Re: Future of desktop splash screens - some thoughts

["DmD (Spider) Ljungmark" <spider takeit se>]

On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 16:17 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 22:08 +0200, Chipzz wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > 
> > > There is no practical reason for a spash screen.  Exactly none.
> > >
> > > If the desktop or application starts fast enough a splash screen is
> > > unnecessary.  For some applications the splash screen provides a useful
> > 
> > Maybe YOUR box is fast enough to start gnome with no significant delay,
> > but a lot of older boxes are NOT (30 sec startup time is significant).
> > The excuse that "hardware nowadays is fast enough" is no excuse for not
> > keeping in mind older hardware.
> > 
> > So I'ld say you're just plain wrong in your assertion.

Agreement from me. 

> 
> Yeah. Someone would probably have to do very good work getting nautilus
> and/or panel up very quickly for this to make sense. That seems like a
> good goal to have, though.

There's more work here than you even want to admit.  our current crop of
machines are Via C3, 500MHz machines (wee, plenty speed) but with the
case of Gnome, horrifically slow start-up and load times due to the
abysmal amount of cache in those machines.

A complete Gnome desktop,  as presented for a user in this case, will
take a bit over 30 seconds to start up ( I had exact timings at one
point, not sure where those docs are)  but overall is lagged.

//Spider