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

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 
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.

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

Sina ;)

From: Andrew Brown <>
To: Sina Momken <> 
Cc: Tom Davies <>; Kracked_P_P---webmaster <>; 
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.


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
- 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.

     Sina Momken

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

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.


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<>
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<>
To:""  <>
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
LO start up faster?


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

To unsubscribe e-mail
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

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.