If Microsoft is truly incapable of operating within the universally understood on/off paradigm, they really should just give up on the consumer market and cede the whole thing to Apple. If somebody at Apple suggested something like this, they would be taken out back and you-know-what.
Nah, they could just turn it of and people who know what it is and want to use it can turn it on and use it.
"If somebody at Apple suggested something like this, they would be taken out back and you-know-what."
Applauded for innovation? Apple has never been worried about experiences where something expected isn't available - i.e. floppy disc drives, optical disc drives, now firewire. Why wouldn't the Mac community appreciate a 8 second limited load time?
What I would like to see is an "Instant On OS" that loads the full operating system in the background while I have access to those limited programs. I don't know about others, but the first thing I do is open a browser when I start my computer. So, if I could access that immediately while the "rest" of the OS loads in the background, even if that part took an extra 5 minutes, I would be ok with it.
Race to the patent office?
The only instant one i want is from the motherboard , which would hopefully help if you crashed your hard drive or had etc problems.
That's what bootable CDRoms and USB disks are for ..
I know this is a dumb question, but why do computers have to boot at all? Why can't the Operating environment just be written onto flash memory or something. Other than when you install new memory resident software, what ever changes from each boot to the next? Couldn't booting p be similar to coming out of sleep mode?
I think the whole "boot up" process is an antiquated idea that really needs to be revisited.
I think that's what the "hibernate" functionality was for
Of course they're giving it some thought. Duh. Seeing as how the current "instant on" OSes are Linux/Open Source based, for Redmond to ignore it gives an "in" to the competition. They need to close any such gaps to retain control of your PC.
That's not strictly true. Although Dell and others have used Linux, HTC has used Windows Mobile and Samsung used XP Embedded to perform the same function.
Personally, this feels like Microsoft may be giving up on SideShow (hardly surprising as it never seemed to get off the ground despite being a great idea with loads of potential) and I'd prefer that they put more effort into improving Sleep/Hibernate performance (their other instant-on solution) than work on a whole new way of doing things. I use sleep all the time (and it generally works very well) and I wouldn't switch to a cut-down instant-on OS.
Fuck this. We all know Microsoft. It's going to be Windows Slideshow 2.0 but you can use it on the primary screen. Wow.
I'm all for options! How many of us have booted up our computer for 10 seconds to check our email then shut it back down?!?!
Why would you need "instant-on" when we already have it from sleep mode? IMHO it would make more sense to try to reduce power consumption during sleep and then tend to leave the computer in sleep for most of the time.
Exactly. I already do this. My Vista desktop sits in S3 sleep when I'm not using it, and it's usable in 3-5 seconds from button press. (Especially since I don't have to go through the BIOS and etc.) There's no reason nowadays to continue to shut down your computer every time you're done with it. Especially since if you leave it in S3, it will be able to wake up and do its maintenance operations in the middle of the night instead of having to do them while you're trying to work on it.
My 3yr old 1ghz laptop can resume from hibernate to XP in 15 seconds, and it's loaded with junk. A modern laptop could do it way faster, and there's no reason for a desktop to be slower.
wait a sec: slide one: ability to browse the web, do IM watch DVDs and listen to music..... This means you would not have access to your files. .... instant on scnario: web browsing, media playback and IM
think, think, how the hell are you going to play your media if you cant reach it on your hard drive, on a freak'n USB stick!? am i the idiot here?
yes you are,
I am pretty sure it means web content media playback. loaded into ram specifically.
I am guessing that they don't want to load Explorer.exe or sata.sys or big drivers or library files like that.
Gee I am wondering if this hinting of an instant on OS is really the next release of Windows CE, which has always been an instant on OS
That would make a certain amount of sense (though for the record, in typical MS naming fiasco fashion, it is now Windows embedded consumer edition or some such). It is a small, lightweight embedded OS that could even sit onboard on firmware. The next version is having significant effort put forward to make it consumer friendly, and it has a port of pretty much every application an instant on OS needs- a media player, messenger, browser (which is finally being upgraded), pocket word (which is pretty much wordpad), pocket mail (which is a really stripped down email client).
