Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

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 <>
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.  That is part of my "normal" 
desktop use so I do not have to keep opening those pages every day or 
so, and sometimes 3 or 6 times a day.

So with all that background packages, 3 seconds is not bad at all for a 
Ubuntu 12.04LTS system.

Now on my Win7 laptops, well that is a different story, or similar 
maybe.  I have a "ton" of security packages loaded up at boot time.  
Also there are some utilities and other options loaded, like printer 
management and other "stuff" like that.  So there is much more packages 
running in the background with the Win7 laptops - both dual core but 
different power - so click to splash to ready for work will take 
longer.  To be honest, I am one of those people that believes that 
Windows is a OS that can be easily infected with "nasties" so you must 
have a lot of security utilities running to keep that from happening.  I 
know some fools that do not even run anti-virus packages.  They say "why 
bother", "I am safe", "I never go to sites that will infect me", or my 
favorite "It will never happen to me.  You are just paranoid".

So, the key is that fact that LO is faster loading to a usable state, 
now, than it was last year.  Also, it is not the speed to the splash 
screen, but the speed of how long it will take till you are able to use 
the package.

So if you run all of  the security package, like I do, on Windows it 
will take longer to load up completely than with less security.  The 
same with Linux and how much is running in the background.  The same 
system, down to the exact same CPU, RAM, drive, OS, etc., will take 
different times depending on what is installed and running.  Even a 
fragmented drive will reduce the load and usage speeds.

So let us just say LO is loading faster than before and if a person 
cannot wait for a few seconds for load time, then they will not be happy 
with most packages out there that does similar "work".  Tablets can be 
worse load times for their packages and I know of no one locally who has 
complained about that.

On 08/06/2013 07:06 AM, Andrew Brown wrote:
Ha! Ha! there you go, LO just runs on whatever platform and O/S of 
your choice. And for the most part, what is a minute or less really 
from switch on to productive use of something. I can't make a cup of 
tea in that time, and I mean a real brewed cup of tea. Now at least 
the movies can show an actor sitting down in front of a PC and almost 
instantly start to work on it, I used to laugh at this in the past :-P



On 06/08/2013 04:12 AM, Virgil Arrington wrote:
On 08/05/2013 05:03 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
That is weird.

On this fairly crumby laptop, 2.2GHz (hmmm, not so crumby after all) 
it took about 0-1 seconds for the LO splash-screen to appear.  Same 
on my really nice desktop, 1.86GHz (hmmm, not so nice after all!).  
Both running Ubuntu and fairly old versions of LO (i think).  
Meanwhile on Windows 2.93GHz it took about 1s to open Writer 
completely.  Didn't even have time to see the splash screen.

I have a Sony Vaio laptop. I'm running a dual boot Windows 7 and 
Linux Mint 15 (running in the Windows WUBI installer). I just started 
using LO 4 on the Linux Mint side and immediately noticed how much 
faster it runs on Mint rather than Win7. I'm sure there are a lot of 
variables, and I haven't tested them all, but so far, I'm really 
pleased with the performance of LO on Mint.


To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.