Boot time: Windows vs. Linux

I often read that Windows boots faster than Linux.

Although I don’t have the impression it’s true on my only dual-boot computer (this laptop even starts Apache+MySQL on Linux, and it’s XP, not the slower Vista), the fact is that when Windows displays the desktop, the boot isn’t finished at all. It will be completely unusable for minutes while when you see the Linux (or BSD, etc., pardon me for the shortcut) desktop, it will be completely read in seconds.
In short, Microsoft is lying to your face when they show you the Windows desktop. Well, wouldn’t be the first time; it’s like when they display 4GB (or more) of RAM but only use up to 3.5.

As I don’t boot Windows often, it’s more likely to be ten minutes than five, because the anti-virus and Windows have to run updates. I’m not kidding when I say ten minutes. I don’t understand how it can be so bad. And I don’t have any of the vendor-installed crap; it’s a custom Windows install with only the vital stuff.

Hibernating works really bad on both Windows and Linux; sleeping is OK on both. And well, Linux is more reactive after a wakeup than Windows, and again I can’t understand why.

However sleeping drains a lot of battery and you need to reboot your Windows often anyway to fix security holes. With Linux you don’t need to reboot most of the time, and there are way less critical fixes. Windows even forces you to reboot (you have like 30 seconds to click No, and screw you if you’re away).

0 Responses to “Boot time: Windows vs. Linux”


  • No Comments

Leave a Reply