The catch, though, is driver support. WinCE has a really crappy driver model for this sort of thing, because it is designed to run on fixed, immutable systems where the OEM tailors it for a particular hardware profile. For *some* motherboards where everything is on board this would probably be fine, but for desktops where the user could have an expansion video card, sound card, etc, this driver model just won't work.
What they need is a new type of instant-on. One that boots into a minimalist stage very quickly, then loads the rest of the OS in the background. That way, if you only need to do some quick web browsing, you can, and if you later need to use photoshop you can.
My guess is that it is marketing ... the instant on os will be a version of Windows CE or mobile ... and just be renamed with a suitable new name to impress general users and to tick the box on the spec charts for instant on facilities.
Microsoft need to do something to answer the SpashTop versions of Linux because as this feature becomes popular general users will be asking why they need to even have a Microsoft operating system if the linux version does what they need.
I need an optimized for gaming PC(not gaming pc) architecture plus an OS just for gaming... like xo in your pc box, up in a few seconds, ready for gaming.
So let me get this right - MS is considering an 'Instant-On' OS that gives you limited capabilities and boots in a mere 8 seconds? I would guess that whatever this OS is, it's probably not going to be Win32 compatible (it'd probably be a CE derivative) so you're going to need a whole second set of apps. Seeing as it has already been shown (as in can be done now) that a full-blown Linux distro with a statically built kernel and optimized init scripts can boot to completion (as in completely done loading) in 5 seconds, what the hell is the purpose? Windows main hold on the world is it's software compatibility - take that away and there are plenty of better solutions already out there.
Oh, and I'd really like to see these XP machines that boot in under a minute because I've never seen such a thing. Sure, they can boot to the desktop in under 30 seconds, but they're still churning away loading all the various processes for a few minutes and everything is the suck until it's done. You're not done booting until the machine is in an idle state and ready to go.
Why do you jump to the conclusion that the "new concept" is one they are working on? Maybe they are trying to figure out what SplashTop is really doing without being able to say - "Hey people, what do you think of this big cool competitive offering??" I mean, MS has shown they can't react very quickly to stuff like this...They are never going to get the big fat blob of Windows into something that competes with the thin and fast of Linux... I'll still with my Ubuntu box...
Remember the new "micro kernel" and the new modular approach?
My guess here is that by using it they will load just the bare essentials. What takes too much time on boot time is the initial load of Windows (albeit, most power users to sysadmins know how to make the system available in less time than "the usual"). If you have a lot of crap going, definitively is not Windows fault if it takes time to load (or any OS, the more services you run the more loading you will need).
But if you stick to the basics (say, a PE environment) and load what's needed for file access, networking and media playing... I mean they can easily shave some time from boot by not loading advanced features like bluetooth, PnP, printing spools, SmartCard stuff, etc. Let's take a look, for example, at the AppleTV. It's basically the same OSX but with several options conveniently turned off. If you take the same software and use it on a faster machine (one where you could compare loading times with full blown OSX) you would be able to see what i'm talking about. The same happens with Linux, take the Linpus Lite for a ride and it will load really fast.
This could very well fit into the whole Windows Strata deal, by tying all the stuff together.
As of today, all OSes (sorry fanboys, this is true) are mature enough, all need some work under the hood to get some bugs squatted, yes, but all of them are mature enough and the new battle will be in loading times. Most of the time, though, a faster boot mean that you will end up with less options.
There has been a lot of work on beta testing of Windows Embedded, so what's to keep them from, you know, embedding Windows in your everyday motherboard?
And for those who say that their XP is so fast... You should always remember that your gaming rigs and massive setups are not the norm, mainly because Microsoft works on a global market and not everyone in the world has the money to buy an expensive rig. (Meaning yes, you can have a faster PC if you are willing or able to spend some serious dough on it).
i dont personally care much about boot times since i rarely turn off my pc
i guess they are talking about laptops and other mobile devices. Agreed...i dont care much about boot times on my pc. I restart my pc may be once in a month or 2 to install the critical updates...
