Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
Ahh, i've not seen you make many tpyos before but it had to happen one day.  
Glad to see you have joined the rest of us so thoroughly :))
Regards from 
Tom :)  





>
> From: Andrew Brown 
>To: Tom Davies  
>Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org 
>Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013, 8:43
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
> 
>
>Sorry typo, meant to read 100GB not MB. Allowing for anything FAT coming 
>along.
>
>Andrew Brown
>
>On 07/08/2013 10:18 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
>> Hi :)
>> I tend to make / around 10-15Gb now for Ubuntu.  100Mb is about enough 
>> for a separate /boot partiiton but not enough for the / of most 
>> distros, especially not for the most bloated distro of all.  I've 
>> found that even 8Gb gets in trouble quite quickly unless you are quite 
>> good at doing maintenance such as using the Janitor fairly often.
>>
>> You don't get much of a performance boost by having a separate /home 
>> unless that /home is on a physically separate drive but it does make 
>> he system more robust and safer to upgrade.
>> Regards from
>> Tom :)
>>
>>
>>     ----
>>     *From:* Andrew Brown 
>>     *To:* users@global.libreoffice.org
>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 8:19
>>     *Subject:* Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>>
>>     Ubuntu install is the same, if using the default install options it
>>     creates the swap partition (at least equal to installed RAM
>>     amount), and
>>     then then one partition for all. I change this and like many here,
>>     create the root / (100MB), and the balance of the drive capacity to
>>     /home, keeping my data separate.
>>
>>     Regards
>>
>>     Andrew Brown
>>
>>     On 07/08/2013 07:53 AM, Doug wrote:
>>     > On 08/07/2013 01:05 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
>>     >> Hi :)
>>     >> If you have your /home on a separate partition then it might be
>>     possible to install the 64bit version of Ubuntu without disturbing
>>     your 32 it version.  I tend to use a 10-15Gb partition for / for
>>     Ubuntu.  It doesn't really need all that much space but Ubuntu is
>>     about the most bloated distro at the moment.  Having plenty of
>>     space makes it easier when installing programs.
>>     >> Regards from
>>     >> Tom :)
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     > I did that on PCLOS. It works well, altho a few apps that are
>>     strictly
>>     > 32-bit will not run on the 64-bit installation.I lost Adobe
>>     Reader on
>>     > the 64-bit os, because there is no 64-bit version of that s/w. I
>>     had to
>>     > go find a 64-bit version of one or two other programs. But
>>     basically,
>>     > it's a lot simpler than having to back up all your files to an
>>     external
>>     > storage medium and then having to copy everything back to a
>>     completely
>>     > new install.
>>     >
>>     > You will have to make a new blank partition on the drive, using
>>     > gparted or something similar, and format it to ext4 and call it /
>>     > Then when you install the 64-bit version, DO NOT format /home,
>>     > only / (Your distro may or may not make it mandatory to reformat /
>>     > during the install, even tho you formatted it already.)
>>     >
>>     > Be careful when you install the 64-bit os, so as to NOT make a new
>>     > /home. Note that you probably already have a swap partition, so
>>     > don't make another one. Any and all Linux os's on the disk can use
>>     > the one swap.
>>     >
>>     > It has been quite a while since I did an Ubuntu install, so I can't
>>     > be more specific. And I don't think I would try this with Korora--
>>     > its installation would drive a saint crazy! (Just to get it onto
>>     > two partitions is maddening!)
>>     >
>>     > Good luck--doug
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
>>     <mailto:unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org>
>>     Problems?
>>    http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>>     Posting guidelines + more:
>>    http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>>     List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffic

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
+1

That is why i dont think it's worth us spending our time doing benchmarking.  
Another  reason is that we are obviously a fairly biased bunch with only a few 
individuals that may be biased the other way or be "on the fence".  Anyone else 
looking at the results of a serious bench-marking study done by us will assume 
we have too much bias.  

Studies into this sort of thing are usually paid for by MS but they are usually 
able to hide the MS involvement sufficiently that people get the impression 
it's an independent bit of research.  

So, a quick bit of bench-marking by a few individuals has been great.  It's 
been really good to see and compare some of the different stats people have 
been giving but its not worth us spending much time over getting more than a 
"rule of thumb" or general idea.  

Thanks all for their work though!
Regards from 
Tom :)  







>
> From: Andrew Brown 
>To: 
>Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org 
>Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013, 10:30
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
> 
>
>This is to what I have noticed by many who become anal retentive in this 
>matter, and obsessive compulsive, over their possessions for want of a 
>better word. I see it in the way they buy their worldly possessions from 
>cars, to HiFi, to mobile phones, to their homes and it's contents. All 
>of it must have a spec sheet a mile long to "PROVE" it's the best out 
>there and better than yours and mine.
>
>We are losing site of reality, as you covered, over .1 or .2 of a 
>second. There's a real world we live in going to pot and soon we will 
>battle for clean water and wholesome fresh produce, never mind the rapid 
>loss of natural flora and fauna, over how many seconds a piece of 
>silicon and soft, as in the real sense of what soft means, code is running.
>
>My original purpose of starting this post was to simply show, in a real 
>world use that LO is not slow by any means to any competitive product 
>and does the job, for the majority of users, who are far in reality from 
>their self proclaimed power users status, as equally good as any 
>competitive product, but again my first paragraph observation is surfacing.
>
>The bottom line there are millions of users of LO, and other users of 
>non-MS products, working perfectly fine with it and could not really 
>give a hoot of it's millisecond or second performance.
>
>Andrew Brown
>
>On 07/08/2013 04:29 PM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
>>
>> Yes, there are a lot of people who can give others "proof" of what 
>> their system can do.  Either by an active demonstration or via 
>> benchmark packages.
>>
>> I love doing active presentations to non-believers.
>>
>> I have taken and proved that LO can do things that I claim, by 
>> bringing my laptop[s] to these people and run LO through some tests.  
>> Then I hand them a USB drive and ask them to place some "sample" 
>> documents they use on a daily/weakly basis and then open them up with 
>> LO and show them that "yes" LO can work with your files "easily".
>>
>> I once had them click on their Word icon on their multi-core Windows 
>> desktop and the same time as I click on the LO icon on my Windows boot 
>> partition of my Windows/Ubuntu dual booting laptop[s].  Now that we 
>> have Win7 as the "new standard" for business computers, I can use 
>> either my Win7 Home Premium laptop or my Win7 Professional one.  Both 
>> are dual core laptops, but the "Professional" install is on the slower 
>> system.  One day I will take the "Home" laptop and make it 
>> "Professional" to solve some "back port" issues where "Home" might not 
>> allow certain XP and Vista era packages to be installed while 
>> "Professional" has not problem installing those packages.
>>
>> So having a live demonstration on what LO can do and how fast it can 
>> do those things is a good "marketing tool".
>>
>> Having a "benchmark" style of information sheet tends to make many 
>> manager's eyes "cloud over and ears stop hearing you" as you discuss 
>> the benchmark results.
>>
>> Yes, there can be some "guesswork" for some things, and some 
>> subjective issues, but it does not mean that those "guesses" are wrong.
>>
>> The seconds count or timed with a stopwatch is not very accurate if it 
>> is the difference of a second plus/minus.  But most people can not 
>> tell the difference between 3 and 4 seconds, or 3.4 and 4.1 seconds.  
>>

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Andrew Brown]

This is to what I have noticed by many who become anal retentive in this 
matter, and obsessive compulsive, over their possessions for want of a 
better word. I see it in the way they buy their worldly possessions from 
cars, to HiFi, to mobile phones, to their homes and it's contents. All 
of it must have a spec sheet a mile long to "PROVE" it's the best out 
there and better than yours and mine.


We are losing site of reality, as you covered, over .1 or .2 of a 
second. There's a real world we live in going to pot and soon we will 
battle for clean water and wholesome fresh produce, never mind the rapid 
loss of natural flora and fauna, over how many seconds a piece of 
silicon and soft, as in the real sense of what soft means, code is running.


My original purpose of starting this post was to simply show, in a real 
world use that LO is not slow by any means to any competitive product 
and does the job, for the majority of users, who are far in reality from 
their self proclaimed power users status, as equally good as any 
competitive product, but again my first paragraph observation is surfacing.


The bottom line there are millions of users of LO, and other users of 
non-MS products, working perfectly fine with it and could not really 
give a hoot of it's millisecond or second performance.


Andrew Brown

On 07/08/2013 04:29 PM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:


Yes, there are a lot of people who can give others "proof" of what 
their system can do.  Either by an active demonstration or via 
benchmark packages.


I love doing active presentations to non-believers.

I have taken and proved that LO can do things that I claim, by 
bringing my laptop[s] to these people and run LO through some tests.  
Then I hand them a USB drive and ask them to place some "sample" 
documents they use on a daily/weakly basis and then open them up with 
LO and show them that "yes" LO can work with your files "easily".


I once had them click on their Word icon on their multi-core Windows 
desktop and the same time as I click on the LO icon on my Windows boot 
partition of my Windows/Ubuntu dual booting laptop[s].  Now that we 
have Win7 as the "new standard" for business computers, I can use 
either my Win7 Home Premium laptop or my Win7 Professional one.  Both 
are dual core laptops, but the "Professional" install is on the slower 
system.  One day I will take the "Home" laptop and make it 
"Professional" to solve some "back port" issues where "Home" might not 
allow certain XP and Vista era packages to be installed while 
"Professional" has not problem installing those packages.


So having a live demonstration on what LO can do and how fast it can 
do those things is a good "marketing tool".


Having a "benchmark" style of information sheet tends to make many 
manager's eyes "cloud over and ears stop hearing you" as you discuss 
the benchmark results.


Yes, there can be some "guesswork" for some things, and some 
subjective issues, but it does not mean that those "guesses" are wrong.


The seconds count or timed with a stopwatch is not very accurate if it 
is the difference of a second plus/minus.  But most people can not 
tell the difference between 3 and 4 seconds, or 3.4 and 4.1 seconds.  
We are not built that way, or most of us are not build that way.




On 08/07/2013 08:05 AM, Sina Momken wrote:

On 08/07/2013 03:05 PM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:

YES my point exactly

Unless we do such a large data gathering project taking into account 
all

of the different options, EVERYTHING is just guesswork or personally
view performance.

They are more than some guesswork which I may say from myself. They are
not only my opinions. Actually I could prove my claims to some degree
using some simple experiments.
Yeah, my experiments were not comprehensive enough to certainly conclude
from, but they can prove my claims with good probability (at least in my
case).
Proving by experimentation is not like in the math which can 100%
confirm a lemma. One must limit his experiments based on his time and
efforts; We can not put a ball down to ground on each planet to test the
gravity theory of Newton!
All what I want to say is that I believe based on my (not comprehensive)
experiments, my claims about LO performance is more than just a
GUESSWORK or OPINION!

Regards


Some faster systems, for whatever reasons, load and run LO slower than
the "slower CPU" called slower due to number of cores or the speed at
which it is running at.

So all it opinion until someone decides to "prove" those opinions and
results on an individual basis.



On 08/06/2013 10:09 PM, Sina Momken wrote:

On 08/07/2013 05:43 AM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
I would expect that .doc would load slower in Writer and .odt 
would load

slower in Word.

The question really is how well does Writer load both. How well it 
load
the 10 page documents vs. the 50 page ones.  Both with the same 
average

number of graphics per page.

Then look at the simple 20 

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Andrew Brown]

Sorry typo, meant to read 100GB not MB. Allowing for anything FAT coming 
along.


Andrew Brown

On 07/08/2013 10:18 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
I tend to make / around 10-15Gb now for Ubuntu.  100Mb is about enough 
for a separate /boot partiiton but not enough for the / of most 
distros, especially not for the most bloated distro of all.  I've 
found that even 8Gb gets in trouble quite quickly unless you are quite 
good at doing maintenance such as using the Janitor fairly often.


You don't get much of a performance boost by having a separate /home 
unless that /home is on a physically separate drive but it does make 
he system more robust and safer to upgrade.

Regards from
Tom :)



*From:* Andrew Brown 
*To:* users@global.libreoffice.org
*Sent:* Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 8:19
*Subject:* Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

Ubuntu install is the same, if using the default install options it
creates the swap partition (at least equal to installed RAM
amount), and
then then one partition for all. I change this and like many here,
create the root / (100MB), and the balance of the drive capacity to
/home, keeping my data separate.

