On Sunday, January 01, 2006 @ 3:17 AM, Carlos Robinson wrote:
The Saturday 2005-12-31 at 22:49 -0900, Greg Wallace wrote:
If it sounded like I was ranting I certainly didn't intend that. I think OO works fine, at least on my machine. When I entered this thread, there seemed to be a question of whether the caching done by OO was a drag on the system and there was talk of it needing to be turned off,
I think your confusion is that you think this cacheing is done by OOo. It is not, it is done by the kernel, the same as it is done for every single application and file read or written in the system. OOo knows nothing about it, it is transparent.
The only thing that OOo can do, with the quickstarter, is to run another app whose task is simply to say to the system: "I want to use such and such libraries, so please activate, load, run them or whatever you have to do so I can use them" - except that it really doesn't use them, but the result is that they are loaded ready for when the user really decides to run OOo.
It is just a trick.
This doesn't have anything to do with cache, it occupies memory with binaries, leaving less memory for other uses - like cache, for instance: it will in fact slow down other system uses.
- -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
I see. Yes, I was confused about it. Now I see what you're saying. Based on what you are saying, it would seem that the amount of spare memory you had on your machine would be the determining factor, right? I you had lots of spare memory, then it would seem that using the quickstarter wouldn't impact your other activities; whereas, if you were constantly pushing the limits on your memory, it would slow down your other apps. Would that be right? Thanks, Greg Wallace