On Thursday, 10. May 2012 at 18:23, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > All right, this seems like a good place to splice in a comment I made in the > private thread that it is time to be careful and not get into exaggerated > claims, especially when a variation is not consistently present to all users > in all situations. > > Unsubstantiated subjective experiences are not trustworthy. It is also very > difficult to control the variations that exist from one setting and execution > to another. > > So let's stop making so much of this. ah thanks Dennis that you didn't get my point but probably my fault that I didn't get or find the correct words.
I think it is easy to find documents where the performance is not really good. And we are looking forward to your reports, your test docs and especially your fixes and improvements. My point was that many users will work with much simpler documents, they will get the impression (and not only the impression) that 3.4 is faster... And that is good, simply good and you see it from the feedback. We have achieved a very important milestone this week. I am personally still enjoy it and I like what I read every day at the moment. Well I don't read everything ;-) And I really don't want compete with LibreOffice, why should we? I really see no reason for this. I see only that split resources on 2 similar projects don't really make sense but I can't change it at the moment. I focus on our project and everything else we will see... Juergen > > - Dennis > > A LESSON ON PERFORMANCE-CLAIM HUMILITY: > > I just stubbed my toe on a performance situation where there is a serious > worse-than-linear degradation in performance as a particular kind of ODF Text > document grows. Using a hot machine, I only noticed the pain when opening the > document extended into an intolerable number of minutes as I continued work > on successive drafts. On my slower laptop, where I repeated the test for > comparison purpose, the document now takes over an hour to open. This is on > OO.o 3.3.0, AOO 3.4.0, and a variety of LibreOffice releases. > > Yes there are differences among the different releases, and they are rather > consistent when the time is so long, but the fastest (OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 in > my crude tests) is still swamped by whatever the serious performance > degradation is and it is common to all releases tested. > > This is not the kind of problem that can be isolated into a small test case > for reproducibility, so the forensic work to demonstrate it and capture data > points is really tedious. Ordinary users probably think that their software > has hung or is not even starting when it is just that there is something that > is taking a very long time as part of loading the document (but neither disk > nor network, something in the logic that pegs the CPU for minutes when not > hours). > > Bug reports will follow shortly. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@googlemail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 08:45 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Performance! > > [ ... ] > > But the point right now is that the majority of users don't care about > this and see only that AOO is starting fast. A fact that I like very > much because there were indeed some improvements for 3.4. > > And how nice is it when users notice such improvements without deeper > analysis. The fact that users simply having the impression that it > starts fast is very nice. > > So let us focus on further improvement going in this direction. Let us > make our users happy. Many many happy users and their positive feedback > is the payment that we get for our work here. > > Juergen > > [ ... ]