Regards

Andrew Brown

On 07/08/2013 07:53 AM, Doug wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 01:05 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
>> Hi :)
>> If you have your /home on a separate partition then it might be
possible to install the 64bit version of Ubuntu without disturbing
your 32 it version.  I tend to use a 10-15Gb partition for / for
Ubuntu.  It doesn't really need all that much space but Ubuntu is
about the most bloated distro at the moment.  Having plenty of
space makes it easier when installing programs.
>> Regards from
>> Tom :)
>>
>>
> I did that on PCLOS. It works well, altho a few apps that are
strictly
> 32-bit will not run on the 64-bit installation.I lost Adobe
Reader on
> the 64-bit os, because there is no 64-bit version of that s/w. I
had to
> go find a 64-bit version of one or two other programs. But
basically,
> it's a lot simpler than having to back up all your files to an
external
> storage medium and then having to copy everything back to a
completely
> new install.
>
> You will have to make a new blank partition on the drive, using
> gparted or something similar, and format it to ext4 and call it /
> Then when you install the 64-bit version, DO NOT format /home,
> only / (Your distro may or may not make it mandatory to reformat /
> during the install, even tho you formatted it already.)
>
> Be careful when you install the 64-bit os, so as to NOT make a new
> /home. Note that you probably already have a swap partition, so
> don't make another one. Any and all Linux os's on the disk can use
> the one swap.
>
> It has been quite a while since I did an Ubuntu install, so I can't
> be more specific. And I don't think I would try this with Korora--
> its installation would drive a saint crazy! (Just to get it onto
> two partitions is maddening!)
>
> Good luck--doug
>
>
>


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org

<mailto:unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org>
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and
cannot be deleted





--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Kracked_P_P---webmaster]

Well, in the Disk utility, there is a gray area that is the ext4 
partition.  The small space left it split in half, top half and bottom 
half.  It sure reads like they are separate partitions, since they are 
both named using the "partition" word.  Extended partition and Swap 
Partition.  Unless they created the Extended partition and created a new 
partition within it, that is.


Still whether it is 11 GB or 22 GB of space, it still is either 87 GB 
for the OS folders or 76 GB [roughly].  76 to 87 GB is a lot more than 
your 10-15 GB you tell me is needed.  Sure, when I do a new/fresh 
install of a Ubuntu system on a drive, the OS file space takes up little 
of the disk.  BUT, and the "big-but" is what size do you need to have 
after a year or more?  I installed 12.04LTS a few days after it came 
out.  I did a clean install after backing up all my /home files.  Then I 
restored all my data/files and then started to install all of the 
packages I needed to install to run the system the way I like.


12.04 comes with Unity desktop environment.  I do not like it, so I 
install MATE.  Then, there are some packages that need some of the KDE 
files.  K3b and other packages and utilities I use are "default" package 
with KDE and seems to want some KDE system files installed.  2+ desktop 
environments can add space to the OS.  The "plus" is the KDE system 
files.  I use to install the FULL set of packages for KDE d.e. but 
decided that I did not need to do that when I did my 12.04LTS upgrade.  
I let the packages install whatever dependencies they needed.




On 08/07/2013 09:18 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
My guess is thatUbuntu created an 11Gb Extended Partition purely to put the 
11Gb Swap in.  Not quite sure why it did that but the installer tries to make 
sure your system stays reasonably flexible for the future
Regards from
Tom :)







From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 12:45
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed



Just to give you a "bloat alert".  My Ubuntu 12.04 LTS system, after all
of its updates and upgrades from the repository, and the fact that it
seems a lot of the older packages were left on the system, my OS folders
now total about 98-GB.

1,000 GB total
less 78.7 GB free space
less 823.5 GB in the /home folder and sub-folders
making all of the other folders in the "filesystem" totaling 97.8 GB for
the OS.

This OS figure also includes the 11 GB swap and a 11 GB extended
partition [for what Ubuntu uses it for I do not know, but it created it].

So take away the 22 GB of partitions outside of that main partition, you get
75.8 GB of OS file space for 12.04LTS plus the two partitions it needs
to run.

If I used a 10-15 GB for the OS, I would be sunk.

I do not separate the /home into its own partition, since all of the
docs and "help" seems to confuse me on how to set up all of the
different partitions during the install process.  In a few months, I
hope to replace that 1 TB drive with a 2 TB one.  I planned on creating
a 500 GB partition for the OS file system including the OS, /home, and
the needed swap and other partition[s] needed.  The rest of the drive,
1.5 TB, will be used as a separate data "drive" so I can have a smaller
/home folder size and keep everything not actively worked on out of the
/home folder.

Also, I have taken a 2 TB internal drive and used it for the first stage
backup, or internal backup, of the essential /home folder files, like
the "hidden dot folders" and things like my photo folder that contains
sub-folders by year and then month of all my digital photo since Sept.
2005 - when I bought my first digital camera.  I have a whole box of
photos needing to be scanned in from the early 70's to then, that I will
"one day" get around to scanning an archiving.

Unfortunately, I have more internal drive space than external drive
backup space.  So I need to start buying more of those drives to back up
my system.  It does help that most of my 2nd 2-TB drive is used as an
internal backup, so it currently does not need external a separate
external backup.  But I do have one 1-TB and two 2-TB drives, currently,
and later at least 6-TB [maybe 7, 8, or more] internal storage to be
backed up externally.





--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Kracked_P_P---webmaster]

Yes, there are a lot of people who can give others "proof" of what their 
system can do.  Either by an active demonstration or via benchmark 
packages.


I love doing active presentations to non-believers.

I have taken and proved that LO can do things that I claim, by bringing 
my laptop[s] to these people and run LO through some tests.  Then I hand 
them a USB drive and ask them to place some "sample" documents they use 
on a daily/weakly basis and then open them up with LO and show them that 
"yes" LO can work with your files "easily".


I once had them click on their Word icon on their multi-core Windows 
desktop and the same time as I click on the LO icon on my Windows boot 
partition of my Windows/Ubuntu dual booting laptop[s].  Now that we have 
Win7 as the "new standard" for business computers, I can use either my 
Win7 Home Premium laptop or my Win7 Professional one.  Both are dual 
core laptops, but the "Professional" install is on the slower system.  
One day I will take the "Home" laptop and make it "Professional" to 
solve some "back port" issues where "Home" might not allow certain XP 
and Vista era packages to be installed while "Professional" has not 
problem installing those packages.


So having a live demonstration on what LO can do and how fast it can do 
those things is a good "marketing tool".


Having a "benchmark" style of information sheet tends to make many 
manager's eyes "cloud over and ears stop hearing you" as you discuss the 
benchmark results.


Yes, there can be some "guesswork" for some things, and some subjective 
issues, but it does not mean that those "guesses" are wrong.


The seconds count or timed with a stopwatch is not very accurate if it 
is the difference of a second plus/minus.  But most people can not tell 
the difference between 3 and 4 seconds, or 3.4 and 4.1 seconds.  We are 
not built that way, or most of us are not build that way.




On 08/07/2013 08:05 AM, Sina Momken wrote:

On 08/07/2013 03:05 PM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:

YES my point exactly

Unless we do such a large data gathering project taking into account all
of the different options, EVERYTHING is just guesswork or personally
view performance.

They are more than some guesswork which I may say from myself. They are
not only my opinions. Actually I could prove my claims to some degree
using some simple experiments.
Yeah, my experiments were not comprehensive enough to certainly conclude
from, but they can prove my claims with good probability (at least in my
case).
Proving by experimentation is not like in the math which can 100%
confirm a lemma. One must limit his experiments based on his time and
efforts; We can not put a ball down to ground on each planet to test the
gravity theory of Newton!
All what I want to say is that I believe based on my (not comprehensive)
experiments, my claims about LO performance is more than just a
GUESSWORK or OPINION!

Regards


Some faster systems, for whatever reasons, load and run LO slower than
the "slower CPU" called slower due to number of cores or the speed at
which it is running at.

So all it opinion until someone decides to "prove" those opinions and
results on an individual basis.



On 08/06/2013 10:09 PM, Sina Momken wrote:

On 08/07/2013 05:43 AM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:

I would expect that .doc would load slower in Writer and .odt would load
slower in Word.

The question really is how well does Writer load both.  How well it load
the 10 page documents vs. the 50 page ones.  Both with the same average
number of graphics per page.

Then look at the simple 20 or 50 page documents vs. the very complex
ones.

Get an over all load times for the same documents on Writer and Word on
various Windows systems and various version of Windows [Win7 - Home/H.
Premium/Professional - 64-bit and 32-bit.  Vista versions in both 32 and
64 bit.]  Then look into the same documents with Writer run on some of
the different version of Linux [32-bit and 64-bit OS] such as Ubuntu,
Fedora, Mint, Mageia, Arch, etc., etc..

Then with all that data make a chart and add to it every time someone
tries the "standard" documents on different systems and specifications.

Then we would have a chart that will tell us how much different systems
and specifications effect the load and run speeds of LO, Writer
specifically, and Word specifically.

Does more RAM or more CPU power influence it most.  How does 4.0.4 vs
4.1.0 compare on the same system/specs.  How much faster a 64-bit
install is over the same distro's 32-bit version.

What you're requesting here is an exact benchmark with will take so much
time and effort. Besides different file formats, size and heaviness of
the file, different OSes and different HW Architectures, the exact
conditions of the system during experiment (like the software and
processes running in the background, etc.) and the number of repetitions
for each experiment must also be specified. Ideally no other excessive
processes must be run 

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Werner F. Bruhin]

On 07/08/2013 15:18, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
My guess is thatUbuntu created an 11Gb Extended Partition purely to put the 
11Gb Swap in.  Not quite sure why it did that but the installer tries to make 
sure your system stays reasonably flexible for the future
Swap is just about on all systems in a separate partition and it is a 
very good idea to have that on a separate physical drive for performance 
reasons.


In *nix systems the type of file system (not every distro has the same 
"preferred" file system for the same type of file types) you use can 
also have drastic performance differences and it also depends what you 
put on that file systems, e.g. lots of document type files are not the 
same then e.g. a database data folder etc etc.


Werner


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
My guess is thatUbuntu created an 11Gb Extended Partition purely to put the 
11Gb Swap in.  Not quite sure why it did that but the installer tries to make 
sure your system stays reasonably flexible for the future
Regards from 
Tom :)  





>
> From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster 
>To: users@global.libreoffice.org 
>Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 12:45
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
> 
>
>
>Just to give you a "bloat alert".  My Ubuntu 12.04 LTS system, after all 
>of its updates and upgrades from the repository, and the fact that it 
>seems a lot of the older packages were left on the system, my OS folders 
>now total about 98-GB.
>
>1,000 GB total
>less 78.7 GB free space
>less 823.5 GB in the /home folder and sub-folders
>making all of the other folders in the "filesystem" totaling 97.8 GB for 
>the OS.
>
>This OS figure also includes the 11 GB swap and a 11 GB extended 
>partition [for what Ubuntu uses it for I do not know, but it created it].
>
>So take away the 22 GB of partitions outside of that main partition, you get
>75.8 GB of OS file space for 12.04LTS plus the two partitions it needs 
>to run.
>
>If I used a 10-15 GB for the OS, I would be sunk.
>
>I do not separate the /home into its own partition, since all of the 
>docs and "help" seems to confuse me on how to set up all of the 
>different partitions during the install process.  In a few months, I 
>hope to replace that 1 TB drive with a 2 TB one.  I planned on creating 
>a 500 GB partition for the OS file system including the OS, /home, and 
>the needed swap and other partition[s] needed.  The rest of the drive, 
>1.5 TB, will be used as a separate data "drive" so I can have a smaller 
>/home folder size and keep everything not actively worked on out of the 
>/home folder.
>
>Also, I have taken a 2 TB internal drive and used it for the first stage 
>backup, or internal backup, of the essential /home folder files, like 
>the "hidden dot folders" and things like my photo folder that contains 
>sub-folders by year and then month of all my digital photo since Sept. 
>2005 - when I bought my first digital camera.  I have a whole box of 
>photos needing to be scanned in from the early 70's to then, that I will 
>"one day" get around to scanning an archiving.
>
>Unfortunately, I have more internal drive space than external drive 
>backup space.  So I need to start buying more of those drives to back up 
>my system.  It does help that most of my 2nd 2-TB drive is used as an 
>internal backup, so it currently does not need external a separate 
>external backup.  But I do have one 1-TB and two 2-TB drives, currently, 
>and later at least 6-TB [maybe 7, 8, or more] internal storage to be 
>backed up externally.
>
>
>On 08/07/2013 04:18 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
>> Hi :)
>> I tend to make / around 10-15Gb now for Ubuntu.  100Mb is about enough for a 
>> separate /boot partiiton but not enough for the / of most distros, 
>> especially not for the most bloated distro of all.  I've found that even 8Gb 
>> gets in trouble quite quickly unless you are quite good at doing maintenance 
>> such as using the Janitor fairly often.
>>
>> You don't get much of a performance boost by having a separate /home unless 
>> that /home is on a physically separate drive but it does make he system more 
>> robust and safer to upgrade.
>> Regards from
>> Tom :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 
>>> From: Andrew Brown 
>>> To: users@global.libreoffice.org
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 8:19
>>> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>>>
>>>
>>> Ubuntu install is the same, if using the default install options it
>>> creates the swap partition (at least equal to installed RAM amount), and
>>> then then one partition for all. I change this and like many here,
>>> create the root / (100MB), and the balance of the drive capacity to
>>> /home, keeping my data separate.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Andrew Brown
>>>
>>> On 07/08/2013 07:53 AM, Doug wrote:
>>>> On 08/07/2013 01:05 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
>>>>> Hi :)
>>>>> If you have your /home on a separate partition then it might be possible 
>>>>> to install the 64bit version of Ubuntu without disturbing your 32 it 
>>>>> version.  I tend to use a 10-15Gb partition for / for Ubuntu.  It doesn't 
>>>>> really need all that much space but Ubuntu is about the most

