I have been using SuSe linux for about a year now. I have been extremely happy with most of its features with the KDE desktop environment, and the programs available for Linux. I have two problems with the way Linux is targeted at us "GUI junkies". First, the package system with Linux is not acceptable. It needs vast improvement. I am impressed with appget and YasT and other creative attempts. But in the end it is insufficient. Enough about that, though I would like to discuss the SPEED of the environments and applications etc.

Why does Linux boot slower, run applications slower etc than a Windows or Mac OS?

Is it because I am using KDE? However the KDE boot time is minimal compared to hardware detection and service starting. Every distrobution I have tried boots the services MUCH slower than a Windows or Mac system.

Why do applications like OpenOffice and the Gimp load much slower than there Windows counterparts (Word, Photoshop)?

I have heard on many forums, that Linux runs server processes much more efficiently than a Microsoft alternative, and makes more sense in that realm. I have no experience with such software, therefore I am not contesting such an idea.

I have heard the reason for the slow linux boot is the fact that services are not loaded "in parallel". I can only assume that means "at the same time". Of course, I have also heard that this is NOT the reason and that it MUST be somthing else. Please, which is it?

I haven't heard any discussion on why KDE runs slower or why Open Office or GIMP run slower, but I would like to know! I know they are written in a version of C, but so are Windows Apps.

Is the Linux kernel written higher in the hierarchy of computer "code" than Windows? Therefore it has to compute more lines of code per task?

Are these stupid questions? Haha, where can I find this information without the author going too deep for somone like me?

Well, to be honest, I think my linux machine boots every bit as quickly as any windows machine. But that's just my .02.

I'll admit OO.org is a bit slow loading. I would say a big portion of the "slowness" you see is simply the fact that the linux community hasn't been able to dump the tons of money into software development that microsoft has.

I have heard in general that Linux is usually a slower boot. Most people I have talked to agree that the GUI's offered are slower too... Have you somehow enabled your machine to boot its services "In Parallel"?

I am wondering about the specific reason Linux is slower. I know that software development is expensive and time consuming. I know that you can program applications much faster by moving up on the "hierarchy", but that sacrifices computation speed because of more lines of code per task. Are you alluding that this is perhaps the reason? Do you have any idea of the reason?

How long does it take Linux to boot? (Roughly)

the answer is that the build supplied to you by Novell sucks
that's about the long and the short of it
Linux can be no better than the poeple who put it together

I'd say my Linux boots considerably slower than my XP on the same hardware, but once it's up and running in Gnome, it's almost as fast as XP in launching and interacting with apps (sometimes in gedit, I get a weird 1/4 of a second delay when typing).

Our Mac Powerbook takes forever to boot up, though--a good 1 min 45 seconds from cold to functional desktop.

Frankly, I've gotten over boot times. Sure, I like a fast boot, but I'd prefer to have a more functional system instead. I can press the boot button, walk away, do something else for two minutes, then come back.

If your applications are taking forever to load, there may be something wrong with your installation. I know GIMP loads a hell of a lot faster for me than Photoshop does (on XP or OS X).

Well the reason you probably have a slow boot time is because your running a Suse compiled kernel. If you are, then there are alot of thing compiled in the kernel that you probably do not use. See most distros have support for alot kernel features so that they are more universal and will work on anybody's computer, the problem is that you probably dont need most of the stuff compiled on the kernel. If you were to compile a custom kernel with only your necessary needs, believe me you will see a difference in boot time. Also make sure to stop all services you do not use like ftp or http services; these startup at boot time and will also slow you down. As for programs in linux, pretty much the same concept, most programs are compiled with all their features in most ditro's, therefore the binary may take longer to execute. You could always recompile them yourself without the un-needed functions. Just my 2 cents.

OpenOffice is slow to start because it uses java, even in windows its slow to start, though once it has started its pretty quick. Things like firefox are slow to start because the libaries are not preloaded like they are for Internet Explorer in Windows. However the second time you fire up firefox, unless you have run many memory-happy tasks since, it should be a lot faster as a lot of the stuff is allready in memory.

I myself am not particularly bothered about boot times as my computer runs 24/7, in fact I've only ever booted this current installation once. I would much rather have a slower booting system that will remain stable for ever once started. Maybe Mr Bill Gates worked on a fast boot time because he knew his users would be rebooting often :P

You mean people actually reboot there Linux system? Weird.

Try installing and running prelink.

