Hi :) +1 That is why i dont think it's worth us spending our time doing benchmarking. Another reason is that we are obviously a fairly biased bunch with only a few individuals that may be biased the other way or be "on the fence". Anyone else looking at the results of a serious bench-marking study done by us will assume we have too much bias. Studies into this sort of thing are usually paid for by MS but they are usually able to hide the MS involvement sufficiently that people get the impression it's an independent bit of research. So, a quick bit of bench-marking by a few individuals has been great. It's been really good to see and compare some of the different stats people have been giving but its not worth us spending much time over getting more than a "rule of thumb" or general idea. Thanks all for their work though! Regards from Tom :)
________________________________ From: Andrew Brown <andrewbr@icon.co.za> To: Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013, 10:30 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed This is to what I have noticed by many who become anal retentive in this matter, and obsessive compulsive, over their possessions for want of a better word. I see it in the way they buy their worldly possessions from cars, to HiFi, to mobile phones, to their homes and it's contents. All of it must have a spec sheet a mile long to "PROVE" it's the best out there and better than yours and mine. We are losing site of reality, as you covered, over .1 or .2 of a second. There's a real world we live in going to pot and soon we will battle for clean water and wholesome fresh produce, never mind the rapid loss of natural flora and fauna, over how many seconds a piece of silicon and soft, as in the real sense of what soft means, code is running. My original purpose of starting this post was to simply show, in a real world use that LO is not slow by any means to any competitive product and does the job, for the majority of users, who are far in reality from their self proclaimed power users status, as equally good as any competitive product, but again my first paragraph observation is surfacing. The bottom line there are millions of users of LO, and other users of non-MS products, working perfectly fine with it and could not really give a hoot of it's millisecond or second performance. Andrew Brown On 07/08/2013 04:29 PM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:Yes, there are a lot of people who can give others "proof" of what their system can do. Either by an active demonstration or via benchmark packages. I love doing active presentations to non-believers. I have taken and proved that LO can do things that I claim, by bringing my laptop[s] to these people and run LO through some tests. Then I hand them a USB drive and ask them to place some "sample" documents they use on a daily/weakly basis and then open them up with LO and show them that "yes" LO can work with your files "easily". I once had them click on their Word icon on their multi-core Windows desktop and the same time as I click on the LO icon on my Windows boot partition of my Windows/Ubuntu dual booting laptop[s]. Now that we have Win7 as the "new standard" for business computers, I can use either my Win7 Home Premium laptop or my Win7 Professional one. Both are dual core laptops, but the "Professional" install is on the slower system. One day I will take the "Home" laptop and make it "Professional" to solve some "back port" issues where "Home" might not allow certain XP and Vista era packages to be installed while "Professional" has not problem installing those packages. So having a live demonstration on what LO can do and how fast it can do those things is a good "marketing tool". Having a "benchmark" style of information sheet tends to make many manager's eyes "cloud over and ears stop hearing you" as you discuss the benchmark results. Yes, there can be some "guesswork" for some things, and some subjective issues, but it does not mean that those "guesses" are wrong. The seconds count or timed with a stopwatch is not very accurate if it is the difference of a second plus/minus. But most people can not tell the difference between 3 and 4 seconds, or 3.4 and 4.1 seconds. We are not built that way, or most of us are not build that way. On 08/07/2013 08:05 AM, Sina Momken wrote:On 08/07/2013 03:05 PM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:YES my point exactly........ Unless we do such a large data gathering project taking into account all of the different options, EVERYTHING is just guesswork or personally view performance.They are more than some guesswork which I may say from myself. They are not only my opinions. Actually I could prove my claims to some degree using some simple experiments. Yeah, my experiments were not comprehensive enough to certainly conclude from, but they can prove my claims with good probability (at least in my case). Proving by experimentation is not like in the math which can 100% confirm a lemma. One must limit his experiments based on his time and efforts; We can not put a ball down to ground on each planet to test the gravity theory of Newton! All what I want to say is that I believe based on my (not comprehensive) experiments, my claims about LO performance is more than just a GUESSWORK or OPINION! RegardsSome faster systems, for whatever reasons, load and run LO slower than the "slower CPU" called slower due to number of cores or the speed at which it is running at. So all it opinion until someone decides to "prove" those opinions and results on an individual basis. On 08/06/2013 10:09 PM, Sina Momken wrote: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.Regards, Sina Momken<snip>-- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@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