Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Truck Drivers admit Throwing Bottles Out Window Quicker at Disposal

  • Subject: Re: Truck Drivers admit Throwing Bottles Out Window Quicker at Disposal
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 09:58:49 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <jns5ifmqoedr.dlg@funkenbusch.com> <1306111.truZFW1kSs@schestowitz.com> <1148584594.695107.132880@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1148585163.647990.179170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Thursday 25 May 2006 20:16 \__

> Yep.  That sounds about right.  Anywhere from 5 to 100 times slower,
> depending on what is being measured, on what platforms, and on what
> environments.

Microsoft knows how to conduct benchmark the way that suits their hypothesis
or even intent. 100 time slower? Probably insufficient RAM (choose the
'right' machine), which sends a lot of stuff to virtual memory to swap

> If you start MS-Office after starting IE, it will start in just a few
> seconds, because most of the critical libraries were loaded into RAM
> and initialized when you started IE.

That's why I try to use a lot of KDE applications, KDE included. Common
libraries are a key to performance, but an issue remains which is unfair
advantage to the native applications running in their environment.

> If, after starting MS-Office, you attempt to start Open Office or Star
> Office on a machine with say, less than 128 Mb, there won't be enough
> memory for both libraries, so Open Office will have to wait while the
> operating system tries to figure out what parts of the IE/Office
> library can be dumped.
> On a Linux system, you would normally have the glibc, kde, and core
> libraries installed, loaded, initialized, and configured, so Open
> Office would load more quickly than on an overloaded Windows machine.

Such benchmarks must be conducted on Solaris/Linux machines with abundance of
resources. Doing the comparison only on Windows is a ridiculous thing.


Oh, yeah, and while I'm at it, OpenOffice is 150 times cheaper than Microsoft


> Then there are functions like save or load-file, which will be about 5
> times slower, taking 5 seconds for full save to compressed XML vs 1/2
> second for the incremental update to Word.
> Part of the problem is that Open Office tries to be like a Windows
> application (one huge monster binary/dlls instead of a number of
> independent specialized modules that can be optimized.

I fully agree. It's a natural attempt of any application to extend and occupy
the space of more rivals. The outcome is often bloat and performance issues.
Unfortunately, one very large application is an operating system and, to
this date, we see the same practices used with decent levels of success
(e.g. incorporating Web browsers and file managers into the O/S).

> When Mozilla/Netscape, which tried to be browser, email, word
> processor, and messinging in a single executable, was split into
> Firefox, Thunderbird, and other "components", the simpler programs were
> far more popular.  They were easier and faster to load, less complex,
> and more easily managed (upgrades, reinstall, uninstall...)
> Firefox is more like a Linux application that was ported to Winows,
> while Open Office is more like a Windows oriented application that was
> ported to Linux.


__/ [ Rex Ballard ] added on Thursday 25 May 2006 20:26 \__

> I guess the real question is:  Is it fast enough?
> Am I willing to wait a few more seconds for the program to lad if it
> can save me a few more hours in reduced effort?
> If you wanted to make a series 2,000 of search/replace changes to a
> text document, would you really care that notepad loaded 100 times
> faster than vi?
> If I use notepad to make the changes, it could take me 2-3 days to make
> them all, and some might fall through the cracks.  If I use vi to make
> the changes, I can do them in 10-15 minutes, and know that I got all of
> them.

Well, I work in a desktop environment that is 20,000 pixels wide, so I just
leave open whatever application I use and it will most likely end up in
virtual memory. Now, if only I had more RAM...

> Hey, I admit there are things that Power Point does in terms of
> animation and WMF viruses that are still missing in Presents.  There
> are macro viruses in Access that Calc just doesn't do, and there are
> some great ways to attach rogue programs to Word documents that just
> don't play well on Writer.  I guess that's a real problem in some
> circles.

Well, let's not go there. I am trying to 'cleanse' myself from Windows
bashing *smile*.

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    "I think I think, therefore I think I am"
http://Schestowitz.com  |  SuSE GNU/Linux   ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  9:45am  up 29 days 16:17,  8 users,  load average: 1.12, 0.96, 0.93
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index