Phoenix Technologies HyperSpace instant-on OS review

Our primary test machine was an Atom-powered Lenovo IdeaPad S10, which -- in all honesty -- is pretty much spec-for-spec the kind of machine HyperSpace was designed for. We were also able to toy around with the system on a full-sized Lenovo T400, and we came away with the understanding that something like this really can benefit both netbook and desktop replacement laptop buyers.
Bootup speed
Yeah, we know the reason you came here, and that's to find out just how quickly this thing booted up from a cold start. On our S10, we went from completely powered down to a fully-functional HyperSpace screen in around 25 seconds. Of note, this was on battery power and includes the time taken for the web browser to launch and a WiFi signal to be locked onto. As for booting straight into Windows XP? Under the same circumstances (completely powered down and running on battery), we didn't even see the WinXP desktop until 45 or so seconds in, and it was another 5 to 10 seconds after that before we could do anything remotely productive. We've no masters in mathematics, but a 40% to 50% increase in cold start-to-action time isn't anything to scoff at.
User experience
So, now that you fully understand just how quickly (or sluggishly, depending on your standards) the HyperSpace OS gets going, you're probably interested in how the actual user experience is within it. To be frank, it's a bit of a mixed bag. Sure, we loved being able to hop over to a website or check our Facebook status 1.2 seconds after we opened the lid from sleep mode, but we still feel a bit of polish could do it some good. Our biggest gripe with the whole deal wasn't even related to anything on-screen; rather, the system did a very poor job of interpreting inputs from our S10's trackpad. Within Windows XP, the diminutive pad was remarkably accurate, and we never once "overshot" our target or cursed the cursor for moving about without our consent
Within HyperSpace, the experience was nothing short of frustrating. The sensitivity was about 5x too high, and there was nothing in the barebones options menu that would allow us to tweak it. Due to this, we spent the majority of our time focusing intently on making precise movements and attempting to avoid clicking on objects we never intended to. Needless to say, it's kind of hard to enjoy an OS when you can't satisfactorily move the mouse cursor.
For users with lightning fast digits or an external mouse to play with, things were pretty swell. The layout was incredibly simple to navigate, the shortcuts were quick to activate and everything just seemed remarkably fluid. Even the web browsing was something we found enjoyable, and we're markedly critical of our browsers. Also of note was the networking control panel, which seemed unusually robust to us. Pretty much every advanced option that's in a typical Windows networking scheme was found here, and we had no problems tweaking some of the more exotic settings to get connected.
Truthfully, you probably won't spend a great deal of time within HyperSpace. It's perfectly fine for checking your internet bookmarks for updates and accessing your Gmail on the double, but the vast majority of that bite-sized, easy-to-digest information can be found just as easily (if not more so) on one's smartphone. That being the case, we would have really loved to see HyperSpace as more of a purgatory and less of a final destination. As it stands, users have to leave HyperSpace, allow the system to completely shut down, and then re-watch the entire bootup process again on the way to Windows XP. The "instant-on OS" would be entirely more appealing if one could simply shut down HyperSpace and complete the trip into a full-fledged OS.
Of course, there is a version that enables users to be within HyperSpace and Windows simultaneously, so if you're in agreement with us here, we'd recommend ponying up the extra for that iteration.
Wrap-up
At the end of the day, HyperSpace is a fine addition to most any laptop, and if it comes bundled in at a negligible cost on your next machine, you'll probably find yourself glad it's there on a few occasions. But is it really worth the separate purchase if you're already content with your setup as-is? That's a tough call, but unless you find yourself in and out of systems on an unusually frequent basis, we'd probably say no. There aren't many times in life when users can't wait an additional 30 or so seconds to have unbridled access to a real-deal OS, so unless you find yourself squarely in the minority, your dollars are probably better off in your savings account. Check our our walkthrough video below if you're so inclined.


















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
biohazard @ Jan 12th 2009 10:41AM
really doesn't convince me. You can boot up Linux faster on the AA1 under battery power!
