Win 11 - oh no it's faster

[Marie SWE]

Don't know why folks have to struggle with this question.

When you have a new PC that went with Windows (x), you don't wipe everything out just to install a Linux distro.
Repeat after me: You DUAL-BOOT. (There might be time when you want to sell it and replace it with a new one.
And the new owner only want Windows.)

I have two options I use as an Win-OEM install is more attractive when it's time to sell.... or.. if it gets so old that you want to keep it as an Retro computer.
First option is to switch out the drive and keep the original intact as it is, and put in a bigger disk at the same time
Second option is to make a disk to image clone of the disk to save for that day it's time to restore it.

as I dualboot win7/win8 four times a year (I hate win 10+11 so I refuse to use them, that's why I switched to Linux to avoid 10+11) so I make an original clone to image to save for that day it becomes Retro or I sell it. But it always ends up with that I put in a bigger drive anyway.

[motoryzen]

I never recommend a dual-boot ( meaning windows and Linux worlds installed into the same physical drive). There are easily a handful of reasons I've seen time and time again on not just this forum site. There are just too many things to consider, plan for, execute in a certain order, keep up with, windows boot loader and grub were never designed, still aren't, and probably never will be to play nicely with each other. If you decide to go back to just one OS-world and go about it the wrong way, you risk bricking your ability to boot into the one you want to go back to.

It's sincerely a rabbit-hole grad possibility of problems and headaches that just aren't worth it.

Yes there are some out there and on this site who are proficient at dual booting who have either never ( sincerely..highly doubtful especially in the learning phases of it) or very rarely encountered problems dual booting. It simply complicates things more when you need to back step to a reasonable degree to narrow down a booting problem as well as when you're trying to restore via system backups with rsync from what the experienced have told me on here.

If you keep it simple ( meaning one drive for Linux distro and the other for Windows) and only have one connected at a time when you boot up ( yes I know..it's more tedious ) you'll better guarantee nothing will ever happen to your data nor your ability to boot into either world. Yes you can have them both connected and select which one to boot up from after P.O.S.T-ing is done, but there is one other thing too. ( and this next example can affect many aspect of the dual booting experience)

Windows...updates.

I've seen time and time again a stupid Windows update messing up something involving one's ability to boot into the Linux distro, or caused a weird issue from being booted into the Linux distro...even when one disabled ( even before installing windows 2nd or Linux distro 2nd) fast boot within uefi/bios and Quick boot aka fast start within Windows and properly powered it off, then powered the system back up to boot from the Linux distro installation thumb drive to install it " along side windows".

You do you, but I'm just stating the facts. Dual booting is a fairly different beast to deal with. It's not worth it for me to sacrifice my sanity and my data. I've tried it at least 6 different times spanning the past 7 years and never again will I try it. I'd rather physically go through the hassle of disconnecting one drive and leaving the other if I need to boot into a different OS world.

[urdrwho]

Yeah I don't use Windows that much to give it a chance to garner all the crap.

Our kitchen computer is an older computer and has been running LM since 15 and has always booted fast. It runs LM very well. Think I'll use your systemd-analyze command to see whats starting.

On the Acer, the new one, there are errors in the log. Maybe it is why it takes a while longer to boot.

Came over to the Acer.

Code: Select all

Startup finished in 5.930s (firmware) + 4.603s (loader) + 34.203s (kernel) + 15.052s (userspace) = 59.790s
graphical.target @9.368s
 

Windows 11 is still a resource hog and installs a shed-load of bloat from Microsoft Store. You just haven't been running it long enough for it to download all the crud and add extra startup services and apps running in the background yet. Even Edge browser starts with Windows unless you tell it not to in it's settings.

O&O ShutUp10++ tames it.

Okay it starts faster but that's moot. I can make LMDE5 boot in 10 seconds on my ancient hardware as recorded by systemd-analyze (it's literally a case of disabling NetworkManager-wait-online.service and uninstalling thermald, modemmanager and dmraid which I don't need anyway. You could do similar with Mint 20.3 (after the firmware phase)

use systemd-analyze critical-chain to see what is holding your system back during boot.

EDIT -

Code: Select all

michael@ga-am1m-s2h:~$ systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 5.798s (kernel) + 2.620s (userspace) = 8.418s 
graphical.target reached after 2.559s in userspace

[urdrwho]

I've dual booted for --- god something like an easy 10 years and never had this fatal dire crash that you speak of that comes out of nowhere? The only time I have such issues is when I've use some crazy cleaning method that someone mentioned. Years ago before UEFI there were some MBR issues from time to time and yeah they were a headache. But now I have one computer that boots three different distros and it has been running well for a long time, everything else is at least dual. I do take precautions like placing home on its own partition (in case of re-installs). Oh yeah I have an old Mac that boots 3 and I use ReFind to control those beasts. Never use that computer, drag it out once in a while for fun.

I never recommend a dual-boot ( meaning windows and Linux worlds installed into the same physical drive). There are easily a handful of reasons I've seen time and time again on not just this forum site. There are just too many things to consider, plan for, execute in a certain order, keep up with, windows boot loader and grub were never designed, still aren't, and probably never will be to play nicely with each other. If you decide to go back to just one OS-world and go about it the wrong way, you risk bricking your ability to boot into the one you want to go back to.

