Have disabled the few apps or things to load at startup but nothing seems to make a difference.

MX19 is an excellent distro, just wish boot time could be improved on a laptop with SSD.

LinuxMint presently is one of the fastest ever (for me).

Disable any services that you don't need.

That's pretty well all that i did and there's really not much there to disable.

you could boot in systemd mode. its probably (although not always) faster than the default sysVinit boot.

2 members found this post helpful.

@dolphin_oracle - okay, will give that a shot and see.

Just to write in to say that switching to systemd made a huge difference at boot speed!

Like, at least twice as fast!!

Thanks again for the tip dolphin_oracle!

2 members found this post helpful.

Just hit on this thread, I also noticed slow boot time as compared to other OSes.
MX 19.2 AHS.
So what's the downside to switching to systemd? I mean, putting all ideological antix aside, what do I lose by going systemd on my MX installation?

EDIT: After doing a little reading on the subject, which I should have done a long time ago, I see that the average user is likely to not notice any difference, except for the snapshot/persistent live usb not working so well.

I must say that after switching to systemd, I noticed a dramatic improvement in boot time.
This system has i7 9th gen, SSD, 16 GB RAM.

Choosing to use one system and job scheduling tool over another is something that evokes a great deal of interest AND controversy!

When Debian first took on the idea of exploring more parallelism in the job scheduler, they looked around at the available methods, and they chose systemD. This was VERY controversial because the tool chosen evolved from a solution that a Red Hat engineer had come up with. SystemD does indeed provide parallelism in the boot handling and job scheduling. It also does a LOT more than simple scheduling, so that is one thing that bothered some people. The other thing it did was to take a relatively easy to read, easy to configure and update (text readable) configuration and setup, and turned it into a binary program. That DID make it faster, but it also obscured a number of things, further upsetting more people.

If this doesn't sound NEW, it isn't. Another major component, the GRUB 2 Boot Loader, did a similar thing - it made the booting process much more extensible to new and additional architectures, but it also greatly complicated the booting process.

To this day, many people despise both GRUB 2 and systemD.

The questions are: 1) Did GRUB 2 make booting a much broader range of hardware possible? Yes it did. 2) Did systemD provide a way to start up parallel processes and speed up both booting and overall job scheduling? Yes it did.

Was it possible to do this in other ways using other methods? Definitely, and even today there are other alternatives. Whether those "more modern" alternatives achieved their goals or not is something that people continue to debate.

I use systems that USE these approaches and THEY WORK, and I use systems that DON'T USE these approaches and THEY WORK too. The answer is that "freely available software" provides us with choices. You can use one of the choices that is available or you can CREATE, or form a movement of people, to create something else. It happens all the time and that's why there are so many different distributions; some are just cosmetic changes to something else that exists, and others choose completely different approaches to create solutions that satisfy unique situations, and some are done just to experiment and learn!

2 members found this post helpful.

I am getting impressively fast boot times on a old 32-bit i386 machine with 1GB of RAM with an ancient 40GB HDD, relatively so. One can only imagine how much an SSD could speed things up.
Thus far AntiX has been the lightest, fastest distro.