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Sina Momken]

lower less powerful systems might actually work
>>> better at some job or package.  Slower single core laptop working better
>>> than a faster speed dual core laptop, does not make sense, but in
>>> practice it works that way.
>> I doesn't say that. Actually I exactly said opposite of that. I have a
>> single core pentium4 @2.8GHz desktop which runs LO Writer faster than my
>> dual core core2due @2.2GHz laptop. Maybe power of both cores of my
>> laptop be more than power of cpu of my desktop, but power of a single
>> core of my laptop is surely less than power of a single core of my
>> desktop and because LO only uses 1 core, my older desktop PC wins.
>>
>>> So, maybe someone should collect some data and let us know how it worked
>>> out.  Maybe we could be surprised on what we find.
>> Making a precise benchmark is always a valuable and highly regarded
>> work, can practically assess a software and help to make it better.
>>
>>> I sure was running DeVeDe on 2 different laptops, both as XP/Vista and
>>> Ubuntu 10.04/ U. 10.04 systems.
>>
>> Regards,
>>     Sina Momken
>>>
>>> On 08/06/2013 06:44 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
>>>> Hi :)
>>>> Brilliant.  Larger file-size is a better test and some of those
>>>> comparisons were really interesting.  So.doc loads and saves much more
>>>> slowly.
>>>>
>>>> I dont know how they do it but the docs team write each chapter of the
>>>> guides separately and then combine them into 1 book at the end.
>>>> Master documents perhaps?
>>>> Regards from
>>>> Tom :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: Sina Momken 
>>>>> To: users@global.libreoffice.org
>>>>> Cc: Tom Davies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster
>>>>> ; users@global.libreoffice.org
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 22:41
>>>>> Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
>>>>> other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in
>>>>> under 3
>>>>> secs is not a huge win too!
>>>>> I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
>>>>> documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. Also
>>>>> these
>>>>> manual experiments are not accurate enough to be a precise
>>>>> benchmark but
>>>>> can show you some approximate slowness of LO Writer. Let see how
>>>>> long LO
>>>>> Writer takes to open or save a heavy (~185 pages thesis) document:
>>>>>
>>>>> >From clicking document to being able to edit @ .odt: 2'17"
>>>>>   Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .odt: 1'25"
>>>>>
>>>>> >From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .odt: 3'00"
>>>>>   Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .odt: (another try): 1'40"
>>>>>
>>>>> >From clicking document to being able to edit @ .doc: 5'26"
>>>>>   Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .doc: 3'14"
>>>>>
>>>>> >From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .doc: 3'20"
>>>>>   Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .doc: 3'17"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Other minimized software:
>>>>> - Another heavy (~186 pages) document open in LO Writer
>>>>> - Thunderbird 17.0 with 5 accounts minimized
>>>>> - XChat with many channels open minimized
>>>>> - GoldenDict with many dictionaries minimized
>>>>> - FreeU proxy software minimized
>>>>> - No browser open
>>>>>
>>>>> File size:
>>>>> - A ~185 pages thesis in either .doc and .odt formats
>>>>> - .doc file size: 6.8 MBytes
>>>>> - .odt file size: 5.6 MBytes
>>>>>
>>>>> Software spec:
>>>>> - Linux Mint Debian Edition Update Pack 6 (latest version and repo)
>>>>> - XFCE 4.8 Desktop Environment
>>>>> - LibreOffice 3.5.4.2
>>>>> - Thunderbird 17 (minimized)
>>>>> - XChat 2.8.8 (minimized)
>>>>>
>>

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Kracked_P_P---webmaster]

Just to give you a "bloat alert".  My Ubuntu 12.04 LTS system, after all 
of its updates and upgrades from the repository, and the fact that it 
seems a lot of the older packages were left on the system, my OS folders 
now total about 98-GB.


1,000 GB total
less 78.7 GB free space
less 823.5 GB in the /home folder and sub-folders
making all of the other folders in the "filesystem" totaling 97.8 GB for 
the OS.


This OS figure also includes the 11 GB swap and a 11 GB extended 
partition [for what Ubuntu uses it for I do not know, but it created it].


So take away the 22 GB of partitions outside of that main partition, you get
75.8 GB of OS file space for 12.04LTS plus the two partitions it needs 
to run.


If I used a 10-15 GB for the OS, I would be sunk.

I do not separate the /home into its own partition, since all of the 
docs and "help" seems to confuse me on how to set up all of the 
different partitions during the install process.  In a few months, I 
hope to replace that 1 TB drive with a 2 TB one.  I planned on creating 
a 500 GB partition for the OS file system including the OS, /home, and 
the needed swap and other partition[s] needed.  The rest of the drive, 
1.5 TB, will be used as a separate data "drive" so I can have a smaller 
/home folder size and keep everything not actively worked on out of the 
/home folder.


Also, I have taken a 2 TB internal drive and used it for the first stage 
backup, or internal backup, of the essential /home folder files, like 
the "hidden dot folders" and things like my photo folder that contains 
sub-folders by year and then month of all my digital photo since Sept. 
2005 - when I bought my first digital camera.  I have a whole box of 
photos needing to be scanned in from the early 70's to then, that I will 
"one day" get around to scanning an archiving.


Unfortunately, I have more internal drive space than external drive 
backup space.  So I need to start buying more of those drives to back up 
my system.  It does help that most of my 2nd 2-TB drive is used as an 
internal backup, so it currently does not need external a separate 
external backup.  But I do have one 1-TB and two 2-TB drives, currently, 
and later at least 6-TB [maybe 7, 8, or more] internal storage to be 
backed up externally.



On 08/07/2013 04:18 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
I tend to make / around 10-15Gb now for Ubuntu.  100Mb is about enough for a 
separate /boot partiiton but not enough for the / of most distros, especially 
not for the most bloated distro of all.  I've found that even 8Gb gets in 
trouble quite quickly unless you are quite good at doing maintenance such as 
using the Janitor fairly often.

You don't get much of a performance boost by having a separate /home unless 
that /home is on a physically separate drive but it does make he system more 
robust and safer to upgrade.
Regards from
Tom :)







From: Andrew Brown 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 8:19
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed


Ubuntu install is the same, if using the default install options it
creates the swap partition (at least equal to installed RAM amount), and
then then one partition for all. I change this and like many here,
create the root / (100MB), and the balance of the drive capacity to
/home, keeping my data separate.

Regards

Andrew Brown

On 07/08/2013 07:53 AM, Doug wrote:

On 08/07/2013 01:05 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
If you have your /home on a separate partition then it might be possible to 
install the 64bit version of Ubuntu without disturbing your 32 it version.  I 
tend to use a 10-15Gb partition for / for Ubuntu.  It doesn't really need all 
that much space but Ubuntu is about the most bloated distro at the moment.  
Having plenty of space makes it easier when installing programs.
Regards from
Tom :)



I did that on PCLOS. It works well, altho a few apps that are strictly
32-bit will not run on the 64-bit installation.I lost Adobe Reader on
the 64-bit os, because there is no 64-bit version of that s/w. I had to
go find a 64-bit version of one or two other programs. But basically,
it's a lot simpler than having to back up all your files to an external
storage medium and then having to copy everything back to a completely
new install.

You will have to make a new blank partition on the drive, using
gparted or something similar, and format it to ext4 and call it /
Then when you install the 64-bit version, DO NOT format /home,
only / (Your distro may or may not make it mandatory to reformat /
during the install, even tho you formatted it already.)

Be careful when you install the 64-bit os, so as to NOT make a new
/home. Note that you probably already have a swap partition, so
don't make another one. Any and all Linux os's on the disk can use
the one swap.

It has been quite a while since I did an Ub

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Kracked_P_P---webmaster]

--webmaster
; users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 22:41
Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed


I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
secs is not a huge win too!
I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. Also these
manual experiments are not accurate enough to be a precise benchmark but
can show you some approximate slowness of LO Writer. Let see how long LO
Writer takes to open or save a heavy (~185 pages thesis) document:

>From clicking document to being able to edit @ .odt: 2'17"
  Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .odt: 1'25"

>From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .odt: 3'00"
  Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .odt: (another try): 1'40"

>From clicking document to being able to edit @ .doc: 5'26"
  Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .doc: 3'14"

>From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .doc: 3'20"
  Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .doc: 3'17"


Other minimized software:
- Another heavy (~186 pages) document open in LO Writer
- Thunderbird 17.0 with 5 accounts minimized
- XChat with many channels open minimized
- GoldenDict with many dictionaries minimized
- FreeU proxy software minimized
- No browser open

File size:
- A ~185 pages thesis in either .doc and .odt formats
- .doc file size: 6.8 MBytes
- .odt file size: 5.6 MBytes

Software spec:
- Linux Mint Debian Edition Update Pack 6 (latest version and repo)
- XFCE 4.8 Desktop Environment
- LibreOffice 3.5.4.2
- Thunderbird 17 (minimized)
- XChat 2.8.8 (minimized)

Hardware Spec:
- Laptop: Dell Latitude D830
- CPU: Intel Core2Due T7500 Dual Core @2.2GHZ
- RAM: 4GB @677MHz
- GPU: NVidia quadro NVS 140m
- HDD: 500GB @5400 RPM


This experiment shows that LO Writer is very very slow (at least 1'30")
when it deals with heavy documents. It's specially not acceptable when I
realized that LO Writer always use ONLY 1 core of my CPU and it's why LO
Writer works better on my Pentium4 @2.8GHz single core computer than my
dual core @2.2GHz laptop. Being single-threaded for such a heavy
software is not acceptable in a world of multi-core CPUs.

Another limitation of LO Writer is that when it saves a document it
blocks the whole software and you have to wait until completion of
saving. This issue is solved in MS Word because MSO is a multi-threading
software. Because I must save my document at least each 30min therefor I
have to rest each 30min for at least 2min because LO Writer takes this
amount of time when it saves my huge document.
I'm not pleased with save and open operations of LO Writer at all.

Regards,
 Sina Momken



On 08/05/2013 05:47 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:

Gents

Kracked, a good reply. If I may add my two cents worth to
performance of
start-ups here.

This is my system hardware top of the range in December 2007, and still
hops today. The only things updated since 2008 was the video card and
the SATA III hard drives, and the O/S's.

Windows 7 Ult. x64 / Ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail Dual boot, Intel
Core2
Duo 6850 3GHZ, MSI X-38 Diamond mobo, Asus ATI EAH5770 CUcore 1GB
Video,
SuperTalent 6GB DDR3 1333MHZ, Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB (Windows
Boot), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 2TB (Data), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII
500GB
(Linux), Thermaltake Toughpower 750W PSU

Also my analogy of a well tuned and clean system, will run top gun for
many years compared to cutting edge modern hardware today getting
bogged
down with willy nilly installed and unmaintained software (but again if
this is maintained it will remain a top gun from it's day of purchase
and clobber my hardware performance). I see and read too many who throw
good money at high end systems only to have them slow a few months
later, and many who poer poer the idea of cleaning a system (registry
and boot processes), and defragging it. So here's my tested speeds of
this system above.

PC switch on to ready state to use (Windows 7 64bit, with a dual boot
menu selection and the login screen) = 40 seconds
PC switch on to ready state to use (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit, with a dual
boot
menu selection and the login screen) = 20 seconds

LO Writer from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7
64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Writer from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu
13.04 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Calc from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7
64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Calc from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu 13.04
64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Impress from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7
64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Impress from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu
13.04

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
I tend to make / around 10-15Gb now for Ubuntu.  100Mb is about enough for a 
separate /boot partiiton but not enough for the / of most distros, especially 
not for the most bloated distro of all.  I've found that even 8Gb gets in 
trouble quite quickly unless you are quite good at doing maintenance such as 
using the Janitor fairly often.  