It's sincerely a rabbit-hole grad possibility of problems and headaches that just aren't worth it.

Yes there are some out there and on this site who are proficient at dual booting who have either never ( sincerely..highly doubtful especially in the learning phases of it) or very rarely encountered problems dual booting. It simply complicates things more when you need to back step to a reasonable degree to narrow down a booting problem as well as when you're trying to restore via system backups with rsync from what the experienced have told me on here.

If you keep it simple ( meaning one drive for Linux distro and the other for Windows) and only have one connected at a time when you boot up ( yes I know..it's more tedious ) you'll better guarantee nothing will ever happen to your data nor your ability to boot into either world. Yes you can have them both connected and select which one to boot up from after P.O.S.T-ing is done, but there is one other thing too. ( and this next example can affect many aspect of the dual booting experience)

Windows...updates.

I've seen time and time again a stupid Windows update messing up something involving one's ability to boot into the Linux distro, or caused a weird issue from being booted into the Linux distro...even when one disabled ( even before installing windows 2nd or Linux distro 2nd) fast boot within uefi/bios and Quick boot aka fast start within Windows and properly powered it off, then powered the system back up to boot from the Linux distro installation thumb drive to install it " along side windows".

You do you, but I'm just stating the facts. Dual booting is a fairly different beast to deal with. It's not worth it for me to sacrifice my sanity and my data. I've tried it at least 6 different times spanning the past 7 years and never again will I try it. I'd rather physically go through the hassle of disconnecting one drive and leaving the other if I need to boot into a different OS world.

[antikythera]

If you want to see the complete list of startup services it's systemd-analyze blame but the critical-chain command I posted earlier is better for sorting the problems out with boot.

The delay on that system of yours could also indicate a mismatch in the partition labels and what is in fstab. usually a drive that no longer exists or a swap partition that's been reformated by another OS installed alongside Mint (which gives it a new UUID) is the cause.

[AndyMH]

Repeat after me: You DUAL-BOOT.

No, you image it, wipe it and install linux. If you want to sell, restore the image. Even that is overkill, with an OEM licence you can simply reinstall win.

[Peter Linu]

The world is stressed out and your answer is coffee--
Works for me

hahaha

[urdrwho]

This was a new computer with windows. There have been no drives that no longer exist or swap partition. From the day I got it there was windows and partitions for LM.

The delay on that system of yours could also indicate a mismatch in the partition labels and what is in fstab. usually a drive that no longer exists or a swap partition that's been reformated by another OS installed alongside Mint (which gives it a new UUID) is the cause.

[dave0808]

I'm always up to date.

You may know this already: The available kernel versions are kept separate from the main package updates. By default, 5.4 will have installed, but if you go to the Update Manager -> View -> Linux Kernels, you'll see all the other kernel branches available. A more recent one may be more suited to newer hardware.

[Hoser Rob]

There are no guarantees that Linux will run faster than WIndows, that's a bit of a myth and depends on the hardware among other things.

However in Windows you tend to need to fix viruses occasionally and run on-demand AV scans, which you do need to do regiularly in WIndows because no AV program stops everything.

In Linux, you don't. That should speed you up a bit.

[Marie SWE]

There are no guarantees that Linux will run faster than WIndows, that's a bit of a myth and depends on the hardware among other things.

However in Windows you tend to need to fix viruses occasionally and run on-demand AV scans, which you do need to do regiularly in WIndows because no AV program stops everything.

In Linux, you don't. That should speed you up a bit.

So true. There is a lot of Linux myths out there.

[urdrwho]

Yes, I checked last night. There are no kernel versions newer than the active one.

I'm always up to date.

You may know this already: The available kernel versions are kept separate from the main package updates. By default, 5.4 will have installed, but if you go to the Update Manager -> View -> Linux Kernels, you'll see all the other kernel branches available. A more recent one may be more suited to newer hardware.

[urdrwho]

Yep. The speed is not worth the hassle of windows. I guess what this was all about is that Windows may finally be moving toward a more friendly OS. Yeah it will still be number one for hackers because it is the big dog. The updates can take a long time. Then there will always be the worry of windows going round and round and never starting. I'm fairly good at working it all out and if not ... my son that works in IT will know. Sigh. Twenty eight years ago I was showing him how to use a computer. Then he progressed, the classes, the schooling and now I am the dribbling dad asking "how do I" questions.

There are no guarantees that Linux will run faster than WIndows, that's a bit of a myth and depends on the hardware among other things.

However in Windows you tend to need to fix viruses occasionally and run on-demand AV scans, which you do need to do regiularly in WIndows because no AV program stops everything.

In Linux, you don't. That should speed you up a bit.

[rick gen]

Repeat after me: You DUAL-BOOT.

No, you image it, wipe it and install linux. If you want to sell, restore the image. Even that is overkill, with an OEM licence you can simply reinstall win.

Okay...If that is what you prefer and you're someone who don't want anything to do with Windows.
And I don't know the purpose of this thread when/if that is the case. The answer is so simple. Why struggle?

