Why can't Microsoft make a windows computer that boots quickly and cheaply?

Microsoft doesn't make computers (not counting tablets); they sell operating systems and applications software. So maybe that's why they can't make a computer that boots quickly.

But I understand your complaint. When I was running Windows, rebooting the damn computer was a constant fact of life. That was the prescribed fix for everything. Over 10 years ago, I SWITCHED and put MS in the rear-view mirror.

f423hjfdk wrote:

Microsoft doesn't make computers (not counting tablets); they sell operating systems and applications software. So maybe that's why they can't make a computer that boots quickly.

But I understand your complaint. When I was running Windows, rebooting the damn computer was a constant fact of life. That was the prescribed fix for everything. Over 10 years ago, I SWITCHED and put MS in the rear-view mirror.

Not correct. You need to update your knowledge from 10 years ago. Most Surface models are laptops that allow you to remove the keyboard and use them as tablets if you want. The Surface Book is only a laptop and the Surface Studio is only a desktop.

They boot quickly but as to the 2nd part of OP's question, they aren't cheap.

Media Organization wrote:

We run Ubuntu 17.04 ZFS servers since it has a 'single copy' integrity file system unlike Mac, Win, Chrome. All of our personal PCs are Macs.

I think your term 'Single Copy' is actually 'Copy on Write' which Apple and MS doesn't have on their file systems and is why very often unusable short files are written.

ZFS is guaranteed to never write a 'short file'. Thus you never have to verify large MPEG, JPG, ISO, voice, etc. files written with ZFS.

Chromebooks boot quickly because they all use cheap, tiny capacity SSDs. 16gb or 32gb.

The OS is loaded onto these and allows the machine to boot very quickly.

Cheap Windows machines with these small cheap SSDs also boot very fast, albeit not quite as quickly.

trails for life wrote:

Does anybody know if Office and Quickbooks work on a Linux machine?

Office360 is not bad. It's secure enough for most companies, and everything is in the cloud. I'm not a fan of the subscription model for home though.

Don't know about QuickBooks.

f423hjfdk wrote:

But I understand your complaint. When I was running Windows, rebooting the damn computer was a constant fact of life. That was the prescribed fix for everything. Over 10 years ago, I SWITCHED and put MS in the rear-view mirror.

How is it possible that so many of you do not know what SSDs, tablets, and phones are? It is 2017. Windows, Mac, nor Linux are slow anymore. They are all fast!

I love Windows. If you run Windows off an SSD drive, and have not installed a bunch of applications that launch services when you start the computer, then Windows boots in seconds.

On the other hand Apple makes me pull my hair out. My kids have Macbook Air laptops with 128GB SSD drives that are always filling up. Wifi connection frequently drops. Their laptops don't boot any faster than my Windows machines.

If you don't need the power and performance of full featured desktop applications, then google chromebooks are cheap and adequate as long as you always have a web connection.

This was always one the things that annoyed me

I got a Mac after using windows all my life and it's a huge relief knowing I can shut down my laptop and it will start right back up and I can start using the internet in the matter of about 40 seconds

Ubuntu is where it's at. Seriously. Just dual boot if you want to still have Windows. Windows, on a brand new $1200 Thinkpad is very much point-and-click, while Ubuntu is snappy, responsive, and can give new life to aging machines. Windows is literally a patchwork quilt of Band-Aids over ancient code... Terribly written by a company with no visionary at it's head for the longest time (balmer).

Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is screaming fast on today's hardware. You need to install DOS first -- probably version 6.2.2 would be ok.

Getting a tcp/ip stack to work and get the system online is a little tricky, but doable.

Spelling this out for the idjits here: The example shows that you can have old mature technology in a computer and fast boot times. Far newer, faster technology is usually coupled with systems and programs that make the machine slow.

Ke7 wrote:

zxcvxzcvxc wrote:

It is not about how new the computer is. I had a Mac Classic from the early 1990s that could be turned on, booted up, and ready to work on a doc inside word within ten seconds.

So you are saying there is no such things as solid state hard drives, iphones, or tablets?

f423hjfdk wrote:

Microsoft doesn't make computers (not counting tablets); they sell operating systems and applications software. So maybe that's why they can't make a computer that boots quickly.

Yeah, no. Same hardware runs Google's Android.

Two different architectures. One is painful and slow and ripe for malware whose best feature is rigorous enforcement of media rights. The other isn't perfect for all things, but works for most.

My 3 year old SP3 boots up in about 15 seconds, makes no noise and most importantly can run MS Project, Adobe and audio editing software. A Chromebook would be almost useless to someone with real work to do.

MS Update wrote:

Not correct. You need to update your knowledge from 10 years ago. Most Surface models are laptops that allow you to remove the keyboard and use them as tablets if you want. The Surface Book is only a laptop and the Surface Studio is only a desktop

Why do I need to update my knowledge? 1) I don't give a rat's rear end about MS products, and 2) I'm right anyway.

The surface is still a tablet no matter how many peripherals you connect to it.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

f423hjfdk wrote:

Microsoft doesn't make computers (not counting tablets); they sell operating systems and applications software. So maybe that's why they can't make a computer that boots quickly.

Yeah, no. Same hardware runs Google's Android.

Two different architectures. One is painful and slow and ripe for malware whose best feature is rigorous enforcement of media rights. The other isn't perfect for all things, but works for most.

No? Of what hardware are you speaking? The OP was concerned with "Microsoft computers," not about Alphabet/Google/Android. Sheet, I wouldn't want a device named Android; I'd be afraid of it. Haven't you seen "Blade Runner" or paid attention to Elon Musk?

f423hjfdk wrote:

The surface is still a tablet no matter how many peripherals you connect to it.

I also dumped Windows 10 years ago. The surface is pure Rube Goldberg; a Frankenstein device.

Rube Goldberg wrote:

f423hjfdk wrote:

The surface is still a tablet no matter how many peripherals you connect to it.

I also dumped Windows 10 years ago. The surface is pure Rube Goldberg; a Frankenstein device.

Yes, look at any advanced company in Silicon Valley, or at motion picture studios, or electric car companies--you see Apple insignia on the computers. Watch CNBC and you'll notice.

zxcvzxcvx wrote:

Spelling this out for the idjits here:

The example shows that you can have old mature technology in a computer and fast boot times. Far newer, faster technology is usually coupled with systems and programs that make the machine slow.

No, your point and example is false. Buying a computer today will have 2 options: a SSD or a spinning drive. If you get the SSD, it will be fast. If not, it will be slow. You cannot run new software on "old mature technology" such as a Mac from the early 1990s. Seriously, you can't even run many programs on things from 2002. Your point is false.

TrackCoach wrote:

can run MS Project, Adobe and audio editing software. A Chromebook would be almost useless to someone with real work to do.

My chromebook can do that. I already splained about Crouton.