I have a pc that sports a 1GHz old generation Via C3 with 512MB of memory that boots into XP in less than 2 seconds. The start logo just blips not even a second until it brings up the GUI background screen.
Care to know how this is possible?
A little secret known as Windows XP Embedded installed on a CF card used for the c drive, using the VIA IDE Accelerator miniport driver, and using EWF, also quite possibly the mini-itx based Thin Client PC hardware might play into part of the speed factor.
The unit is crazy fast and it loads up WMP 10 in less than a few seconds, even though I highly prefer J. River Media center, which loads even faster.
@ fuzio fuzo... LOL. 7 Seconds to load XP! Funniest thing I have read all week!
I would think hackers would use this to hack systems much easier and faster. From what I've read, this would open up a limited amount of programs before W7 loads. These programs would have to receive regular updates and kept clean of any holes, hooks, or exploits.
If you give a hacker any amount of segway (such as giving them access to some programs before or after the boot screen/password input), they can use that to find exploits in some or all of the programs which could potentially give them access to the whole computer.
I could just be paranoid, but giving anyone quick access to anything on your computer has potential to be disastrous, imo.
How do you guys get 30sec XP boot times? Your installations must have nothing on them! By the time I have installed all the programs I need for a fully functioning PC, my XP installation takes 5 minutes to boot. The twin boot up evils on my machine are Zonealarm Internet Security Suite and SQL Server... OMG are they slow. Do you not run any security? I am going to create a dual boot XP (work programs) and XP (leisure programs) machine as 5 minute boots are very painful.
Resuming from hibernation in windows vista is preferential to this for most people I think.
Edit: I don't see this being of any use on standard laptops and desktop, standby and hibernation is sufficient.
as much as i hate vista, i'm actually looking forward to windows 7 :) can't wait til 2010
@wyson the Windows firewall is sufficient for the vast majority of people. Of course if the user is ignorant of basic security practices.. that's not a firewall problem.
Meh. I rarely turn my computer off.
Well, if they can make return from standby something that happens in less than 15 seconds again (thanks Vista) I might believe they actually have something that would start from cold "instantly". Also Firefox + Outlook are my two votes for applications that should work in this mode.
Splashtop is nice, but I can't browse my hard drive for files - truely annoying, practically useless in my mind.
Oh, look I can surf - big deal. Make it so I can fix my machine....
So the idea of a "splashtop" style windows -> Ya, I am interested and ya, it would probably influence my mb purchasing choices. Heck, I would even be willing to pay 10$ to upgrade my current motherboard's splashtop ssd to something windows based.
This is a waste of time. Optimizing the normal boot process would be a better use of resources. The eventual switch to SSDs will take care of the rest.
I don't understand why it should take 2 minutes or more to boot, login, and load background tasks and services on modern hardware. My 1.6GHz computer from gateway can do all that in 90 seconds. Disk speed will probably end up being the limiting factor, but it's more likely that the services just aren't loading efficiently.
Maybe we are all getting a bit too impatient? My Windows Mobile phone takes 21 seconds to turn off, and 1:30 to boot to a point I can make a phone call, then another full minute until windows can tell me when my next appointment is.
My digital picture frame takes 13 seconds to "boot-up", my Avaya office telephone takes several minutes to reboot and my set-top-box takes about 15 minutes before I can watch TV after a cold-start, even my energy-saving CFL light bulbs take several minutes to "warm-up" and produce their full output. My oven takes 10-15 minutes to "pre-heat" before I can cook my dinner and my garden takes several months before it produces any vegetables.
I think of my PC as just another oven that needs to be "pre-heated" before I can use it. Relax and enjoy the wait, what's the big hurry?
I think they should make an entirely new, basic OS that does just that.
They should really just find a third party that has a mature instant-on OS and buy them out.
Look at Visio, for example - probably one of the most intuitive professional MS apps out (but developed by a third party).
MS has a big problem with 'everything for everyone all the time;' they need to start growing their business through acquisitions (like Google).