The best you can do is insist that the data that shows that Windows sucks and all Windows symps are morons is to insist that it can’t be true. Good luck with that argument. Good luck with spending the next hour with the Windows computer you are currently using with something annoying (to a cognizant intelligent person, not to you) happens.

Yes, Linux Users are smarter. At least you got that right.

You know why “Windows Apologist Jingois” hate linux users so much? Because you all blatantly lie like crazy… it’s bloody annoying. No one can actually TRUST what any of you say because you’ve all elevated Linux to a God-like status and Microsoft to a Shit-like status (You won’t even give it “satan”).

Anti-Virus software is pointless for “Smart People”, what is even more pointless is a full system scan on boot. A “Smart Person” really only needs to check email attachments, something that the email server can easily do.

And so long as you all refuse to optimize boot-processes, install as many “non-self contained” programs as possible, or blatantly attempt to fragment your boot drive… yes, you’ll get long boots, but only so long as 5 min (excluding, of course, “on boot antivirus scans” {for pete’s sake, turn that off}) (To note, XP can be optimized to a 15 – 30 second boot, so claiming it takes 25 min to do something is an obvious fabrication).

You see, what really is annoying is not that linux is faster, better, more stable, easier to use… it’s that despite all that Linux Users still cheat, lie, and sabotage the tests that prove this.

Before that I had a Dell Inspiron 1000 with a slower Celeron and 256MB of ram. Took 40 minutes to get a useable desktop in XP, 17 seconds in Archlinux.

Apple MacBook Pro
2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
3GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
Parallels 3 Desktop for Mac
Cold (virtual) boot of Windows
Login Screen – 0:37
Desktop – 0:46
Firefox – 1:29

Cold boot of MacOS X v10.5.6
(FileVault disk encryption enabled)
Login Screen – 0:40
Desktop – 1:49
Firefox – 2:38

here here!

@Murat – Fresh install times don’t mean a lot to me. After 6 months of use matters more.

@Greg “Defrag? What’s that?”

Exactly. No credit to a machine for doing something quickly that it shouldn’t have to do at all. I guess it’s better than doing the unnecessary thing slowly, but still…

My 5-6yr old Dell desktop (1gb ram, 2.7ghz Intel P4, 512mb graphics) dual boots win XP and win 7 on separate hard drives. The hold, haggered, tweaked-out XP OS takes maybe 3 minutes with antivirus. The win 7 OS takes 30 seconds (w/ windows defender). I am counting the time it takes for everything to load and the processor to settle down.

That said, I am patiently awaiting a OS like Presto (linux) that is free, and a real “instant on” for browsing purposes.

@george.w: Yes, much of the stuff can be run at night, if the machines are on-line. But my machine was a laptop that usually went where I went, including home after the day. It was off-line at night, unless I had an overseas teleconference, and during a conference I categorically refused all maintenance operations.

Do you know if anyone has tested bootup speeds (and maybe test checking email too) on fresh install Linux and Windows on the same hardware? I’m sure Linux will still beat, but I wonder how faster Windows boot when there’s no user app installed on it.

By the way,

My home PC (AMD X2 4800, 2GB ram, several SATA disks) has XP, Vista, Linux and OpenSolaris 08.11, and Vista is the slowest, then comes XP. Just I’m not sure which is the fastest, Linux or OpenSolaris. I’ll check and let you know.