OK, to take it all in some kind of order:

Have you checked out Blackbox or Fluxbox yet? I was a "console junkie", booting into GUI only when grudgingly necessary, until I discovered the light-weight window-managers. Now, I hardly touch a console! KDE is the slowest and most bloated desktop out there. And you can run KDE's panel from any X window just by typing "kicker" in an xterm (or by adding it to your menu). I just happen to have written an article comparing the Linux desktops posted at my "geek" blog that you might find interresting.

As others here have suggested, don't judge all of Linux by one distro. In a recent timed test I did with my live distros, both "Puppy Linux" and "Damn Small Linux" booted in *less than one minute*, where other systems took up to five. I'm talking from power-on to desktop! Damn Small uses Fluxbox, Puppy uses IceWM.

You might want to try to get it to boot just to a console login, then type "startx" to fire up the GUI. A GUI login box just adds that much time to the boot process, when you had to type the same anyway!

As for the unavoidable parts of booting time: keep in mind who the market Dominator is. When a hardware company makes a new (say for example) graphics card, their first action is to write a Windows-optimized driver and run immediately to Redmond where they kneel down and serve it to M$ on a silver platter. Other OS'es can go fly a kite, as far as most of them are concerned. Linux runs on hardware at all mostly by backwards-engineering it. At that rate, I'm quite impressed with Linux's performance: it's able to optimize hardware that Windows, last I checked, couldn't even recognize.

Finally, also be assured that when Linux takes a long time, it's actually DOING SOMETHING, as opposed to other OSes we could name. At boot, It's not just showing you a picture of clouds, it's actually checking everything at every step and reporting it's successes and failures to you. When it's up and running, it has ten times the programs ready to go than Windows does out of the box. Take the games: Windows comes with Freecell, Hearts, Minesweeper, and Solitare. Linux has, between KDE, Gnome, the X amusements, and what all, something like twenty or thirty? Again, here is the advantage of using a smaller distro: It starts out with less, and you only add the parts that you need.

In all honesty, XP boots slower. Mine boots TERRIBLY slow compared to Fedora, SUSE and Ubuntu, but it's also a bit of a mess.

But the fact is, when XP shows you the desktop, Start menu, and taskbar, it is NOT done booting! It's still loading a ton of services in the background. That's what they mean by "parallel"...they're saying it's OK to load things out-of-order?? I don't want to see my GUI until the system is ready to use! XP shows it to you, but good luck trying to do anything with it for the next several seconds. The GUI is the last thing loaded in Linux, so when you see it, you know the system is 100% ready to use.

As far as general operation, I find Linux running GNOME to be more responsive than Windows XP, and Linux running KDE to be less responsive. It all depends on your desktop environment and the amount of eye-candy it contains (Don't forget, Windows has gotten slower too, as they've added eye-candy). The choice is yours...if you want it to be faster, don't use KDE; instead try IceWM or FWVM95...or if you're a fan of the old CDE Unix environment, XFCE is pretty nice and fairly slick too.

Anyone who says xp boots faster than linux hasn't installed xp service pack 2.

Are we there yet?

Uh... that's simply not true.

LOL! there is probably some truth to that.....

if you want to boot faster, strip down the kernel, disable unused daemons, and consider a leaner distro and WM.....

Doing a fair analysis I would say that Windows XP and Mac OS boot much faster. I am counting the few seconds it takes to load the services once my desktop is showing. I have a top of the line PC. Windows boots in about 20 Seconds. Linux boots in about 1:00. Doing a comparitive analysis I have about the same amount of services in Windows as I do SuSe. Actually more services in Windows. So far noone has offered anything but suggestions on making Linux boot faster, or why Linux DOES boot faster. I am sure if you compiled minimal services on your system and ran a limited GUI that Linux would boot faster or comparitively, but the point is, when i DO boot linux with the same amount of services (or even a lot less) it is still slower than XP. Being a productivity user I WANT a lot of the services that Windows and Linux provide. Windows boots them faster. I am not saying I am switching to Windows, because I believe in Open Source, as well as in giving Microsoft some competition so it will improve its product base. (simple economics) I dont believe there is any contention over why linux is slower here. I simply would like to know the reason why. So far noone has offered any kind of real solutions. But excellent suggestions were given and are appreciated. Also, I have a laptop, so rebooting is a must for battery usage.

I think Linux users often make excuses, where they should be making improvements. i like Linux just as much as the next guy, but lets not get caught up in blind pride eh?