8:06 a.m.
From a post that included the following quote:
> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as
> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds have to
> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality:
>
> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds)
> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing.
> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF
> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice.
>
> What do we need to do to make this a reality?
I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are at
least three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1)
rugged physical design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest
software] low power draw. But should the XO-1 be asked to compete
with systems that offer business applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ?
My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic"
capabilities go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead.
mikus
9:30 a.m.
New subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS
This seems like a reasonable request to me, if a bit idealized.
dwm on xo has a 1-min boot now.
openwrt had a sub-20 sec boot earlier this year.
and didn't etoys have a 6-second boot recently?
with all due respect, 'business applications, youtube, ppt, &c'
doesn't sound like an insurmountable target.
SJ
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mikus Grinbergs <mikus(a)bga.com> wrote:
From a post that included the following quote:
>>
>> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as
>> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds have to
>> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality:
>>
>> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds)
>> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing.
>> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF
>> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice.
>>
>> What do we need to do to make this a reality?
I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are at least
three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1) rugged physical
design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low power draw.
But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer business
applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ?
My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic" capabilities
go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead.
mikus
_______________________________________________
Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
9:32 a.m.
New subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Samuel Klein
with all due respect, 'business applications, youtube, ppt,
&c'
doesn't sound like an insurmountable target.
To be more specific, fast boot time, business apps, and video/flash
playback have all been demonstrated on their own. The question is how
to combine them.
I would guess fast boot time that loads extra bits in the background
to support more elaborate apps would be acceptable.
SJ
SJ
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mikus Grinbergs <mikus(a)bga.com> wrote:
> From a post that included the following quote:
>>>
>>> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as
>>> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds have to
>>> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality:
>>>
>>> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds)
>>> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing.
>>> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF
>>> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice.
>>>
>>> What do we need to do to make this a reality?
>
> I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are at least
> three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1) rugged physical
> design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low power draw.
> But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer business
> applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ?
>
> My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic" capabilities
> go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead.
>
> mikus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
> Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
>
10:04 a.m.
New subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS
Most "quick boot" systems are - at least in part - making a tradeoff
by slowing things down later. I would not want to "succeed" with a
quick boot only to have people think the machine was slow because the
next 5 things they did took a long time.
I think we need to be careful about being sucked into the "quick boot"
ideal. How often do you reboot your machines? I just rebooted my
MacBook Pro this morning for the first time in several weeks, for a
software update. It took over a minute to boot, and that fact has
been completely irrelevant to me as a user. If we provide good
suspend/resume and power management support, users aren't going to
reboot very often.
I certainly agree that moving from a six-minute boot to a one-minute
boot makes a substantial difference in the user's perception of the
system (if not a difference in usability) and that's a very important
goal. But striving for incremental improvements in boot time is, I
think, much less valuable to user than an excellent suspend/resume
experience (which my MacBook Pro does very well).
- Ed
On Dec 3, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Samuel Klein
> with all due respect, 'business applications, youtube, ppt, &c'
> doesn't sound like an insurmountable target.
To be more specific, fast boot time, business apps, and video/flash
playback have all been demonstrated on their own. The question is how
to combine them.
I would guess fast boot time that loads extra bits in the background
to support more elaborate apps would be acceptable.
SJ
> SJ
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mikus Grinbergs <mikus(a)bga.com>
> wrote:
>> From a post that included the following quote:
>>>>
>>>> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as
>>>> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds
>>>> have to
>>>> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds)
>>>> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing.
>>>> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF
>>>> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice.
>>>>
>>>> What do we need to do to make this a reality?
>>
>> I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are
>> at least
>> three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1)
>> rugged physical
>> design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low
>> power draw.
>> But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer
>> business
>> applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ?
>>
>> My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic"
>> capabilities
>> go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead.
>>
>> mikus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
>> Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
1:30 p.m.
New subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Ed McNierney <ed(a)laptop.org> wrote:
Most "quick boot" systems are - at least in part - making a
tradeoff by
slowing things down later. I would not want to "succeed" with a quick boot
only to have people think the machine was slow because the next 5 things
they did took a long time.
Perception is a major component in technology adoption (VHS vs BetaMax
etc. Also see Rogers, Everett M. (2003).Diffusion of Innovations). In
fact, anywhere between 50% to 85% variation in adoption can be
explained by perception alone!
