Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

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:

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.



Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.