Re: [tdf-discuss] OpenOffice.org articles in Linux Format March 2011
At 4:09pm -0500 Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2011-02-11 3:35 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote: How the quickstarter works is have use gobs of memory effectively sitting idle. That doesn't work. Many of us in the computing, engineering, physics, and chemical fields *use* our computational resources. 75MB is not 'gobs' - that or we live in very different realities. Yes, it is gobs. If you have 4GB+, perhaps it's not, but not everyone has 4GB+. Particularly in non-Western countries. I have just returned from Ethiopia, for example, where owning a computer is rare; for those who do, 256 MB is common. I suspect that we *do* live in different realities. RAM is extremely cheap these days. If $100 bucks is cheap to you, then so be it. It's not to me, a graduate student. The short answer is that the quickstarter doesn't count: I want it to load as fast or faster than MSO /without/ the quickstarter. MSO can do it, from a cold boot, fast. Why can't LO? Strawman... MSO *does* have a quickstarter, but it is invisible - hidden in the OS startup processes... Please point me to documentation of this hidden quickstarter. The MS version that I'm aware of is this program: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290144 It's called Osa, and is an optional component to run at startup. If you want to argue the relative startup times, please try it for yourself, both with the Osa running, and without. If you still get different results than these, then all I can say is that we must have dissimilar test methodologies; I can confirm this relative speed on at least 6 boxes of varying age and hardware capabilities. On one particular 4 year-old machine, with 1G of system RAM, and without the OOo Quickstarter or MS' osa program running, rebooting for each trial, and opening the same 2003 Word (.doc) document: MSO 2003: 8s (average of 3 boots) OOo 3.3: 17s (average of 3 boots) Regards, Kevin -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] OpenOffice.org articles in Linux Format March 2011
At 8:37pm -0500 Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Graham Lauder wrote: On Saturday 12 February 2011 09:35:59 Kevin Hunter wrote: Because they don't know how to eloquently say that the quickstarter is a no-go. The name quickstarter is a misnomer. It should be preloader, because that's what it actually does. (But that doesn't sound as sexy, I know.) How the quickstarter works is have use gobs of memory effectively sitting idle. That doesn't work. Many of us in the computing, engineering, physics, and chemical fields *use* our computational resources. Start up time is down to the the OS. I disagree. More on that below ... I used to think the same as you. However this is what I have found. Start up on Ubuntu Gnome box is slow, slower than XP startup. OpenSuSE KDE4 box again slowish but like the others not gruesomely slow. But on my Yoper KDE4 box ,cold start up is almost instant and certainly faster than MSO on XPSP2. Yoper is a distro optimised for speed so obviously the problem is not all in the OOo/LibO code In a mathematical sense of all I already believe it is not entirely the fault of OOo/LO. However, I need more information before I will accept this particular bit of anecdotal evidence. For starters, /how/ did the Yoper folks get such an increase in speed for OOo? Why have I -- so far -- been unable to recreate these results on my own machines (which range from old to fairly new, and run a variety of distros)? To be clear, I'm not denying that I may be wrong or have out-dated information, but at the very least I'm surprised I haven't seen a blog or other such advertisement of how they did it. I would think it a matter of pride for whoever pulls it off, others would want to know, and I consider myself fairly well informed. The short answer is that the quickstarter doesn't count: I want it to load as fast or faster than MSO /without/ the quickstarter. MSO can do it, from a cold boot, fast. Why can't LO? MSO has a quickstarter in it's integration with the OS. Compare the speed of MSO opening in Windows environment as opposed to Apple and Apple has a very fast GUI I *hate* using MSO on Mac because it is so egregiously slow (even after loading is finished!). However, I'm not convinced that it's not just an issue with MS libraries. Reference this article about Windows Firefox being faster than Linux Firefox, as run through Wine: http://www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beats-linux-firefox We're a full two years later at this point, I may have missed an intervening few test updates, and things may have improved in this particular case, but the point is that it's not a simple matter of OS integration. I think OS integration is a red herring, and I would claim a poor tactic for the LO community to maintain: You're only faster because you've better OS integration. More honest, I think, is You're right, we don't start as fast; but give us time, we're working on it. And, if you're following the devel list, we are. Cheers, Kevin -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] OpenOffice.org articles in Linux Format March 2011
At 5:03pm -0500 Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Christoph Noack wrote: Am Freitag, den 11.02.2011, 15:35 -0500 schrieb Kevin Hunter: The short answer is that the quickstarter doesn't count: I want it to load as fast or faster than MSO /without/ the quickstarter. MSO can do it, from a cold boot, fast. Why can't LO? Because we are more or less platform neutral and that requires (under the given circumstances) to rely on own code that has to be loaded. That makes sense. Thank you for this honest recognition of the performance issues with a cogent explanation of cross-platform maintainability as the reason. I hope (and believe) there are gains to be had in this area. Cheers, Kevin -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] purpose of this list?
Hullo List, I'm having a difficult tracking down the exact topic for this list. Specifically, is this a list for discussing LibreOffice (the product) or more Document Foundation topics? If it's the latter, would someone kindly tell me the list address for the LibreOffice general discussion? Thanks, Kevin -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] purpose of this list?
At 9:49am -0500 Wed, 02 Feb 2011, Sigrid Carrera wrote: If it's the latter, would someone kindly tell me the list address for the LibreOffice general discussion? The general discussion list for LibreOffice would be then disc...@libreoffice.org. I tried that first, before I asked here. I received a bounce back of no such address. So ... given the two-lists/one-list discussion, I'm not yet clear on where I should pose a general discussion question for LO development. For reference, I thought this might be the list given this page: http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/ Good thing that discussions aren't time sensitive, yes? ;-) Cheers, Kevin -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