You don't get much of a performance boost by having a separate /home unless 
that /home is on a physically separate drive but it does make he system more 
robust and safer to upgrade.
Regards from
Tom :)





>
> From: Andrew Brown 
>To: users@global.libreoffice.org 
>Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 8:19
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
> 
>
>Ubuntu install is the same, if using the default install options it 
>creates the swap partition (at least equal to installed RAM amount), and 
>then then one partition for all. I change this and like many here, 
>create the root / (100MB), and the balance of the drive capacity to 
>/home, keeping my data separate.
>
>Regards
>
>Andrew Brown
>
>On 07/08/2013 07:53 AM, Doug wrote:
>> On 08/07/2013 01:05 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
>>> Hi :)
>>> If you have your /home on a separate partition then it might be possible to 
>>> install the 64bit version of Ubuntu without disturbing your 32 it version.  
>>> I tend to use a 10-15Gb partition for / for Ubuntu.  It doesn't really need 
>>> all that much space but Ubuntu is about the most bloated distro at the 
>>> moment.  Having plenty of space makes it easier when installing programs.
>>> Regards from
>>> Tom :)
>>>
>>>
>> I did that on PCLOS. It works well, altho a few apps that are strictly
>> 32-bit will not run on the 64-bit installation.I lost Adobe Reader on
>> the 64-bit os, because there is no 64-bit version of that s/w. I had to
>> go find a 64-bit version of one or two other programs. But basically,
>> it's a lot simpler than having to back up all your files to an external
>> storage medium and then having to copy everything back to a completely
>> new install.
>>
>> You will have to make a new blank partition on the drive, using
>> gparted or something similar, and format it to ext4 and call it /
>> Then when you install the 64-bit version, DO NOT format /home,
>> only / (Your distro may or may not make it mandatory to reformat /
>> during the install, even tho you formatted it already.)
>>
>> Be careful when you install the 64-bit os, so as to NOT make a new
>> /home. Note that you probably already have a swap partition, so
>> don't make another one. Any and all Linux os's on the disk can use
>> the one swap.
>>
>> It has been quite a while since I did an Ubuntu install, so I can't
>> be more specific. And I don't think I would try this with Korora--
>> its installation would drive a saint crazy! (Just to get it onto
>> two partitions is maddening!)
>>
>> Good luck--doug
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
>Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
>All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>
>
>
-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Andrew Brown]

Ubuntu install is the same, if using the default install options it 
creates the swap partition (at least equal to installed RAM amount), and 
then then one partition for all. I change this and like many here, 
create the root / (100MB), and the balance of the drive capacity to 
/home, keeping my data separate.


Regards

Andrew Brown

On 07/08/2013 07:53 AM, Doug wrote:

On 08/07/2013 01:05 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
If you have your /home on a separate partition then it might be possible to 
install the 64bit version of Ubuntu without disturbing your 32 it version.  I 
tend to use a 10-15Gb partition for / for Ubuntu.  It doesn't really need all 
that much space but Ubuntu is about the most bloated distro at the moment.  
Having plenty of space makes it easier when installing programs.
Regards from
Tom :)



I did that on PCLOS. It works well, altho a few apps that are strictly
32-bit will not run on the 64-bit installation.I lost Adobe Reader on
the 64-bit os, because there is no 64-bit version of that s/w. I had to
go find a 64-bit version of one or two other programs. But basically,
it's a lot simpler than having to back up all your files to an external
storage medium and then having to copy everything back to a completely
new install.

You will have to make a new blank partition on the drive, using
gparted or something similar, and format it to ext4 and call it /
Then when you install the 64-bit version, DO NOT format /home,
only / (Your distro may or may not make it mandatory to reformat /
during the install, even tho you formatted it already.)

Be careful when you install the 64-bit os, so as to NOT make a new
/home. Note that you probably already have a swap partition, so
don't make another one. Any and all Linux os's on the disk can use
the one swap.

It has been quite a while since I did an Ubuntu install, so I can't
be more specific. And I don't think I would try this with Korora--
its installation would drive a saint crazy! (Just to get it onto
two partitions is maddening!)

Good luck--doug






--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Doug]

On 08/07/2013 01:05 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
> Hi :)
> If you have your /home on a separate partition then it might be possible to 
> install the 64bit version of Ubuntu without disturbing your 32 it version.  I 
> tend to use a 10-15Gb partition for / for Ubuntu.  It doesn't really need all 
> that much space but Ubuntu is about the most bloated distro at the moment.  
> Having plenty of space makes it easier when installing programs.  
> Regards from 
> Tom :)  
> 
> 
I did that on PCLOS. It works well, altho a few apps that are strictly
32-bit will not run on the 64-bit installation.I lost Adobe Reader on
the 64-bit os, because there is no 64-bit version of that s/w. I had to
go find a 64-bit version of one or two other programs. But basically,
it's a lot simpler than having to back up all your files to an external
storage medium and then having to copy everything back to a completely
new install.

You will have to make a new blank partition on the drive, using
gparted or something similar, and format it to ext4 and call it /
Then when you install the 64-bit version, DO NOT format /home,
only / (Your distro may or may not make it mandatory to reformat /
during the install, even tho you formatted it already.)

Be careful when you install the 64-bit os, so as to NOT make a new
/home. Note that you probably already have a swap partition, so
don't make another one. Any and all Linux os's on the disk can use
the one swap.

It has been quite a while since I did an Ubuntu install, so I can't
be more specific. And I don't think I would try this with Korora--
its installation would drive a saint crazy! (Just to get it onto
two partitions is maddening!)

Good luck--doug



-- 
Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides.
--A.M.Greeley

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
If you have your /home on a separate partition then it might be possible to 
install the 64bit version of Ubuntu without disturbing your 32 it version.  I 
tend to use a 10-15Gb partition for / for Ubuntu.  It doesn't really need all 
that much space but Ubuntu is about the most bloated distro at the moment.  
Having plenty of space makes it easier when installing programs.  
Regards from 
Tom :)  





>
> From: Sina Momken 
>To: users@global.libreoffice.org 
>Cc: Andrew Brown ; "users@global.libreoffice.org" 
> 
>Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 2:44
>Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
> 
>
>On 08/07/2013 04:00 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
>> Hi :) 
>> Even so that is not really all that low spec.  It's actually qite 
>> respectable compared to a lot of systems at my work or other places.  
>> 
>> 3.2 Gb is higher than most machines in my office.  Most are 1Gb or 2Gb at 
>> most.  We just got a batch of new ones but i haven't really checked out the 
>> specs on them much yet.  If you look at how much ram is actually being used 
>> and then at how much swap you'll probably find about 0 swap is used and only 
>> 1 or maybe 2Gb ram at the most.  There's not much reason to get more ram if 
>> you're running Gnu&Linux.  
>> 
>> Plus LO is supposed to run quite well on lower spec anyway.  The thing i 
>> found really interesting was the comparisons between different things rather 
>> than the actual figures themselves.  
>> 
>> There might be a few odd things that could be done to significantly improve 
>> the performance of the machine.  Having 
>> /home
>> on it's own partition might be nice and would make it easier to do a 
>> reintall of the OS without risk to any of the data (although backing up is 
>> always wise jic).  I'm not sure if it's worth putting the time in to get 
>> that increased performance though.  
>> 
>> 
>> This guide is pretty much copy&paste without really having to understand it 
>> too much but rsyncing the data to the other partition can take quite a few 
>> hours.  
>> 
>> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Partitioning/Home/Moving
>> 
>> During most of the process you can keep using the existing /home and then at 
>> the end use rsync again to sync-up the last bit that you changed while all 
>> that was going on.  Just make sure you have a back-up of the crucial file 
>> jic you accidentally sync the wrong way around!  Then the actual switch over 
>> to the new /home is very quick and if it doesn't work you can go back to the 
>> one that did work.  
>> 
>> 
>> Regards from 
>> 
>> Tom :)
>Hello Davis,
>
>Thank you for your suggestion. I also have my /home placed on a separate
>partition than / partition. However it's not related to this issue :D
>
>Best,
>Sina ;)
>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Andrew Brown 
>>> To: Sina Momken  
>>> Cc: Tom Davies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster 
>>> ; users@global.libreoffice.org 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 23:30
>>> Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Sina
>>>
>>> You have supplied good info for LO, on your system, but I would like to 
>>> point out a few issues I see why your system with LO could be slow. Your 
>>> laptop was launched in May 2007 and discontinued a year later, so five 
>>> to six year old technology, not completely fair to put the blame at a 
>>> modern up to date LO's door for slow run times.
>>>
>>> You don't mention whether your Linux Mint with XFCE is 32bit or 64bit. 
>>> If 32bit, then you are already hindered by only having 3.2GB of actual 
>>> RAM available for everything you indicate you have running/open. This is 
>>> a physical limit and only upgrading to a 64bit version of O/S, will it 
>>> help you better to utilise your full 4 GB at least, and to upgrade to 6 
>>> or 8GB even better. And this RAM is old DDR 2 667MHZ type, quite slow 
>>> compared to laptops with 1333MHZ and 1600MHZ DDR3.
>>>
>>> In the case of your laptop, when I last worked on that model of some of 
>>> my clients, it was installed with a 4500RPM hard drive, the slowest spin 
>>> speeds of any hard drive for battery endurance, but poorly for 
>>> performance, are you sure of your speed. But even at 5400RPM it does not 
>>> lend itself well to performance. Notebook driv

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
+1
It's beyond the scope of this list and certainly beyond the scope of 
individuals here to do rigorous bench-marking.  The amount of data we did get 
was impressive.  
Regards from 
Tom :)  






>
> From: Sina Momken 
>To: users@global.libreoffice.org 
>Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org 
>Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 3:09
>Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
> 
>
>On 08/07/2013 05:43 AM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
>> 
>> I would expect that .doc would load slower in Writer and .odt would load
>> slower in Word.
>> 
>> The question really is how well does Writer load both.  How well it load
>> the 10 page documents vs. the 50 page ones.  Both with the same average
>> number of graphics per page.
>> 
>> Then look at the simple 20 or 50 page documents vs. the very complex ones.
>> 
>> Get an over all load times for the same documents on Writer and Word on
>> various Windows systems and various version of Windows [Win7 - Home/H.
>> Premium/Professional - 64-bit and 32-bit.  Vista versions in both 32 and
>> 64 bit.]  Then look into the same documents with Writer run on some of
>> the different version of Linux [32-bit and 64-bit OS] such as Ubuntu,
>> Fedora, Mint, Mageia, Arch, etc., etc..
>> 
>> Then with all that data make a chart and add to it every time someone
>> tries the "standard" documents on different systems and specifications.
>> 
>> Then we would have a chart that will tell us how much different systems
>> and specifications effect the load and run speeds of LO, Writer
>> specifically, and Word specifically.
>> 
>> Does more RAM or more CPU power influence it most.  How does 4.0.4 vs
>> 4.1.0 compare on the same system/specs.  How much faster a 64-bit
>> install is over the same distro's 32-bit version.
>What you're requesting here is an exact benchmark with will take so much
>time and effort. Besides different file formats, size and heaviness of
>the file, different OSes and different HW Architectures, the exact
>conditions of the system during experiment (like the software and
>processes running in the background, etc.) and the number of repetitions
>for each experiment must also be specified. Ideally no other excessive
>processes must be run and each experiment must run more than 10 times.
>It's accurate to write a test program to automatically test these
>factors with any repetition desired.
>
>But doing all these is a major job and takes much time and effort. If
>I'd done this before, I've published this on my website or other major
>website, not on this mailing list which doesn't have many visitors.
>
>I only wanted to show you a rule of thumb about LO Writer dealing with
>heavy files.
>
>> 
>> Without these types of data charted, we could just say what we "think"
>> is true or want works better for you.
>> 
>> To be honest, when I was using it and it worked well, my AMD64 CPU
>> laptop worked better than my Intel dual core laptop.  When I asked why
>> my older slower AMD laptop worked faster creating the .iso file using
>> DeVeDe .avi/.mp4 file to DVD-movie disc conversion tool, I was told that
>> the faster dual core laptop was not powerful enough to do the work even
>> though my older slower AMD64 laptop could do it just fine.
>> 
>> So, no matter how I think it should not be true, sometimes newer faster
>> systems that we think is more powerful and faster might now be a good as
>> we think and the older slower less powerful systems might actually work
>> better at some job or package.  Slower single core laptop working better
>> than a faster speed dual core laptop, does not make sense, but in
>> practice it works that way.
>I doesn't say that. Actually I exactly said opposite of that. I have a
>single core pentium4 @2.8GHz desktop which runs LO Writer faster than my
>dual core core2due @2.2GHz laptop. Maybe power of both cores of my
>laptop be more than power of cpu of my desktop, but power of a single
>core of my laptop is surely less than power of a single core of my
>desktop and because LO only uses 1 core, my older desktop PC wins.
>
>> 
>> So, maybe someone should collect some data and let us know how it worked
>> out.  Maybe we could be surprised on what we find.
>Making a precise benchmark is always a valuable and highly regarded
>work, can practically assess a software and help to make it better.
>
>> 
>> I sure was running DeVeDe on 2 different laptops, both as XP/Vista and
>> Ubuntu 10.04/ 

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Sina Momken]

On 08/07/2013 05:43 AM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
> 
> I would expect that .doc would load slower in Writer and .odt would load
> slower in Word.
> 
> The question really is how well does Writer load both.  How well it load
> the 10 page documents vs. the 50 page ones.  Both with the same average
> number of graphics per page.
> 
> Then look at the simple 20 or 50 page documents vs. the very complex ones.
> 
> Get an over all load times for the same documents on Writer and Word on
> various Windows systems and various version of Windows [Win7 - Home/H.
> Premium/Professional - 64-bit and 32-bit.  Vista versions in both 32 and
> 64 bit.]  Then look into the same documents with Writer run on some of
> the different version of Linux [32-bit and 64-bit OS] such as Ubuntu,
> Fedora, Mint, Mageia, Arch, etc., etc..
> 
> Then with all that data make a chart and add to it every time someone
> tries the "standard" documents on different systems and specifications.
> 
> Then we would have a chart that will tell us how much different systems
> and specifications effect the load and run speeds of LO, Writer
> specifically, and Word specifically.
> 
> Does more RAM or more CPU power influence it most.  How does 4.0.4 vs
> 4.1.0 compare on the same system/specs.  How much faster a 64-bit
> install is over the same distro's 32-bit version.
What you're requesting here is an exact benchmark with will take so much
time and effort. Besides different file formats, size and heaviness of
the file, different OSes and different HW Architectures, the exact
conditions of the system during experiment (like the software and
processes running in the background, etc.) and the number of repetitions
for each experiment must also be specified. Ideally no other excessive
processes must be run and each experiment must run more than 10 times.
It's accurate to write a test program to automatically test these
factors with any repetition desired.

