On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 14:08 +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 14:46 -0500, Patrick Freeman wrote:
I am not sure if crossover office would behave any differently than windows. Maybe a better comparison is how does OOo run on windows (there is a windows version isn't there?)? The Windows version feels quite a bit faster than the linux version, at least too me. I don't know why that is the case. Maybe the linux port is actually behind the windows one?
I stand corrected -- your numbers seem to indicate true slowness. Bear in mind I'm talking about first time start up after a cold boot. When I open it for a second time it's much faster, but still much slower than I think it should be on this kind of hardware.
You're reference to Windows 95 is interesting -- I've often said that Linux on the desktop is comparable to the 95 experience (although the OS is much better). I think KDE and the way SUSE set things up is way ahead of Windows 95.
I think that is an indicator of when we will see parity with the desktop The problem is that it is a moving target. Having had a chance to look at a pre-release of Windows Vista, there are a few things the KDE devs are going to have to add to please the masses.
(which I think you addressed above). However, the 12s you mention -- that is not with a *tuned* OOo startup is it? No, I'm not aware of any tricks to tune OOo to start quicker, except for the quicklauncher, which I don't use because I don't want it hogging my memory when I'm not using OOo.
Then don't bitch about how s l o w it is to load. That is what the quickstarter is there for. It does the same thing MS does, it pre-loads the libs. Why do you think MS requires a reboot after installing new software, so windows can preload the DLL's and get the app to load faster. Which is why each new version of windows needs newer and faster hardware with more memory to run. Oh, and the quickstarter doesn't use -that- much memory. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998