Like_A_Glove @ Jan 12th 2009 12:05PM
The REAL instant-on OS will be a thing of the future, because it needs to take advantage of the future SSD technology. Giving the horrifying fact that SSD's speed keeps rocketing at an insanely rate, I have no doubt it will eventually reach the speed of RAM, and when that day comes, we just use part of the SSD as RAM.
And suddenly, every OS then, will be INSTANT ON!!!!
Not only that, it has a bonus called: INSTANT OFF.
Because the SSD "IS" the RAM, so the system has nothing to unload & save before power off, and it has nothing to load during boot up.
If you're confused, try ask yourself: How can you load something when it's already there?
ddd @ Jan 12th 2009 1:20PM
Meh, I have a fully running XP Embedded with enough functionality to run Opera with Wifi, from cold boot in 17 seconds.
I have a nLite boot thats about 30 seconds, which is only 5 more than this, and provides near full Windows functionality.
Like_A_Glove @ Jan 12th 2009 10:09PM
@ddd
Windows XP Embedded with RAMDrive is even faster. I have a 64MB fully functional Image that boots within 6 seconds or so, though a few tweaks are needed in order to no to initialize USB, Sound, Ethernet, Bluetooth etc.. during boot up, instead, the system show the desktop first, and do those work afterward. The down side is you cannot use USB keyboards & mice during boot up, no logon sfx, and it takes a while to initialize the NIC(about 5 - 7 seconds with DHCP off), and the boot up time, sadly, is platform sensitive, it's been tested & found only possible with nVidia Chipsets.
Simon @ Jan 20th 2009 2:33PM
Why has no one mentioned that this software is SUBCRIPTION-BASED? Who in their right mind would continue paying monthly for this?
David Bloom @ Jan 12th 2009 10:42AM
I'm pretty sure it's actually powered by Opera, right? http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2008/11/05/
giuliop @ Jan 12th 2009 10:51AM
If 40% to 50% translates to 25 seconds, it is something to sneer at. Instant-on only makes sense if it is, guess what, instant; that means a couple of seconds to 5, tops.
UnixSystemsEngineer @ Jan 12th 2009 11:15AM
Ranked up. Takes my system MAYBE 20 seconds to cold boot. Sure it's not a laptop let alone a netbook, but 25 seconds is not impressive. Even 10 seconds sounds excessive if they're trying to brag about how fast it is.
Dan Bugglin @ Jan 12th 2009 11:32AM
There are already "instant-on" systems being demoed with < 5 second boot time. So this is already behind without being released.
OS Perry @ Jan 12th 2009 10:51AM
I believe my Amiga 2000, back in 1990, was faster at booting up than this thing... is was definitely more instant on... almost 20 years ago.
htd @ Jan 12th 2009 10:51AM
boot up from hibernation from fully functionaly xp doesnt take too many extra seconds for me on my netbook. I wish this thing can function better with subsecond bootup time and with option to continue to bootup the full operating system in the background...
Laughing Man @ Jan 22nd 2009 7:56PM
Of course it boots from hibernate faster, everything is still in the RAM and pretty much where you left it. All you have to wait for is full power up and for the CPU to clock back to normal speed. We are talking cold boot. Computer OFF to Working, not computer Kinda Powered down sorta to working.
NiceCarpet @ Mar 4th 2009 9:06PM
@Laughing Man
You have standby and hibernate mixed up sah. When a computer goes into hibernate it sends all the data in RAM to to harddisk then proceeds to shutdown fully using no extra power, as if it was off.
When you restart said system it fulls the data heap from the harddisk and back into RAM, as if nothing ever happened.
As for the CPU clock comment, not that Speed Step or any other kind of throttle system kicks in on shutdown and start up but if it did, the time it takes for a CPU to change clock speed is almost instant.
Shan @ Jan 12th 2009 10:52AM
Seemed like one of those good ideas at the time, but to be honest - it was really only a few more seconds into Windows and I for one, would be happy to wait. Instant-on? more like instant-on-in-a-few-seconds-time. Having to wait a bit to press F4 so that the instant-on OS can be bypassed however is a bit of a pain. I'd hate to walk away and then come back to see the instant-on OS dektop when I was hoping for the Windows one. With windows 7, the wait time would be even less.