But doing all these is a major job and takes much time and effort. If
I'd done this before, I've published this on my website or other major
website, not on this mailing list which doesn't have many visitors.

I only wanted to show you a rule of thumb about LO Writer dealing with
heavy files.

> 
> Without these types of data charted, we could just say what we "think"
> is true or want works better for you.
> 
> To be honest, when I was using it and it worked well, my AMD64 CPU
> laptop worked better than my Intel dual core laptop.  When I asked why
> my older slower AMD laptop worked faster creating the .iso file using
> DeVeDe .avi/.mp4 file to DVD-movie disc conversion tool, I was told that
> the faster dual core laptop was not powerful enough to do the work even
> though my older slower AMD64 laptop could do it just fine.
> 
> So, no matter how I think it should not be true, sometimes newer faster
> systems that we think is more powerful and faster might now be a good as
> we think and the older slower less powerful systems might actually work
> better at some job or package.  Slower single core laptop working better
> than a faster speed dual core laptop, does not make sense, but in
> practice it works that way.
I doesn't say that. Actually I exactly said opposite of that. I have a
single core pentium4 @2.8GHz desktop which runs LO Writer faster than my
dual core core2due @2.2GHz laptop. Maybe power of both cores of my
laptop be more than power of cpu of my desktop, but power of a single
core of my laptop is surely less than power of a single core of my
desktop and because LO only uses 1 core, my older desktop PC wins.

> 
> So, maybe someone should collect some data and let us know how it worked
> out.  Maybe we could be surprised on what we find.
Making a precise benchmark is always a valuable and highly regarded
work, can practically assess a software and help to make it better.

> 
> I sure was running DeVeDe on 2 different laptops, both as XP/Vista and
> Ubuntu 10.04/ U. 10.04 systems.


Regards,
   Sina Momken
> 
> 
> On 08/06/2013 06:44 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
>> Hi :)
>> Brilliant.  Larger file-size is a better test and some of those
>> comparisons were really interesting.  So.doc loads and saves much more
>> slowly.
>>
>> I dont know how they do it but the docs team write each chapter of the
>> guides separately and then combine them into 1 book at the end. 
>> Master documents perhaps?
>> Regards from
>> Tom :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 
>>> From: Sina Momken 
>>> To: users@global.libreoffice.org
>>> Cc: Tom Davies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster
>>> ; users@global.libreoffice.org
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 20

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Sina Momken]

On 08/07/2013 04:00 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
> Hi :) 
> Even so that is not really all that low spec.  It's actually qite respectable 
> compared to a lot of systems at my work or other places.  
> 
> 3.2 Gb is higher than most machines in my office.  Most are 1Gb or 2Gb at 
> most.  We just got a batch of new ones but i haven't really checked out the 
> specs on them much yet.  If you look at how much ram is actually being used 
> and then at how much swap you'll probably find about 0 swap is used and only 
> 1 or maybe 2Gb ram at the most.  There's not much reason to get more ram if 
> you're running Gnu&Linux.  
> 
> Plus LO is supposed to run quite well on lower spec anyway.  The thing i 
> found really interesting was the comparisons between different things rather 
> than the actual figures themselves.  
> 
> There might be a few odd things that could be done to significantly improve 
> the performance of the machine.  Having 
> /home
> on it's own partition might be nice and would make it easier to do a reintall 
> of the OS without risk to any of the data (although backing up is always wise 
> jic).  I'm not sure if it's worth putting the time in to get that increased 
> performance though.  
> 
> 
> This guide is pretty much copy&paste without really having to understand it 
> too much but rsyncing the data to the other partition can take quite a few 
> hours.  
> 
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Partitioning/Home/Moving
> 
> During most of the process you can keep using the existing /home and then at 
> the end use rsync again to sync-up the last bit that you changed while all 
> that was going on.  Just make sure you have a back-up of the crucial file jic 
> you accidentally sync the wrong way around!  Then the actual switch over to 
> the new /home is very quick and if it doesn't work you can go back to the one 
> that did work.  
> 
> 
> Regards from 
> 
> Tom :)
Hello Davis,

Thank you for your suggestion. I also have my /home placed on a separate
partition than / partition. However it's not related to this issue :D

Best,
Sina ;)

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> ________________
>> From: Andrew Brown 
>> To: Sina Momken  
>> Cc: Tom Davies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster 
>> ; users@global.libreoffice.org 
>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 23:30
>> Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>>
>>
>> Hi Sina
>>
>> You have supplied good info for LO, on your system, but I would like to 
>> point out a few issues I see why your system with LO could be slow. Your 
>> laptop was launched in May 2007 and discontinued a year later, so five 
>> to six year old technology, not completely fair to put the blame at a 
>> modern up to date LO's door for slow run times.
>>
>> You don't mention whether your Linux Mint with XFCE is 32bit or 64bit. 
>> If 32bit, then you are already hindered by only having 3.2GB of actual 
>> RAM available for everything you indicate you have running/open. This is 
>> a physical limit and only upgrading to a 64bit version of O/S, will it 
>> help you better to utilise your full 4 GB at least, and to upgrade to 6 
>> or 8GB even better. And this RAM is old DDR 2 667MHZ type, quite slow 
>> compared to laptops with 1333MHZ and 1600MHZ DDR3.
>>
>> In the case of your laptop, when I last worked on that model of some of 
>> my clients, it was installed with a 4500RPM hard drive, the slowest spin 
>> speeds of any hard drive for battery endurance, but poorly for 
>> performance, are you sure of your speed. But even at 5400RPM it does not 
>> lend itself well to performance. Notebook drives have always lagged 
>> similiar capacity and spin speed desktop drives, due to the manufacturer 
>> focussing on battery endurance as a priority in most cases of general 
>> population consumption. Not all of us can afford the Alienware and like 
>> monsters, or VoodooPC ones either. But things are getting better hence 
>> in the last year maybe two, mechanical laptop drives have increased to 
>> 7200RPM, or gone solid state, to relieve the bottleneck, and in the case 
>> of SSD, total performance with very good battery life.
>>
>> I have a Toshiba midrange laptop i3, running Ubuntu 64bit and LO, about 
>> a year old now with an original 5400RPM 500GB mechanical HDD and only 
>> 2GB of RAM originally. A couple of months ago I upgraded it to a 256GB 
>> SSD, with 8GB of RAM (max of laptop), and found an incredible 
>> performance boost, in everything running on it.
>>
>> And as I mentioned I used heavy documents to t

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Ken Springer]

On 8/6/13 1:28 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:

Hi Ken

Interesting, I'll need to do some more intense reading of the web page,
a nice find. The chart is a bit congested, and they don't seem to cover
the freeware versions of the payware versions on the chart, and the ones
I mentioned below. It would be interesting to see where they fare
against MS's free tools at 90%. Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of MS in
any way, but at least their built-in and add-on security products cannot
be thumb-nosed at. I personally use Kapsersky Pure 3.0 for all
freestanding customer and personal / home PC's and Kaspersky ES
(Endpoint Security) or TS (Total Security) for my bigger stuff and
client servers.


Hi, Andrew,

I found out about that site a long time ago in another newsgroup, 
probably.  But I hadn't visited in a long time, and was surprised to see 
some names missing, and some new ones.  So the programs being tested is 
not stagnant.


MS Essentials used to be listed, but it was in the bottom half of the 
pack.  There's been a recent upgrade, so the old results would now be 
invalid.


I didn't reread the site, but IIRC the programs tested are the ones 
submitted by others.






--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Kracked_P_P---webmaster]

I would expect that .doc would load slower in Writer and .odt would load 
slower in Word.


The question really is how well does Writer load both.  How well it load 
the 10 page documents vs. the 50 page ones.  Both with the same average 
number of graphics per page.


Then look at the simple 20 or 50 page documents vs. the very complex ones.

Get an over all load times for the same documents on Writer and Word on 
various Windows systems and various version of Windows [Win7 - Home/H. 
Premium/Professional - 64-bit and 32-bit.  Vista versions in both 32 and 
64 bit.]  Then look into the same documents with Writer run on some of 
the different version of Linux [32-bit and 64-bit OS] such as Ubuntu, 
Fedora, Mint, Mageia, Arch, etc., etc..


Then with all that data make a chart and add to it every time someone 
tries the "standard" documents on different systems and specifications.


Then we would have a chart that will tell us how much different systems 
and specifications effect the load and run speeds of LO, Writer 
specifically, and Word specifically.


Does more RAM or more CPU power influence it most.  How does 4.0.4 vs 
4.1.0 compare on the same system/specs.  How much faster a 64-bit 
install is over the same distro's 32-bit version.


Without these types of data charted, we could just say what we "think" 
is true or want works better for you.


To be honest, when I was using it and it worked well, my AMD64 CPU 
laptop worked better than my Intel dual core laptop.  When I asked why 
my older slower AMD laptop worked faster creating the .iso file using 
DeVeDe .avi/.mp4 file to DVD-movie disc conversion tool, I was told that 
the faster dual core laptop was not powerful enough to do the work even 
though my older slower AMD64 laptop could do it just fine.


So, no matter how I think it should not be true, sometimes newer faster 
systems that we think is more powerful and faster might now be a good as 
we think and the older slower less powerful systems might actually work 
better at some job or package.  Slower single core laptop working better 
than a faster speed dual core laptop, does not make sense, but in 
practice it works that way.


So, maybe someone should collect some data and let us know how it worked 
out.  Maybe we could be surprised on what we find.


I sure was running DeVeDe on 2 different laptops, both as XP/Vista and 
Ubuntu 10.04/ U. 10.04 systems.



On 08/06/2013 06:44 PM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
Brilliant.  Larger file-size is a better test and some of those comparisons 
were really interesting.  So.doc loads and saves much more slowly.

