Hi


I am using SuSe 9.3 pro. My system takes about a minute to boot, also the applications (I am using kde 3.4.0) start a bit late (virtually) i.e. execution is not instant. Every application has been installed from SuSe CDs and i have also applied system updates. I used mandrake 10.1 earlier which was quick to boot and its GUI was snappy.

So, I want to ask if my problem is unique or is it characteristic of SuSe (9.3)?

My sys config is

Pentium IV 2.4C HT
Intel 865 GBF Board
512 MB DDR 400
GeForce FX 5200 (nvidia)
80GB Seagate 7200 RPM

The boot time sounds about right for suse. Hardware scan is what takes so long. The
apps not starting "instantly" is pretty normal too. Depending on the app it could be very
subtle or painfully obvious. I've had this problem with every OS I've used though.

Hope that helps.

Zack

If what you said is accepted by all others here, then apart from other stuff I think linux will have to improve at least its booting time, especially when my Windows XP can boot in 20-25 secs (though have tweaked it down to earth (even disabled printing service) and use only for gaming) and Mandrake 10.1 used to take 40-45 secs to boot.

It will really be great if linux can boot in about 30 seconds (without tweaking).

And i think application not loading instantly may be slowly taken care of by upcoming versions of software.

I suppose that's useful when it crashes or you install something

Simply answer to the Linux boot time don't, or even why reboot

Installed Gentoo on this machine a month ago and that's the last time it was rebooted only then to launch the install CD

Try Gentoo, the install is not for the faint hearted, but prepare to be impressed

So no reboot = no problem

Pete

Did you mean you installed every application from the CD meaning EVERY application? You probably don't use more than half of them and therefore probably aren't needed. Although it is hard to figure out what you do and don't need.

For boot time, hit F2 at the Suse screen and watch what it is doing. If it's hanging on something for a while then look into that particular issue and perhaps you don't need it.

a small correction I guess, u should press ESC to see what it is doing during booting now F2

btw, I am using SuSe9.3 and I have the same problem of speed in both booting and running HEAVY applications

this is normal my dear, plus as was mentioned, u never need to reboot on Linux once u have opened ur computer

Not like XP when it crashes every 2 seconds

Interesting thread. I would agree that SuSE does take a long time to boot. Over a minute for me too. I think SuSE or Linux in general needs to work on this for desktop use. The advice that users should not turn their PC's off may be valid for enterprise use - but not for general home and SOHO use where noise/power consumption is the issue. If I am not running a server why should I have to keep my fan and computer running for 8-10 hours when I am not using it? Given that my WinXP boots very fast (and is considered by many as "bloatware") perhaps this should be looked at. I think Linux is an excellent OS, but we owe the open source movement constructive criticism when it is due.

well, I find the Suse boot time not to be that long, and surely not after i trimmed some stuff down.

it's KDE that takes a damn long time to load tho, so i advise you to just use another windowmanager. Did i mention fluxbox? fluxbox is great

Having used Mandrake in the past I can say iot does boot faster. SuSE takes a little longer but it doesn't bother me. However I can also say that Mandrake in general is alot more buggier as opposed to SuSE's distro. I'm willing to sacrifice a slower boot for a buggy OS ;-).

There are a lot of things you could do to improve the boot time. There was an
article recently about starting services in parallel. That's something you could
check out.

I don't personally see a problem with the boot time myself. Even if I don't leave my
computer on all the time(which I pretty much do), I certainly don't have to boot up
multiple times a day so that 30 secs - 1 min would matter much to me.

Also a note on Windows boot time.
I still use XP for games and by the time XP is up to a usable state it takes about the same
amount of time as Suse(maybe a little less).
Usable meaning startup programs loaded, virus scan completed, etc.

Zack

I have to agree with yogesh..
Although SuSE is my favorite and (now) only distro, I do think that Linux has now got to such a mature state that future enhancements like fast booting, reliable hibernation and easy GUI tools for EVERYTHING is where Linux needs to go to start catering for the average home user.
The likes of editing config files under su and the like will not cut it with the average Windows user, heck.. half of home Windows users just about know that the 'blue e' means 'internet'... no I'm not joking.

If you compare a naked install of XP with many Linux distros, XP is going to be a lot quicker booting up (not counting the likes of 'Damn Small Linux' etc.). I would imagine a large contributor to this is not only the re-detecting of existing hardware every time the machine boots, but also how the config files are stored in Linux & Windows. Linux's config files are ASCII files dotted all about the place, Windows config is all stored in the Windows registry which is in essence a centralised compressed database which is going to be a lot quicker to load & parse.
Both methods have their advantages but the Linux way requires a lot more homework if you need to where everything is, although much easier to edit if your system has real problems and you're stuck without a GUI.

I am a long term MS professional, but a relative Linux n00b & I've found the Linux environment fascinating and rewarding, although those users out there who don't want to know anything about their computer but just want to use it like they use their TV or Hi-Fi may think otherwise.

I use XP for games also and there is no doubt in my mind that it does start up and shut down quicker then SUSE. It seems more efficient, but really, is it? Is it checking the filesystems in the same way as Linux does when it starts up? Is it deleting temporary files and shutting the OS and programs down properly when it shuts down?

I think start up, shutdown speed could be improved with SUSE but I also find it reasurring that it takes some time becuase I feel that it is keeping my system secure and efficient.

as long as you think like that, you will be limited in whatever you do...

a GUI for everything? that would make boot even longer, you would have dozens of menus, and that would also slow overall speed down, and would make the system more buggier as well. CLI is just faster, and not that hard once you got used to it.

why not compare it to DSL? a naked install of DSL offers more programs, and more functionality then XP, so why not compare it? the reason XP is faster then SuSe, is because it's really naked, where SuSe comes with a lot of apps pre-installed.

and as Grouge says: start up times can be improved, but some checks would be less thoroughly, and really.. do those 20 secs more bother you that much? even tho you know everything is done in a good way?

XP is not that bad. I am using XP for my games for about 2 years, and only about 1% of my actions result in crashes.




No. I installed KDE, development libs, and games, i.e. selective install. Everything is on single partition (total space occupied: about 4.5 GB/8 GB)


There is nothing unusual in boot screen.

XP is not that bad. I am using XP for my games for about 2 years, and only about 1% of my actions result in crashes.

Though I hope more games will be coming in linux versions and I may be able to scrap XP.

No. I installed KDE, development libs, and games, i.e. selective install. Everything is on single partition (total space occupied: about 4.5 GB/8 GB)


There is nothing unusual in boot screen.