TMM @ Jan 12th 2009 10:55AM
I don't get it:
What's good about a using a stripped down Mini-OS, because your main OS Boots so awefully slow and doesn't sleep well ;)
This could be not necessary if Windows just would have good power management and real sleep mode like Macs have.
You don't EVER have to shut down and Mac because of it's WORKING sleep mode.
So kick Microsofts ass already for not being able to get a real sleep mode working ...
emagius @ Jan 12th 2009 11:38AM
Sleep/hibernation works fine under XP (and Vista, and Windows 7) on my laptops/netbook. I don't know what's wrong with yours.
JWC @ Jan 12th 2009 11:58AM
Sleep / Standby works fine in Vista and XP for me. The problem with MS OS's, that won't ever go away, is the insane variety of hardware options. You'll always be able to find one configuration that runs like crap when 99% of them run fine. That's why macs have their reputation for stability, because the hardware options are so limited (mainboard/vidcard specifically).
Doggabone @ Jan 12th 2009 2:11PM
Hibernate works very well for me in Vista, was always a bit flaky on XP for me. It worked, usually, but took about as long as a cold boot. OSX sleep mode works fine too. These are all on the same Mac box. I'm confident that Windows 7 will perform just as well.
And I rarely use any of them. The time it takes to boot into a computer is irrelevant to me. If it took 5 minutes, then maybe I'd care about booting into a mini-OS in seconds. But that does nothing to diminish my curiosity. ;)
Paulo Cesar @ Jan 12th 2009 10:56AM
Oh common, 25s is what takes to boot my EeePC with a full linux distro and boot booster enabled. And I know that a intel engineer made a modified, but full linux boot in less then 10s from pressing the "turn on" button
http://lwn.net/Articles/299483/
I would never call this HyperSpace instant-on
superhobo @ Jan 12th 2009 11:01AM
25 seconds != instant
I'd rather install Windows 98SE, or SLAX.
teasphere @ Jan 12th 2009 11:04AM
The real problem here is the completely outdated BIOS concept and implementation. The fact that we still rely on this piece of technology and it has seen virtually no advances in the history of the PC (Macs too) is a bit sad. Instant on, as a few have said, used to be a reality decades ago... yet we've regressed. Backwards compatibility is nice but I think we've hit a point where we can safely cut and run with a new design. Vista was a flop, people already suffer incompatibilites, take this chance to finally revolutionize the computer again. Hyperspace isn't the answer, just a band-aid.
sim @ Jan 12th 2009 11:18AM
Thank you for using your brain.
YpoCaramel @ Jan 12th 2009 11:38AM
Phew. Glad somebody said it.
mlau @ Jan 12th 2009 1:14PM
Windows requires a BIOS to boot, PC makers love windows. That's why a 3GHz PC takes longer to boot than
a 200MHz ARM device with a lean bootloader and OS in flash.
Pies @ Jan 12th 2009 11:16AM
So basically it's a Linux distro that comes bundled with my next netbook, that I can dual-boot into? And it loads a bit faster than Windows, but doesn't allow you to run any apps except the bundled ones? And I'll have to pay for this crap? Hypercool.
Pies @ Jan 12th 2009 11:40AM
Just answer this: would you like to have it on your precious Macbooks if it loaded 20 seconds faster than MacOS? If the answer is a "no", then please stop peddling this bullshit under the usual "It's better than the other OS I don't use" banner. See http://xkcd.com/528/ and please stop being so condescending to Windows users.
paul34 @ Jan 12th 2009 11:31AM
XP seems to boot that quickly the first time after a fresh reformat and install.
Bryan @ Jan 12th 2009 11:36AM
Cause the 30 seconds it saves is a lifetime!
FAIL
Randy @ Jan 12th 2009 11:43AM
All this Instant-on nonsense is of no use to me. I'm still waiting for EFI enabled Desktop boards from Intel and AMD. And before someone chimes in, Yes, I know Mac's use EFI.