So, even if the boot is 5 seconds long, and the tradeoff is a slower
loading of apps subsequently, the perception of a faster boot will
(most probably) imply a faster system. I don't have statistical
evidence for this, but I'll dig deeper and see if anyone has studied
boot time perception. If there's none, maybe we can run a quick test
with newbies :-)
I think we need to be careful about being sucked into the "quick
boot"
ideal. How often do you reboot your machines? I just rebooted my MacBook
Pro this morning for the first time in several weeks, for a software update.
It took over a minute to boot, and that fact has been completely irrelevant
to me as a user. If we provide good suspend/resume and power management
support, users aren't going to reboot very often.
Many Windows users reboot more than once a day :-) and I suspect most
G1G1 users will be Windows users as opposed to Mac or Linux users...
I certainly agree that moving from a six-minute boot to a one-minute
boot
makes a substantial difference in the user's perception of the system (if
not a difference in usability) and that's a very important goal. But
striving for incremental improvements in boot time is, I think, much less
valuable to user than an excellent suspend/resume experience (which my
MacBook Pro does very well).
I agree that suspend/resume cycle makes a huge difference. Sugar's s/r
cycle is *very* impressive. Given that it already works in Sugar, I'd
imagine achieving that in GNOME shouldn't be that much of a stretch.
Sameer
--
Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Information Systems
San Francisco State University
San Francisco CA 94132 USA
http://verma.sfsu.edu/
http://opensource.sfsu.edu/
- Ed
On Dec 3, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Samuel Klein
>>
>> with all due respect, 'business applications, youtube, ppt, &c'
>> doesn't sound like an insurmountable target.
>
> To be more specific, fast boot time, business apps, and video/flash
> playback have all been demonstrated on their own. The question is how
> to combine them.
>
> I would guess fast boot time that loads extra bits in the background
> to support more elaborate apps would be acceptable.
>
> SJ
>
>> SJ
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mikus Grinbergs <mikus(a)bga.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From a post that included the following quote:
>>>>>
>>>>> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as
>>>>> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds have
to
>>>>> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds)
>>>>> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing.
>>>>> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF
>>>>> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do we need to do to make this a reality?
>>>
>>> I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are at
>>> least
>>> three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1) rugged
>>> physical
>>> design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low power
>>> draw.
>>> But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer business
>>> applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ?
>>>
>>> My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic"
>>> capabilities
>>> go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead.
>>>
>>> mikus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
>>> Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
> Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
_______________________________________________
Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
1:40 p.m.
New subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS
That conclusion implies that boot time perception is more heavily weighted
by the user than application launch time perception, however, and we don't
have any evidence to judge whether or not that is the case.
- Ed
On 12/3/08 2:30 PM, "Sameer Verma" <sverma(a)sfsu.edu> wrote:
Perception is a major component in technology adoption (VHS vs
BetaMax
etc. Also see Rogers, Everett M. (2003).Diffusion of Innovations). In
fact, anywhere between 50% to 85% variation in adoption can be
explained by perception alone!
So, even if the boot is 5 seconds long, and the tradeoff is a slower
loading of apps subsequently, the perception of a faster boot will
(most probably) imply a faster system.
2:02 p.m.
New subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Ed McNierney <ed(a)laptop.org> wrote:
That conclusion implies that boot time perception is more heavily
weighted
by the user than application launch time perception, however, and we don't
have any evidence to judge whether or not that is the case.
Indeed. Such data would be quite valuable.
Here's an interesting blog entry on MSDN for improving boot time on
Windows 7. http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/08/29/boot-performance.aspx
It highlights some interesting time ranges and user experiences.
cheers,
Sameer
- Ed
On 12/3/08 2:30 PM, "Sameer Verma" <sverma(a)sfsu.edu> wrote:
> Perception is a major component in technology adoption (VHS vs BetaMax
> etc. Also see Rogers, Everett M. (2003).Diffusion of Innovations). In
> fact, anywhere between 50% to 85% variation in adoption can be
> explained by perception alone!
>
> So, even if the boot is 5 seconds long, and the tradeoff is a slower
> loading of apps subsequently, the perception of a faster boot will
> (most probably) imply a faster system.
2:24 p.m.
New subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 11:30 -0800, Sameer Verma wrote:
> I certainly agree that moving from a six-minute boot to a
one-minute boot
> makes a substantial difference in the user's perception of the system (if
> not a difference in usability) and that's a very important goal. But
> striving for incremental improvements in boot time is, I think, much less
> valuable to user than an excellent suspend/resume experience (which my
> MacBook Pro does very well).
I agree that suspend/resume cycle makes a huge difference. Sugar's s/r
cycle is *very* impressive. Given that it already works in Sugar, I'd
imagine achieving that in GNOME shouldn't be that much of a stretch.
