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

On 08/07/2013 05:43 AM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:

I would expect that .doc would load slower in Writer and .odt would load
slower in Word.

The question really is how well does Writer load both.  How well it load
the 10 page documents vs. the 50 page ones.  Both with the same average
number of graphics per page.

Then look at the simple 20 or 50 page documents vs. the very complex ones.

Get an over all load times for the same documents on Writer and Word on
various Windows systems and various version of Windows [Win7 - Home/H.
Premium/Professional - 64-bit and 32-bit.  Vista versions in both 32 and
64 bit.]  Then look into the same documents with Writer run on some of
the different version of Linux [32-bit and 64-bit OS] such as Ubuntu,
Fedora, Mint, Mageia, Arch, etc., etc..

Then with all that data make a chart and add to it every time someone
tries the "standard" documents on different systems and specifications.

Then we would have a chart that will tell us how much different systems
and specifications effect the load and run speeds of LO, Writer
specifically, and Word specifically.

Does more RAM or more CPU power influence it most.  How does 4.0.4 vs
4.1.0 compare on the same system/specs.  How much faster a 64-bit
install is over the same distro's 32-bit version.
What you're requesting here is an exact benchmark with will take so much
time and effort. Besides different file formats, size and heaviness of
the file, different OSes and different HW Architectures, the exact
conditions of the system during experiment (like the software and
processes running in the background, etc.) and the number of repetitions
for each experiment must also be specified. Ideally no other excessive
processes must be run and each experiment must run more than 10 times.
It's accurate to write a test program to automatically test these
factors with any repetition desired.

But doing all these is a major job and takes much time and effort. If
I'd done this before, I've published this on my website or other major
website, not on this mailing list which doesn't have many visitors.

I only wanted to show you a rule of thumb about LO Writer dealing with
heavy files.

Without these types of data charted, we could just say what we "think"
is true or want works better for you.

To be honest, when I was using it and it worked well, my AMD64 CPU
laptop worked better than my Intel dual core laptop.  When I asked why
my older slower AMD laptop worked faster creating the .iso file using
DeVeDe .avi/.mp4 file to DVD-movie disc conversion tool, I was told that
the faster dual core laptop was not powerful enough to do the work even
though my older slower AMD64 laptop could do it just fine.

So, no matter how I think it should not be true, sometimes newer faster
systems that we think is more powerful and faster might now be a good as
we think and the older slower less powerful systems might actually work
better at some job or package.  Slower single core laptop working better
than a faster speed dual core laptop, does not make sense, but in
practice it works that way.
I doesn't say that. Actually I exactly said opposite of that. I have a
single core pentium4 @2.8GHz desktop which runs LO Writer faster than my
dual core core2due @2.2GHz laptop. Maybe power of both cores of my
laptop be more than power of cpu of my desktop, but power of a single
core of my laptop is surely less than power of a single core of my
desktop and because LO only uses 1 core, my older desktop PC wins.

So, maybe someone should collect some data and let us know how it worked
out.  Maybe we could be surprised on what we find.
Making a precise benchmark is always a valuable and highly regarded
work, can practically assess a software and help to make it better.

I sure was running DeVeDe on 2 different laptops, both as XP/Vista and
Ubuntu 10.04/ U. 10.04 systems.

   Sina Momken

On 08/06/2013 06:44 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
Brilliant.  Larger file-size is a better test and some of those
comparisons were really interesting.  So.doc loads and saves much more

I dont know how they do it but the docs team write each chapter of the
guides separately and then combine them into 1 book at the end. 
Master documents perhaps?
Regards from
Tom :)

From: Sina Momken <>
Cc: Tom Davies <>; Kracked_P_P---webmaster
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 22:41
Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed

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
Duo 6850 3GHZ, MSI X-38 Diamond mobo, Asus ATI EAH5770 CUcore 1GB
SuperTalent 6GB DDR3 1333MHZ, Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB (Windows
Boot), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 2TB (Data), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII
(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
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
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
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
for you to be able to start editing.  Sure you can have a package
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
you to start working with it.

Take Writer or Word.  You start the package by double-clicking the
in the menu or on the screen.  Then you get a splash screen. After
the document or a new one is seen in the "page view" window.  Now,
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
of MSO I actually work with on a regular basis.  Since 2010 I have
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
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
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
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
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 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

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.