I dont know how they do it but the docs team write each chapter of the guides 
separately and then combine them into 1 book at the end.  Master documents 
perhaps?
Regards from
Tom :)







From: Sina Momken 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Cc: Tom Davies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster 
; users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 22:41
Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed


I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
secs is not a huge win too!
I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. Also these
manual experiments are not accurate enough to be a precise benchmark but
can show you some approximate slowness of LO Writer. Let see how long LO
Writer takes to open or save a heavy (~185 pages thesis) document:

>From clicking document to being able to edit @ .odt: 2'17"
 Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .odt: 1'25"

>From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .odt: 3'00"
 Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .odt: (another try): 1'40"

>From clicking document to being able to edit @ .doc: 5'26"
 Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .doc: 3'14"

>From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .doc: 3'20"
 Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .doc: 3'17"


Other minimized software:
- Another heavy (~186 pages) document open in LO Writer
- Thunderbird 17.0 with 5 accounts minimized
- XChat with many channels open minimized
- GoldenDict with many dictionaries minimized
- FreeU proxy software minimized
- No browser open

File size:
- A ~185 pages thesis in either .doc and .odt formats
- .doc file size: 6.8 MBytes
- .odt file size: 5.6 MBytes

Software spec:
- Linux Mint Debian Edition Update Pack 6 (latest version and repo)
- XFCE 4.8 Desktop Environment
- LibreOffice 3.5.4.2
- Thunderbird 17 (minimized)
- XChat 2.8.8 (minimized)

Hardware Spec:
- Laptop: Dell Latitude D830
- CPU: Intel Core2Due T7500 Dual Core @2.2GHZ
- RAM: 4GB @677MHz
- GPU: NVidia quadro NVS 140m
- HDD: 500GB @5400 RPM


This experiment shows that LO Writer is ver

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Sina Momken]

On 08/07/2013 03:14 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
> Hi :)
> Brilliant.  Larger file-size is a better test and some of those comparisons 
> were really interesting.  So.doc loads and saves much more slowly.  
> 
> I dont know how they do it but the docs team write each chapter of the guides 
> separately and then combine them into 1 book at the end.  Master documents 
> perhaps?
> Regards from 
> Tom :) 
Hi Tom,

Hmmm! Very interesting idea. I don't know why the idea of writing each
chapter separately was not brought to my mind. Maybe because I didn't
know how Master documents work. Or maybe because the original .doc
template had not used Master document. But I had seen different chapters
combining together in .tex template of my university, and I was aware of
that capability in LaTeX but not in LO Writer.
Anyway I have currently written many parts of my work in a huge document
and I must cope with it.

I really don't expect LO Writer to do magic for me, especially that I've
seen that MS Office is slow too in loading heavy files. But I think that
MS Office is still much faster in loading and saving huge files partly
because it fully uses multiple cores of a CPU, partly because it doesn't
load whole of a file at once (e.g. you can read and edit first parts of
a doc while it's loading further parts if needed) and partly because it
can save the file while you can scroll.

Anyhow, it's very important for LO to support multi-threading because
number of cores in upcoming CPUs is continually increasing and without
using multi-threading LO won't be able to use the vast performance power
of future CPUs.

I also believe that shifting LO source code from Java to C++ could be a
good idea, because Java and its virtual machine have considerable
overhead which could slow down the performance specifically during the
work with large files.

Best,
   Sina Momken


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> From: Sina Momken 
>> To: users@global.libreoffice.org 
>> Cc: Tom Davies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster 
>> ; users@global.libreoffice.org 
>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 22:41
>> Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>>
>>
>> I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
>> other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
>> secs is not a huge win too!
>> I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
>> documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. Also these
>> manual experiments are not accurate enough to be a precise benchmark but
>> can show you some approximate slowness of LO Writer. Let see how long LO
>> Writer takes to open or save a heavy (~185 pages thesis) document:
>>
>> >From clicking document to being able to edit @ .odt: 2'17"
>> Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .odt: 1'25"
>>
>> >From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .odt: 3'00"
>> Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .odt: (another try): 1'40"
>>
>> >From clicking document to being able to edit @ .doc: 5'26"
>> Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .doc: 3'14"
>>
>> >From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .doc: 3'20"
>> Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .doc: 3'17"
>>
>>
>> Other minimized software:
>> - Another heavy (~186 pages) document open in LO Writer
>> - Thunderbird 17.0 with 5 accounts minimized
>> - XChat with many channels open minimized
>> - GoldenDict with many dictionaries minimized
>> - FreeU proxy software minimized
>> - No browser open
>>
>> File size:
>> - A ~185 pages thesis in either .doc and .odt formats
>> - .doc file size: 6.8 MBytes
>> - .odt file size: 5.6 MBytes
>>
>> Software spec:
>> - Linux Mint Debian Edition Update Pack 6 (latest version and repo)
>> - XFCE 4.8 Desktop Environment
>> - LibreOffice 3.5.4.2
>> - Thunderbird 17 (minimized)
>> - XChat 2.8.8 (minimized)
>>
>> Hardware Spec:
>> - Laptop: Dell Latitude D830
>> - CPU: Intel Core2Due T7500 Dual Core @2.2GHZ
>> - RAM: 4GB @677MHz
>> - GPU: NVidia quadro NVS 140m
>> - HDD: 500GB @5400 RPM
>>
>>
>> This experiment shows that LO Writer is very very slow (at least 1'30")
>> when it deals with heavy documents. It's specially not acceptable when I
>> realized that LO Writer always use ONLY 1 core of my CPU and it's why LO
>> Writer works better on my Pentium4 @2.8GHz single core computer than my
>> dual core @2.2GHz laptop.

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Tom Davies]

Hi :) 
Even so that is not really all that low spec.  It's actually qite respectable 
compared to a lot of systems at my work or other places.  

3.2 Gb is higher than most machines in my office.  Most are 1Gb or 2Gb at most. 
 We just got a batch of new ones but i haven't really checked out the specs on 
them much yet.  If you look at how much ram is actually being used and then at 
how much swap you'll probably find about 0 swap is used and only 1 or maybe 2Gb 
ram at the most.  There's not much reason to get more ram if you're running 
Gnu&Linux.  

Plus LO is supposed to run quite well on lower spec anyway.  The thing i found 
really interesting was the comparisons between different things rather than the 
actual figures themselves.  

There might be a few odd things that could be done to significantly improve the 
performance of the machine.  Having 
/home
on it's own partition might be nice and would make it easier to do a reintall 
of the OS without risk to any of the data (although backing up is always wise 
jic).  I'm not sure if it's worth putting the time in to get that increased 
performance though.  


This guide is pretty much copy&paste without really having to understand it too 
much but rsyncing the data to the other partition can take quite a few hours.  

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Partitioning/Home/Moving

During most of the process you can keep using the existing /home and then at 
the end use rsync again to sync-up the last bit that you changed while all that 
was going on.  Just make sure you have a back-up of the crucial file jic you 
accidentally sync the wrong way around!  Then the actual switch over to the new 
/home is very quick and if it doesn't work you can go back to the one that did 
work.  


Regards from 

Tom :)





>
> From: Andrew Brown 
>To: Sina Momken  
>Cc: Tom Davies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster 
>; users@global.libreoffice.org 
>Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 23:30
>Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
> 
>
>Hi Sina
>
>You have supplied good info for LO, on your system, but I would like to 
>point out a few issues I see why your system with LO could be slow. Your 
>laptop was launched in May 2007 and discontinued a year later, so five 
>to six year old technology, not completely fair to put the blame at a 
>modern up to date LO's door for slow run times.
>
>You don't mention whether your Linux Mint with XFCE is 32bit or 64bit. 
>If 32bit, then you are already hindered by only having 3.2GB of actual 
>RAM available for everything you indicate you have running/open. This is 
>a physical limit and only upgrading to a 64bit version of O/S, will it 
>help you better to utilise your full 4 GB at least, and to upgrade to 6 
>or 8GB even better. And this RAM is old DDR 2 667MHZ type, quite slow 
>compared to laptops with 1333MHZ and 1600MHZ DDR3.
>
>In the case of your laptop, when I last worked on that model of some of 
>my clients, it was installed with a 4500RPM hard drive, the slowest spin 
>speeds of any hard drive for battery endurance, but poorly for 
>performance, are you sure of your speed. But even at 5400RPM it does not 
>lend itself well to performance. Notebook drives have always lagged 
>similiar capacity and spin speed desktop drives, due to the manufacturer 
>focussing on battery endurance as a priority in most cases of general 
>population consumption. Not all of us can afford the Alienware and like 
>monsters, or VoodooPC ones either. But things are getting better hence 
>in the last year maybe two, mechanical laptop drives have increased to 
>7200RPM, or gone solid state, to relieve the bottleneck, and in the case 
>of SSD, total performance with very good battery life.
>
>I have a Toshiba midrange laptop i3, running Ubuntu 64bit and LO, about 
>a year old now with an original 5400RPM 500GB mechanical HDD and only 
>2GB of RAM originally. A couple of months ago I upgraded it to a 256GB 
>SSD, with 8GB of RAM (max of laptop), and found an incredible 
>performance boost, in everything running on it.
>
>And as I mentioned I used heavy documents to the size of around 5MB, for 
>my tests on my desktop, likewise not a solid scientific benchmark, but 
>supplied as a performance indicator that LO is nut a slug as is perceived.
>
>Regards
>
>Andrew Brown
>
>On 06/08/2013 11:41 PM, Sina Momken wrote:
>> I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
>> other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
>> secs is not a huge win too!
>> I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
>> documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. Also these
>> manual experiments a

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Sina Momken]

On 08/07/2013 03:00 AM, Andrew Brown wrote:
> Hi Sina
> 
> You have supplied good info for LO, on your system, but I would like to
> point out a few issues I see why your system with LO could be slow. Your
> laptop was launched in May 2007 and discontinued a year later, so five
> to six year old technology, not completely fair to put the blame at a
> modern up to date LO's door for slow run times.
I don't think it's the fault of my laptop (at least not its CPU, but
maybe its RAM speed). Because I have a single core Pentium 4 @2.8GHz
desktop PC with 2*1GB RAM (lower or equal frequency than 677MHz) and
open and save operations on LO Writer is faster on that!
I guess the problem is because of LO Writer being single-threaded which
doesn't uses all power of my CPU and RAM.

> 
> You don't mention whether your Linux Mint with XFCE is 32bit or 64bit.
When I have 4GB RAM (2*2GB @677MHz) I know I must have a 64bit linux. So
yes, I have a LMDEx64 (64bit). All my installed software are 64bit too.

> If 32bit, then you are already hindered by only having 3.2GB of actual
> RAM available for everything you indicate you have running/open. This is
> a physical limit and only upgrading to a 64bit version of O/S, will it
> help you better to utilise your full 4 GB at least, and to upgrade to 6
> or 8GB even better. 
I'm sure that 4GB RAM is even more than enough for my work. Because I
monitored the system using XFCE System Monitor (or htop) and only 30-40%
of my RAM was used. Unfortunately LO Writer only used less than 400MB of
my Physical Memory, while I had more than 2GB available and unused,
despite the fact that LO Settings for Memory were set to their maximum
(Graphics Cache->Use for LibreOffice=256MB, Memory per object=20MB,
Remove from memory after=00:30, Cache for inserted objects->Number of
objects=100, LibreOffice QuickStarter=Disable).

> And this RAM is old DDR 2 667MHZ type, quite slow
> compared to laptops with 1333MHZ and 1600MHZ DDR3.
I can't do for that now, 667MHz is the max FBS of the laptop's
motherboard and I don't have enough money to buy a new laptop.

> 
> In the case of your laptop, when I last worked on that model of some of
> my clients, it was installed with a 4500RPM hard drive, the slowest spin
> speeds of any hard drive for battery endurance, but poorly for
> performance, are you sure of your speed. But even at 5400RPM it does not
> lend itself well to performance. Notebook drives have always lagged
> similiar capacity and spin speed desktop drives, due to the manufacturer
> focussing on battery endurance as a priority in most cases of general
> population consumption. Not all of us can afford the Alienware and like
> monsters, or VoodooPC ones either. But things are getting better hence
> in the last year maybe two, mechanical laptop drives have increased to
> 7200RPM, or gone solid state, to relieve the bottleneck, and in the case
> of SSD, total performance with very good battery life.
I have replaced HDD of my laptop myself. So I'm sure that it's a Western
Digital 500GB @5400rpm. However I don't think that it's a HDD problem
because first the final file is less that 7MB and its write will not
take so much time. Second I noticed the HDD busy LED of my laptop and
either during save or open it was not busy very much.

> 
> I have a Toshiba midrange laptop i3, running Ubuntu 64bit and LO, about
> a year old now with an original 5400RPM 500GB mechanical HDD and only
> 2GB of RAM originally. A couple of months ago I upgraded it to a 256GB
> SSD, with 8GB of RAM (max of laptop), and found an incredible
> performance boost, in everything running on it.
The SSD may increase performance of OS but in the case of LO open and
save, why should it increase performance? Why LO open and save may need
heavy I/O operations while the final written file is only ~7MB and there
are more than 2GB of free ram which can eliminate its need to disk cache?

> 
> And as I mentioned I used heavy documents to the size of around 5MB, for
> my tests on my desktop, likewise not a solid scientific benchmark, but
> supplied as a performance indicator that LO is nut a slug as is perceived.
Dunno! Surely a hardware upgrade will improve the performance but in
this case I guess power of a single core of CPU and RAM speed are more
effective than other factors, mainly because of wrong LO architecture.

Best

> 
> Regards
> 
> Andrew Brown
> 
> On 06/08/2013 11:41 PM, Sina Momken wrote:
>> I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
>> other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
>> secs is not a huge win too!
>> I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
>> documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. Also these
>> manual experiments are not accurate enough to be a precise benchmark but
>> can show you some approximate slowness of LO Writer. Let see how long LO
>> Writer takes to open or save a heavy (~185 pages thesis) document:
>>
>> >Fro

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
Brilliant.  Larger file-size is a better test and some of those comparisons 
were really interesting.  So.doc loads and saves much more slowly.  