For suspend/resume on the XO to be supported in Fedora, the patches for
OLPC power management *must* get into the upstream kernel first. And
that was dependent on also getting the geode gpio stuff detangled from
what I remember.
Jeremy
4:33 p.m.
New subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Ed McNierney <ed(a)laptop.org> wrote:
Most "quick boot" systems are - at least in part - making a
tradeoff by
slowing things down later. I would not want to "succeed" with a quick boot
only to have people think the machine was slow because the next 5 things
they did took a long time.
If it's just the next 5, that would be okay. If it's all future app
launches, not. Spreading out boot effort over the idle cpu time of
the first few minutes of each boot would be nice where possible.
I think we need to be careful about being sucked into the "quick
boot"
ideal. How often do you reboot your machines? I just rebooted my MacBook
Pro this morning for the first time in several weeks,
Sometimes I travel with my XO and a spare battery as my only laptop.
Rebooting happens at least once a day. I'll try with F10
specifically, but it can happen when
- running out of power (leaving it unintentionally in the wrong state in a bag)
- getting stuck in a resume loop
- locking up in one particular program (NM seems to be a regular
accessory to freezing)
to me as a user. If we provide good suspend/resume and power
management
support, users aren't going to reboot very often.
That hypothesis hasn't been borne out in Sugar. If it is used for
long-term planning here, I hope it is with evidence this is viable.
But striving for incremental improvements in boot time is, I
think, much less
valuable to user than an excellent suspend/resume
experience (which my
IME, this isn't specific to boot time for the machine; also for boot
time for core apps (listed previously in the thread).
This is also a core failure of OO for me -- it is designed to give you
a good experience while running, but obviously not designed to have a
smooth bootup sequence or to be rebooted often. I reboot OO regularly,
and the required clickthrough/wait process for recovering interrupted
files, and the slow boot time, are abidingly frustrating.
SJ
1:32 p.m.
New subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Samuel Klein
> with all due respect, 'business applications, youtube, ppt, &c'
> doesn't sound like an insurmountable target.
To be more specific, fast boot time, business apps, and video/flash
playback have all been demonstrated on their own. The question is how
to combine them.
If installing Flash from Adobe can be done by using a simple graphical
wrapper it would be a lot easier. Something like what Synaptic does.
--
Sameer
I would guess fast boot time that loads extra bits in the background
to support more elaborate apps would be acceptable.
SJ
> SJ
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mikus Grinbergs <mikus(a)bga.com> wrote:
>> From a post that included the following quote:
>>>>
>>>> However many G1G1 participants, such as myself, may not be as
>>>> interested in the plethora of functionality that these builds have to
>>>> offer, and only want rapid, basic functionality:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Quick boot time (Yes, ideally 5-10 seconds)
>>>> 2. Basic wifi access and webbrowsing.
>>>> 3. Business applications such as: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, PDF
>>>> viewer, PPT Presentation viewer would be nice.
>>>>
>>>> What do we need to do to make this a reality?
>>
>> I believe here is a case of unrealistic expectations. There are at least
>> three things about an XO-1 (i.e., G1G1) that stand out: (1) rugged physical
>> design (2) reflective display (3) [with latest software] low power draw.
>> But should the XO-1 be asked to compete with systems that offer business
>> applications, YouTube, PPT, etc. ?
>>
>> My suggestion is that someone who wants the described "basic"
capabilities
>> go spend the money to purchase a "netbook" instead.
>>
>> mikus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
>> Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
2:24 p.m.
New subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 14:32, Sameer Verma <sverma(a)sfsu.edu> wrote:
If installing Flash from Adobe can be done by using a simple
graphical
wrapper it would be a lot easier. Something like what Synaptic does.
Unfortunately, Flash isn't supported by OLPC or Fedora; in fact in the past
we lacked even the right to distribute it. It is closed source, and will not
be included in the repositories.
By the way, PackageKit <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PackageKit> and Pup are
the RPM analogs to Synaptic.
-lf
1:47 p.m.
New subject: What a G1G1 user wants from an alternate OS
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 17:30, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This seems like a reasonable request to me, if a bit idealized.
dwm on xo has a 1-min boot now.
openwrt had a sub-20 sec boot earlier this year.
and didn't etoys have a 6-second boot recently?
SqueakNOS, and it was 20 seconds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0fAUGRUDVA
Regards
Morgan
5647
days inactive
5647
days old
11 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Ed McNierney -
Jeremy Katz -
Luke Faraone -
Mikus Grinbergs -
Morgan Collett -
Sameer Verma -
Samuel Klein