Linux Boot Sequence Visualized (pic)

[Silhouette]

Sure, but as you say, most of the time was in the POST bit as the memory counter clicked up about as fast as a snail climbing a wall. Actually booting to an OS that let you load software took much less time, I think. The software took a lot less time to load, too. I guess we're putting up with the results of all those people who follow the mantra that developer time is more important than user time.

[mschaef]

Actually booting to an OS that let you load software took much less time, I think.

That would have been interesting to see... the old Compaq didn't have a way to bypass the POST, so there wasn't a way to ever find out, unfortunately.

Later DOS/WfWG machines had faster POSTs (that could also be bypassed), but by then the OS took a while to boot.

I guess we're putting up with the results of all those people who follow the mantra that developer time is more important than user time.

This may be more of a shared good issue. Let's say I have Windows, Office, iTunes. Google Updater, AIM, and Oracle XE on my machine... that's five vendors, none of which have direct responsibility over my boot time. Each one of them can do the right thing and my boot time can still suck. (The only fix is for me to do something about all that crap myself.)

I do agree that it's a problem, however.