I dont know how they do it but the docs team write each chapter of the guides 
separately and then combine them into 1 book at the end.  Master documents 
perhaps?
Regards from 
Tom :) 





>
> From: Sina Momken 
>To: users@global.libreoffice.org 
>Cc: Tom Davies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster 
>; users@global.libreoffice.org 
>Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 22:41
>Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
> 
>
>I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
>other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
>secs is not a huge win too!
>I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
>documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. Also these
>manual experiments are not accurate enough to be a precise benchmark but
>can show you some approximate slowness of LO Writer. Let see how long LO
>Writer takes to open or save a heavy (~185 pages thesis) document:
>
>>From clicking document to being able to edit @ .odt: 2'17"
>    Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .odt: 1'25"
>
>>From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .odt: 3'00"
>    Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .odt: (another try): 1'40"
>
>>From clicking document to being able to edit @ .doc: 5'26"
>    Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .doc: 3'14"
>
>>From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .doc: 3'20"
>    Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .doc: 3'17"
>
>
>Other minimized software:
>- Another heavy (~186 pages) document open in LO Writer
>- Thunderbird 17.0 with 5 accounts minimized
>- XChat with many channels open minimized
>- GoldenDict with many dictionaries minimized
>- FreeU proxy software minimized
>- No browser open
>
>File size:
>- A ~185 pages thesis in either .doc and .odt formats
>- .doc file size: 6.8 MBytes
>- .odt file size: 5.6 MBytes
>
>Software spec:
>- Linux Mint Debian Edition Update Pack 6 (latest version and repo)
>- XFCE 4.8 Desktop Environment
>- LibreOffice 3.5.4.2
>- Thunderbird 17 (minimized)
>- XChat 2.8.8 (minimized)
>
>Hardware Spec:
>- Laptop: Dell Latitude D830
>- CPU: Intel Core2Due T7500 Dual Core @2.2GHZ
>- RAM: 4GB @677MHz
>- GPU: NVidia quadro NVS 140m
>- HDD: 500GB @5400 RPM
>
>
>This experiment shows that LO Writer is very very slow (at least 1'30")
>when it deals with heavy documents. It's specially not acceptable when I
>realized that LO Writer always use ONLY 1 core of my CPU and it's why LO
>Writer works better on my Pentium4 @2.8GHz single core computer than my
>dual core @2.2GHz laptop. Being single-threaded for such a heavy
>software is not acceptable in a world of multi-core CPUs.
>
>Another limitation of LO Writer is that when it saves a document it
>blocks the whole software and you have to wait until completion of
>saving. This issue is solved in MS Word because MSO is a multi-threading
>software. Because I must save my document at least each 30min therefor I
>have to rest each 30min for at least 2min because LO Writer takes this
>amount of time when it saves my huge document.
>I'm not pleased with save and open operations of LO Writer at all.
>
>Regards,
>   Sina Momken
>
>
>
>On 08/05/2013 05:47 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:
>> Gents
>> 
>> Kracked, a good reply. If I may add my two cents worth to performance of
>> start-ups here.
>> 
>> This is my system hardware top of the range in December 2007, and still
>> hops today. The only things updated since 2008 was the video card and
>> the SATA III hard drives, and the O/S's.
>> 
>> Windows 7 Ult. x64 / Ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail Dual boot, Intel Core2
>> Duo 6850 3GHZ, MSI X-38 Diamond mobo, Asus ATI EAH5770 CUcore 1GB Video,
>> SuperTalent 6GB DDR3 1333MHZ, Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB (Windows
>> Boot), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 2TB (Data), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB
>> (Linux), Thermaltake Toughpower 750W PSU
>> 
>> Also my analogy of a well tuned and clean system, will run top gun for
>> many years compared to cutting edge modern hardware today getting bogged
>> down with willy nilly installed and unmaintained software (but again if
>> this is maintained it will remain a top gun from it's day of purchase
>> and clobber my hardware performance). I see and read too many who throw
>> good money at high end systems only to have them slow a few months

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Andrew Brown]

Hi Sina

You have supplied good info for LO, on your system, but I would like to 
point out a few issues I see why your system with LO could be slow. Your 
laptop was launched in May 2007 and discontinued a year later, so five 
to six year old technology, not completely fair to put the blame at a 
modern up to date LO's door for slow run times.


You don't mention whether your Linux Mint with XFCE is 32bit or 64bit. 
If 32bit, then you are already hindered by only having 3.2GB of actual 
RAM available for everything you indicate you have running/open. This is 
a physical limit and only upgrading to a 64bit version of O/S, will it 
help you better to utilise your full 4 GB at least, and to upgrade to 6 
or 8GB even better. And this RAM is old DDR 2 667MHZ type, quite slow 
compared to laptops with 1333MHZ and 1600MHZ DDR3.


In the case of your laptop, when I last worked on that model of some of 
my clients, it was installed with a 4500RPM hard drive, the slowest spin 
speeds of any hard drive for battery endurance, but poorly for 
performance, are you sure of your speed. But even at 5400RPM it does not 
lend itself well to performance. Notebook drives have always lagged 
similiar capacity and spin speed desktop drives, due to the manufacturer 
focussing on battery endurance as a priority in most cases of general 
population consumption. Not all of us can afford the Alienware and like 
monsters, or VoodooPC ones either. But things are getting better hence 
in the last year maybe two, mechanical laptop drives have increased to 
7200RPM, or gone solid state, to relieve the bottleneck, and in the case 
of SSD, total performance with very good battery life.


I have a Toshiba midrange laptop i3, running Ubuntu 64bit and LO, about 
a year old now with an original 5400RPM 500GB mechanical HDD and only 
2GB of RAM originally. A couple of months ago I upgraded it to a 256GB 
SSD, with 8GB of RAM (max of laptop), and found an incredible 
performance boost, in everything running on it.


And as I mentioned I used heavy documents to the size of around 5MB, for 
my tests on my desktop, likewise not a solid scientific benchmark, but 
supplied as a performance indicator that LO is nut a slug as is perceived.


Regards

Andrew Brown

On 06/08/2013 11:41 PM, Sina Momken wrote:

I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
secs is not a huge win too!
I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. Also these
manual experiments are not accurate enough to be a precise benchmark but
can show you some approximate slowness of LO Writer. Let see how long LO
Writer takes to open or save a heavy (~185 pages thesis) document:

>From clicking document to being able to edit @ .odt: 2'17"
Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .odt: 1'25"

>From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .odt: 3'00"
Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .odt: (another try): 1'40"

>From clicking document to being able to edit @ .doc: 5'26"
Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .doc: 3'14"

>From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .doc: 3'20"
Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .doc: 3'17"


Other minimized software:
- Another heavy (~186 pages) document open in LO Writer
- Thunderbird 17.0 with 5 accounts minimized
- XChat with many channels open minimized
- GoldenDict with many dictionaries minimized
- FreeU proxy software minimized
- No browser open

File size:
- A ~185 pages thesis in either .doc and .odt formats
- .doc file size: 6.8 MBytes
- .odt file size: 5.6 MBytes

Software spec:
- Linux Mint Debian Edition Update Pack 6 (latest version and repo)
- XFCE 4.8 Desktop Environment
- LibreOffice 3.5.4.2
- Thunderbird 17 (minimized)
- XChat 2.8.8 (minimized)

Hardware Spec:
- Laptop: Dell Latitude D830
- CPU: Intel Core2Due T7500 Dual Core @2.2GHZ
- RAM: 4GB @677MHz
- GPU: NVidia quadro NVS 140m
- HDD: 500GB @5400 RPM


This experiment shows that LO Writer is very very slow (at least 1'30")
when it deals with heavy documents. It's specially not acceptable when I
realized that LO Writer always use ONLY 1 core of my CPU and it's why LO
Writer works better on my Pentium4 @2.8GHz single core computer than my
dual core @2.2GHz laptop. Being single-threaded for such a heavy
software is not acceptable in a world of multi-core CPUs.

Another limitation of LO Writer is that when it saves a document it
blocks the whole software and you have to wait until completion of
saving. This issue is solved in MS Word because MSO is a multi-threading
software. Because I must save my document at least each 30min therefor I
have to rest each 30min for at least 2min because LO Writer takes this
amount of time when it saves my huge document.
I'm not pleased with save and open operations of LO Writer at all.

Regards,
Sina Momken



On 08/05/2013 05:47 PM, Andrew Br

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Sina Momken]

I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
secs is not a huge win too!
I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. Also these
manual experiments are not accurate enough to be a precise benchmark but
can show you some approximate slowness of LO Writer. Let see how long LO
Writer takes to open or save a heavy (~185 pages thesis) document:

>From clicking document to being able to edit @ .odt: 2'17"
Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .odt: 1'25"

>From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .odt: 3'00"
Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .odt: (another try): 1'40"

>From clicking document to being able to edit @ .doc: 5'26"
Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .doc: 3'14"

>From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .doc: 3'20"
Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .doc: 3'17"


Other minimized software:
- Another heavy (~186 pages) document open in LO Writer
- Thunderbird 17.0 with 5 accounts minimized
- XChat with many channels open minimized
- GoldenDict with many dictionaries minimized
- FreeU proxy software minimized
- No browser open

File size:
- A ~185 pages thesis in either .doc and .odt formats
- .doc file size: 6.8 MBytes
- .odt file size: 5.6 MBytes

Software spec:
- Linux Mint Debian Edition Update Pack 6 (latest version and repo)
- XFCE 4.8 Desktop Environment
- LibreOffice 3.5.4.2
- Thunderbird 17 (minimized)
- XChat 2.8.8 (minimized)

Hardware Spec:
- Laptop: Dell Latitude D830
- CPU: Intel Core2Due T7500 Dual Core @2.2GHZ
- RAM: 4GB @677MHz
- GPU: NVidia quadro NVS 140m
- HDD: 500GB @5400 RPM


This experiment shows that LO Writer is very very slow (at least 1'30")
when it deals with heavy documents. It's specially not acceptable when I
realized that LO Writer always use ONLY 1 core of my CPU and it's why LO
Writer works better on my Pentium4 @2.8GHz single core computer than my
dual core @2.2GHz laptop. Being single-threaded for such a heavy
software is not acceptable in a world of multi-core CPUs.

Another limitation of LO Writer is that when it saves a document it
blocks the whole software and you have to wait until completion of
saving. This issue is solved in MS Word because MSO is a multi-threading
software. Because I must save my document at least each 30min therefor I
have to rest each 30min for at least 2min because LO Writer takes this
amount of time when it saves my huge document.
I'm not pleased with save and open operations of LO Writer at all.

Regards,
   Sina Momken



On 08/05/2013 05:47 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:
> Gents
> 
> Kracked, a good reply. If I may add my two cents worth to performance of
> start-ups here.
> 
> This is my system hardware top of the range in December 2007, and still
> hops today. The only things updated since 2008 was the video card and
> the SATA III hard drives, and the O/S's.
> 
> Windows 7 Ult. x64 / Ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail Dual boot, Intel Core2
> Duo 6850 3GHZ, MSI X-38 Diamond mobo, Asus ATI EAH5770 CUcore 1GB Video,
> SuperTalent 6GB DDR3 1333MHZ, Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB (Windows
> Boot), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 2TB (Data), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB
> (Linux), Thermaltake Toughpower 750W PSU
> 
> Also my analogy of a well tuned and clean system, will run top gun for
> many years compared to cutting edge modern hardware today getting bogged
> down with willy nilly installed and unmaintained software (but again if
> this is maintained it will remain a top gun from it's day of purchase
> and clobber my hardware performance). I see and read too many who throw
> good money at high end systems only to have them slow a few months
> later, and many who poer poer the idea of cleaning a system (registry
> and boot processes), and defragging it. So here's my tested speeds of
> this system above.
> 
> PC switch on to ready state to use (Windows 7 64bit, with a dual boot
> menu selection and the login screen) = 40 seconds
> PC switch on to ready state to use (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit, with a dual boot
> menu selection and the login screen) = 20 seconds
> 
> LO Writer from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7
> 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> LO Writer from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu
> 13.04 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> LO Calc from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7
> 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> LO Calc from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu 13.04
> 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> LO Impress from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7
> 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> LO Impress from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu
> 13.04 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
> 
> All the above to load a file directly i.e click on the data file which
> loads the appropriate app (and I chose files of around 5MB - 4 seconds
> for Writer, 5 seconds for Calc and 5 seco

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Sina Momken]

Can you please put your conversation about Anti-Viruses and
Contraceptive Pills on another forum or at least another thread?

