The box I'm writing this on has an uptime of 148 days, the last time it went down was to put a second graphic card in it. I really don't see how a 'faster boot' would be of any benefit, in fact any benefit in faster boot time would have to be balanced with how long it took you to install that drive, format it, install your OS and so on in the first time.
Use cases should center around that which happens frequently, optimizing boot time for anything other than a netbook or a laptop that you don't 'sleep' is a case of premature optimization.
For all the other use-cases you sketch main memory is much more effective than a cache in a device at the other end serial link.
Thanks for sharing your personal computing habits with us. I happen to reboot quite often, switching between Ubuntu and Windows. I tried using a VM, but there were too many issues. With an SSD, rebooting from one OS to the other is fast enough to not be annoying, so I can have my dual-boot cake and eat it too. I have paid, and will continue to pay good money for this.
Besides that, it seems that the boot speed increase according to the article is next to non existent, and the comments point out that the application starts were actually done without wiping the OS cache.
The box I'm writing this on has an uptime of 148 days, the last time it went down was to put a second graphic card in it. I really don't see how a 'faster boot' would be of any benefit, in fact any benefit in faster boot time would have to be balanced with how long it took you to install that drive, format it, install your OS and so on in the first time.
Use cases should center around that which happens frequently, optimizing boot time for anything other than a netbook or a laptop that you don't 'sleep' is a case of premature optimization.
For all the other use-cases you sketch main memory is much more effective than a cache in a device at the other end serial link.