Me, I not only dual boot, I multi-boot. 2 Linux distros with Win in main partition. No harm done.
And I don't have to wonder what billions of people are doing with the most used desktop OS.

[antikythera]

I have W10 Pro 21H2, OpenSUSE Tumbleweed and LMDE5 happily residing on the one machine over two drives, an nvme and a SATA SSD. Each has their own EFI partition so none can hi-jack the others and all are registered in UEFI's boot list (which is also maintainable via efibootmgr). The only thing I had to do was turn off NTP on the two linux distributions and prevent them writing to the hardware clock. After that plain sailing and I also have images of the drives to restore from as and when necessary.

Should I ever wish to sell the machine, I would wipe the lot and let the new owner install their choice since it's a self-build and the Windows key is from my MSDN sub.

With any commercial machine that came with windows 8 or newer, I'd pre-install windows using OEM tools and the code from the EFI capsule would activate it. The new owner wouldn't have to bother about it.

[urdrwho]

Not sure how I would get two drives into the Acer laptop that is part of this discussion. I've never needed to open it up but I think there is only one bay with an SSD. On my computers that have dual and triple booting, the one's I test things when I get bored, with their own partitions for each distro, I will at time (when spirit moves me) go into windows and clean up the EFI using that PwerShell / diskpart / renaming, etc. method.

I was lurking on the LM forum and found others posting that the ACPI error added to boot times. Aside from the error in the long, I see no performance issues.

I have W10 Pro 21H2, OpenSUSE Tumbleweed and LMDE5 happily residing on the one machine over two drives, an nvme and a SATA SSD. Each has their own EFI partition so none can hi-jack the others and all are registered in UEFI's boot list (which is also maintainable via efibootmgr). The only thing I had to do was turn off NTP on the two linux distributions and prevent them writing to the hardware clock. After that plain sailing and I also have images of the drives to restore from as and when necessary.

Should I ever wish to sell the machine, I would wipe the lot and let the new owner install their choice since it's a self-build and the Windows key is from my MSDN sub.

With any commercial machine that came with windows 8 or newer, I'd pre-install windows using OEM tools and the code from the EFI capsule would activate it. The new owner wouldn't have to bother about it.

[urdrwho]

I have 11 computers (laptops, desktops) in my house. I would say that half are multi-boot and the remainder (except for one) are dual boot. I have one Windows 7 only desktop and that is my main business computer. I have proprietary software that is Windows only. Then there is the once a year tax preparation I do myself with TurboTax. So yeah, I need Windows and because it is for my business, I don't tempt fate with playing around with other distros.

[/quote]
Post by rick gen » Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:10 am
Me, I not only dual boot, I multi-boot. 2 Linux distros with Win in main partition. No harm done. And I don't have to wonder what billions of people are doing with the most used desktop OS.
[/quote]

[half-word]

And if things is really hurry.. sleep mode(suspend to ram) beats all OS startups

I'm definitely with you on this one. I never shutdown my computers unless I won't be using them for days or more, I just let them go to sleep whenever I leave them.

And whenever I need them again, I just press a key and/or open the laptop lid and presto! Everything is as I last left it.

Here is the time from GRUB to boot reaches stable idle

Mint -- 1 minute and 8 seconds
WIN 11 -- 24.48 seconds

That boot time is much too slow. My decade old computer with a SSD boots to Mint as fast as yours to Win11. There is definitely something hogging the boot process.

[Marie SWE]

And if things is really hurry.. sleep mode(suspend to ram) beats all OS startups

I'm definitely with you on this one. I never shutdown my computers unless I won't be using them for days or more, I just let them go to sleep whenever I leave them.

And whenever I need them again, I just press a key and/or open the laptop lid and presto! Everything is as I last left it.

Same here.. I often have a ton of research stuff up, and lazy as I am I prefer that I don't have to reopen everything everyday.. On my Desktops I use Hibernation(save ram to disk) as I don't have UPS to them. Only my server has UPS for safe shutdown.
Linux needs to restart around every 4months.. I have not manage to get it as stable as I can with windows 2000 up to win 8.1 I have never even thought the thought of testing to make win10+11 stable versions.. as i hate win10+11..(in case someone have missed me saying that)

Here is the time from GRUB to boot reaches stable idle

Mint -- 1 minute and 8 seconds
WIN 11 -- 24.48 seconds

That boot time is much too slow. My decade old computer with a SSD boots to Mint as fast as yours to Win11. There is definitely something hogging the boot process.

I agree on that.. I have spin-disk on my boot partitions and that takes around 50 seconds to boot.. its Debian Xfce though, but there isn't so much difference between Mint and Debian... so over one minute with an SSD is worth to take a look at

[urdrwho]

Yeah not sure what was up with that LM Cinn install so I tried another Distro just to see. Installed MX 21 and it boots in 23.9 seconds.

There was something holding up my LM install. When the spirit moves me I'll install LM Cinn again and time it.

The Acer in the kitchen (much older) booted LM Cinn in 16.73. That is the one I commented on how it has always been a fast boot.