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 <andre...@icon.co.za> >> To: Sina Momken <digi...@gmail.com> >> Cc: Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk>; Kracked_P_P---webmaster >> <webmas...@krackedpress.com>; 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 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 seconds for Impress in both O/S's. >>>> >>>> PC shutdown, from time to click on shutdown options to cold and dark >>>> (Windows 7 64bit) = 15 seconds >>>> PC shutdown, from time to click on shutdown options to cold and dark >>>> (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit) = 5 seconds >>>> >>>> My LO splash logo on both O/S's is displayed in under 1 second and the >>>> scroll bar in the splash logo takes under 1 second to show it's loading >>>> state, the balance of the time in the 3 seconds is loading the app, and >>>> I don't use the quickstarter option and have never done. I have supplied >>>> the times for clicking on the data file to load the app. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> On 05/08/2013 02:10 PM, Tom Davies wrote: >>>>> Hi :) >>>>> With MSO the splash screen appears immediately and keeps doing things >>>>> to make it clear it is doing something. >>>>> >>>>> With LO it is ages before the splash screen appears so it looks like >>>>> it hasn't reacted at all. >>>>> >>>>> So people don't trust it and they think that more time passes. It >>>>> might be good to video the same system starting each up in turn. Also >>>>> i think the Windows version is a lot slower to start up than the >>>>> Ubuntu one. >>>>> >>>>> LO is getting better but it just doesn't look like it is. Perception >>>>> is often more important than reality with things like this. >>>>> Regards from >>>>> Tom :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster<webmas...@krackedpress.com> >>>>>> To:users@global.libreoffice.org >>>>>> Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 12:49 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For me, I do not use the Quickstart option. Their are some hassles with >>>>>> upgrading some extensions if that is "on" all the time. I find that >>>>>> without using that option, I have the package load up and usable for >>>>>> editing quickly enough for my needs. It is faster than many other >>>>>> packages I use. >>>>>> >>>>>> The "boot" time for LO is much faster now that in the past. Also, >>>>>> compared to MS Office, it is still faster. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is one other "time" that needs to be measured. The time it takes >>>>>> for you to be able to start editing. Sure you can have a package start >>>>>> up fast and show its "page view", but it does no good if you cannot >>>>>> start working with the package if it take another minute or so to allow >>>>>> you to start working with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Take Writer or Word. You start the package by double-clicking the icon >>>>>> in the menu or on the screen. Then you get a splash screen. After that >>>>>> the document or a new one is seen in the "page view" window. Now, how >>>>>> long does it take from there to be able to click on a menu or start >>>>>> typing editing the document? That is where I had a problem with MSO >>>>>> 2003. Sure that is ten years out of date, but it was the last version >>>>>> of MSO I actually work with on a regular basis. Since 2010 I have been >>>>>> a "Linux" person with Ubuntu as my default desktop OS. So I have not >>>>>> tried the newest version of MSO. But, with Writer, the time ti takes >>>>> >from opening of the page view window to being able to edit or click on >>>>>> the menus has been reduced by a large percentage since I started using >>>>>> LO in its early days. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is the real question. How much wait time do you have between >>>>>> clicking on the icon to the print of being able to work with the >>>>>> package. No package is as fast as people would like, i.e. click and >>>>>> edit in a matter of a 2 or 3 seconds. Right now, with 2 browser windows >>>>>> open, this email package and 3 utilities on the screen, my Ubuntu >>>>>> install on a mid-range quad core desktop from Feb. 2010 , takes about 7 >>>>>> seconds from click to editing. That is fast enough for me. I have run >>>>>> packages that take 15 to 30 seconds to open up to the point of using >>>>>> it. In this day of wanting things as quick as possible, 15 to 30 >>>>>> seconds may be too long for some people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet, for those of you who have been using PCs since its early days of >>>>>> DOS or even Windows 95, these start up times are super fast compared to >>>>>> those older systems, even with the less powerful packages that we used, >>>>>> like PC-Write for word processing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08/04/2013 07:21 PM, Tom Davies wrote: >>>>>>> Hi :) >>>>>>> You could have either of them use their Quickstarter but it's a pain >>>>>>> and kinda blocks having the other one on your machine at the same time. >>>>>>> Regards from >>>>>>> Tom :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>> From: Tim Lloyd<tim.ll...@gmx.com> >>>>>>>> To:"users@global.libreoffice.org" <users@global.libreoffice.org> >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 0:15 >>>>>>>> Subject: [libreoffice-users] start up speed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I saw a question on the Fedora Forum regarding the "boot" speed of LO >>>>>>>> which is impressive especially compared to old versions of OOo. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think this has been discussed here in the past but I can't find any >>>>>>>> specific posts. Is there anything running in the background which >>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>> LO start up faster? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> >> -- >> 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