Kevin Scoggins @ Jan 12th 2009 11:51AM
I think it's worth a look at the forums for anyone toying with the idea of installing it.
There are several people (including myself) who are finding it difficult, at best, to uninstall. There are several reports of it "trashing" their system. It did "trash" my Asus R2H but I kind of expected it and kind of needed to reformat and rebuild the system anyway.
Basically, it does some disk partitioning and works on the MBR so it's not just a "simple" piece of software.
I don't think I would pay for it even if it did function with my machine.
I'm more interested in gOS "Cloud". I can't wait to try it out!
fug2000 @ Jan 12th 2009 2:23PM
Kevin,
I'm one of those on the forums where the Hyperspace OS 'trashed' my system. I was going to install on my netbook. Before anyone starts flaming and tells me about 'compatable pcs' and what not, the software starts out with a compatability check. As a matter of fact, it was doing said check when 15 seconds later my machine rebooted to a blinking cursor. All attempts to recover master boot record failed. I've never had any software do that before. But on the brighter side, I'm now testing the new Windows 7 beta..... :)
Stephen Lang @ Jan 12th 2009 12:07PM
I think a really good sleep mode (ala OS X) is better than a instant-on supplementary OS. There's of course a small battery drain, but it's really small. Wake up is even faster (2-3 seconds maybe), and you can leave browser windows open, etc.
I really don't care about Mac/PC debates, but OS X sleep mode is heaven sent for a notebook computer. It also works great on the MSI Wind Hackintosh. I'm not sure what the current capabilities of Vista are in this area, or how Windows 7 will be- hopefully just as good!
BCre8v @ Jan 12th 2009 12:07PM
It looks like a type 1 hyervisor (Xen?) that enables the dual-booting.
The interesting parts to me are:
1. The fact that the hardware can start to look similar
in order to
2. Enable easy exchanging of "images" (gho, vhd, vmdk, etc.).
in order to
3. Automate OS installs or updates in the corporate world
in order to
4. Reduce IT costs
(I am all for that!)
Bob @ Jan 12th 2009 12:28PM
Anybody know of other open-source linux systems that have the same functionality? Curious to know if there is a free version that I could muck around with.
CJ @ Jan 12th 2009 12:41PM
Well 25 seconds seems a little excessive to me, XP boots to a usable desktop on my Macbook Pro in 18 seconds flat. I realize this is meant for netbooks, but even so 25 seconds isn't instant on.
Eltorro @ Jan 12th 2009 1:32PM
My Acer Aspire One 150 boots into XP in 40 seconds. HyperSpace leaves me in disappointment.
biglou @ Jan 12th 2009 2:59PM
my aspire one boots tinyXP quicker than this
Raj @ Jan 12th 2009 3:08PM
Why save a few seconds here and there when you can optimize how much time you spend at the computer? Do 30 seconds or 1 minute of boot time make a difference as long as your work gets done in the hours you sit at your computer? If you're on the move, why buy a netbook with a measly 2 hours of battery life when you can buy a smartphone which costs about as much, has more functions although not a keyboard and does the job, pretty much.
Cale @ Jan 12th 2009 3:30PM
I installed it on my HP Mini 1000, and it rebooted, did the partition stuff, rebooted again back into Windows for the final install step, and gave me a C++ visual runtime error on the installer. Thus, it failed miserably. Great job Phoenix!
the-paris-site @ Jan 12th 2009 8:35PM
Puppy Linux loads from a cold start for me in about 20 seconds - that's fully usable, connected to Wi-Fi, and FREE.
XP takes about 35 plus another 15-20 of loading once I see the desktop, Vista about 45 plus 15-20, and 7 takes around 30 plus 10...
Yes, quad booting. Just because I can...
W Park @ Jan 14th 2009 8:47PM
it won't work on my aspire one. I tried installing and now it boots into hyperspace unless I press F4. This is horrible. I am going to have to restore the Aspire to factory condition. painful.