On 08/07/2013 12:07 AM, Andrew Brown wrote:
> Well said
> 
> Andrew Brown
> 
> On 06/08/2013 09:10 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
>> Hi :)
>> I've not had any problems with AVG so far.  Afaik!
>>
>> But i definitely think anti-malware stuff is definitely one of those
>> things that people have to make up their own minds about which is best
>> for them.  After-all if it works really well then you never know it's
>> doing anything.  if it does log lots of things happening then is that
>> stuff that it's making up or would the attacks have happened anyway.
>>
>> It's a bit like the fella in Peckham sprinkling anti-elephant powder
>> on his doorstep each morning.  It 'obviously' works because there are
>> no elephants in Peckham.
>>
>> Even better is the example from House MD where a lady said that her
>> monthles had stopped but that was one of the possible side effects of
>> her birth-control pills working.  House pointed out it was also a
>> possible side-effect of her pills NOT working.
>>
>> Regards from
>> Tom :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> *From:* Andrew Brown 
>> *To:* Tom Davies 
>> *Cc:* Kracked_P_P---webmaster ;
>> users@global.libreoffice.org
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 19:05
>> *Subject:* Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speed
>>
>> Hi Tom
>>
>> You are on track, but one thing I will give in defence of freeware
>> malware protection, is MS Security Essentials. It along with the MS
>> firewall built in and Windows Defender built in and activated
>> fully with
>> MSSE installed, make for a not bad system. And you are correct, MS
>> I am
>> sure are fully aware of their exploitable code/bugs/weaknesses, not
>> necessary found by themselves, but by very clever honest and
>> dishonest
>> malware practitioners out there. With personal experience, usage and
>> fighting a good fight, my trust of AVG has waned big time, and
>> MSSE is
>> now top, as I said for freeware. One must remember freeware tools are
>> not strong with active protection and scanning of your system,
>> plugged
>> in devices and email, this is where MSSE does excel.
>>
>> In this order, I mention a Linux scanner that is now ported to MS, as
>> it's not bad and totally opensource.
>>
>> Freeware
>> 1. MSSE
>> 2. Avast
>> 3. ClamAV for Windows
>>
>> For payware there is only two, by continuous test, both personal,
>> business and enterprize, and without starting a flame war
>>
>> Kaspersky
>> ESET Nod32
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Andrew Brown
>>
>> On 06/08/2013 04:30 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
>> > Hi :)
>> > Good point.  I only had the anti-malware stuff running.  None of
>> the usual other windows open.
>> >
>> > On Windows machines i typically have 2 running.
>> > 1.  Microsoft Security Essentials, the one that kinda forces
>> it's way onto your system through automatic updates and stuff even
>> if you don't want it
>> > 2.  A free one.  Usually AVG in the company where i kinda work.
>> In a different place i might be using a different one but AVG
>> seems reasonably ok to me.
>> >
>> > On machines that are desperately slow running like that i switch
>> off one or the other.  Usually the MS one because i still don't
>> completely trust it yet.
>> >
>> > The number 1 job of any malware has to be to either knock-out
>> the anti-malware stuff or find a way to permanently bypass it
>> without raising any alarms. So anti-malware stuff needs to think
>> in a very different way from whatever in-built security might be
>> around.  I don't have any confidence in MS being able to do that.
>> I think a 3rd party program is more likely to have different
>> structures.  On the other hand MS might have more of an idea where
>> all their most well-known flaws are and might be able to structure
>> their one to deal with likely threats.  So, who knows which is
>> going to be best in the next years or so.
>> >
>> > Regards from
>> > Tom :)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster > >
>> >> To: users@global.libreoffice.org
>> 
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 14:56
>> >> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speed
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Actually my 3 second test, as stated in a past post, was with 3
>> >> utilities open on the screen and 2 or 3 Firefox browser windows
>> open.
>> >> The utilities are always loaded at boot by my choice.  I have
>> several FF
>> >> windows open with many tabs involved.  T

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Tom Davies]

Hi :)
+1
Looks like they get a lot of snow
Regards from 
Tom :)  





>
> From: Andrew Brown 
>To: Ken Springer  
>Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org 
>Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 20:28
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
> 
>
>Hi Ken
>
>Interesting, I'll need to do some more intense reading of the web page, 
>a nice find. The chart is a bit congested, and they don't seem to cover 
>the freeware versions of the payware versions on the chart, and the ones 
>I mentioned below. It would be interesting to see where they fare 
>against MS's free tools at 90%. Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of MS in 
>any way, but at least their built-in and add-on security products cannot 
>be thumb-nosed at. I personally use Kapsersky Pure 3.0 for all 
>freestanding customer and personal / home PC's and Kaspersky ES 
>(Endpoint Security) or TS (Total Security) for my bigger stuff and 
>client servers.
>
>And as can be seen those that seems to score high faired only one test 
>before it looks like they failed (all in red text), so this is not good, 
>brands to avoid, even if they look good as no.1 on paper. Hype, as I say 
>bull baffles brains.
>
>Thanks for this link. I like going over stuff like this.
>
>Andrew Brown
>
>On 06/08/2013 08:54 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Just interested in your comments/thoughts on this site:
>>
>> http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml
>>
>> On 8/6/13 12:05 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:
>>> Hi Tom
>>>
>>> You are on track, but one thing I will give in defence of freeware
>>> malware protection, is MS Security Essentials. It along with the MS
>>> firewall built in and Windows Defender built in and activated fully with
>>> MSSE installed, make for a not bad system. And you are correct, MS I am
>>> sure are fully aware of their exploitable code/bugs/weaknesses, not
>>> necessary found by themselves, but by very clever honest and dishonest
>>> malware practitioners out there. With personal experience, usage and
>>> fighting a good fight, my trust of AVG has waned big time, and MSSE is
>>> now top, as I said for freeware. One must remember freeware tools are
>>> not strong with active protection and scanning of your system, plugged
>>> in devices and email, this is where MSSE does excel.
>>>
>>> In this order, I mention a Linux scanner that is now ported to MS, as
>>> it's not bad and totally opensource.
>>>
>>> Freeware
>>> 1. MSSE
>>> 2. Avast
>>> 3. ClamAV for Windows
>>>
>>> For payware there is only two, by continuous test, both personal,
>>> business and enterprize, and without starting a flame war
>>>
>>> Kaspersky
>>> ESET Nod32
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Andrew Brown
>>>
>>> On 06/08/2013 04:30 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
>>>> Hi :)
>>>> Good point.  I only had the anti-malware stuff running.  None of the 
>>>> usual other windows open.
>>>>
>>>> On Windows machines i typically have 2 running.
>>>> 1.  Microsoft Security Essentials, the one that kinda forces it's 
>>>> way onto your system through automatic updates and stuff even if you 
>>>> don't want it
>>>> 2.  A free one.  Usually AVG in the company where i kinda work.  In 
>>>> a different place i might be using a different one but AVG seems 
>>>> reasonably ok to me.
>>>>
>>>> On machines that are desperately slow running like that i switch off 
>>>> one or the other.  Usually the MS one because i still don't 
>>>> completely trust it yet.
>>>>
>>>> The number 1 job of any malware has to be to either knock-out the 
>>>> anti-malware stuff or find a way to permanently bypass it without 
>>>> raising any alarms.  So anti-malware stuff needs to think in a very 
>>>> different way from whatever in-built security might be around.  I 
>>>> don't have any confidence in MS being able to do that.  I think a 
>>>> 3rd party program is more likely to have different structures.  On 
>>>> the other hand MS might have more of an idea where all their most 
>>>> well-known flaws are and might be able to structure their one to 
>>>> deal with likely threats.  So, who knows which is going to be best 
>>>> in the next years or so.
>>>>
>>>> Regards from
>>>> Tom :)
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
>Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
>All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>
>
>
-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Andrew Brown]

Hi Ken

Interesting, I'll need to do some more intense reading of the web page, 
a nice find. The chart is a bit congested, and they don't seem to cover 
the freeware versions of the payware versions on the chart, and the ones 
I mentioned below. It would be interesting to see where they fare 
against MS's free tools at 90%. Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of MS in 
any way, but at least their built-in and add-on security products cannot 
be thumb-nosed at. I personally use Kapsersky Pure 3.0 for all 
freestanding customer and personal / home PC's and Kaspersky ES 
(Endpoint Security) or TS (Total Security) for my bigger stuff and 
client servers.


And as can be seen those that seems to score high faired only one test 
before it looks like they failed (all in red text), so this is not good, 
brands to avoid, even if they look good as no.1 on paper. Hype, as I say 
bull baffles brains.


Thanks for this link. I like going over stuff like this.

Andrew Brown

On 06/08/2013 08:54 PM, Ken Springer wrote:

Andrew,

Just interested in your comments/thoughts on this site:

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml

On 8/6/13 12:05 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:

Hi Tom

You are on track, but one thing I will give in defence of freeware
malware protection, is MS Security Essentials. It along with the MS
firewall built in and Windows Defender built in and activated fully with
MSSE installed, make for a not bad system. And you are correct, MS I am
sure are fully aware of their exploitable code/bugs/weaknesses, not
necessary found by themselves, but by very clever honest and dishonest
malware practitioners out there. With personal experience, usage and
fighting a good fight, my trust of AVG has waned big time, and MSSE is
now top, as I said for freeware. One must remember freeware tools are
not strong with active protection and scanning of your system, plugged
in devices and email, this is where MSSE does excel.

In this order, I mention a Linux scanner that is now ported to MS, as
it's not bad and totally opensource.

Freeware
1. MSSE
2. Avast
3. ClamAV for Windows

For payware there is only two, by continuous test, both personal,
business and enterprize, and without starting a flame war

Kaspersky
ESET Nod32

Regards

Andrew Brown

On 06/08/2013 04:30 PM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
Good point.  I only had the anti-malware stuff running.  None of the 
usual other windows open.


On Windows machines i typically have 2 running.
1.  Microsoft Security Essentials, the one that kinda forces it's 
way onto your system through automatic updates and stuff even if you 
don't want it
2.  A free one.  Usually AVG in the company where i kinda work.  In 
a different place i might be using a different one but AVG seems 
reasonably ok to me.


On machines that are desperately slow running like that i switch off 
one or the other.  Usually the MS one because i still don't 
completely trust it yet.


The number 1 job of any malware has to be to either knock-out the 
anti-malware stuff or find a way to permanently bypass it without 
raising any alarms.  So anti-malware stuff needs to think in a very 
different way from whatever in-built security might be around.  I 
don't have any confidence in MS being able to do that.  I think a 
3rd party program is more likely to have different structures.  On 
the other hand MS might have more of an idea where all their most 
well-known flaws are and might be able to structure their one to 
deal with likely threats.  So, who knows which is going to be best 
in the next years or so.


Regards from
Tom :)








--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

[Ken Springer]

Andrew,

Just interested in your comments/thoughts on this site:

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml

On 8/6/13 12:05 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:

Hi Tom

You are on track, but one thing I will give in defence of freeware
malware protection, is MS Security Essentials. It along with the MS
firewall built in and Windows Defender built in and activated fully with
MSSE installed, make for a not bad system. And you are correct, MS I am
sure are fully aware of their exploitable code/bugs/weaknesses, not
necessary found by themselves, but by very clever honest and dishonest
malware practitioners out there. With personal experience, usage and
fighting a good fight, my trust of AVG has waned big time, and MSSE is
now top, as I said for freeware. One must remember freeware tools are
not strong with active protection and scanning of your system, plugged
in devices and email, this is where MSSE does excel.

In this order, I mention a Linux scanner that is now ported to MS, as
it's not bad and totally opensource.

Freeware
1. MSSE
2. Avast
3. ClamAV for Windows

For payware there is only two, by continuous test, both personal,
business and enterprize, and without starting a flame war

Kaspersky
ESET Nod32

Regards

Andrew Brown

On 06/08/2013 04:30 PM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
Good point.  I only had the anti-malware stuff running.  None of the usual 
other windows open.

On Windows machines i typically have 2 running.
1.  Microsoft Security Essentials, the one that kinda forces it's way onto your 
system through automatic updates and stuff even if you don't want it
2.  A free one.  Usually AVG in the company where i kinda work.  In a different 
place i might be using a different one but AVG seems reasonably ok to me.

On machines that are desperately slow running like that i switch off one or the 
other.  Usually the MS one because i still don't completely trust it yet.

The number 1 job of any malware has to be to either knock-out the anti-malware 
stuff or find a way to permanently bypass it without raising any alarms.  So 
anti-malware stuff needs to think in a very different way from whatever 
in-built security might be around.  I don't have any confidence in MS being 
able to do that.  I think a 3rd party program is more likely to have different 
structures.  On the other hand MS might have more of an idea where all their 
most well-known flaws are and might be able to structure their one to deal with 
likely threats.  So, who knows which is going to be best in the next years or 
so.

Regards from
Tom :)





--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted