-----Original Message----- From: Hans du Plooy [mailto:hansdp-lists@sagacit.com]
<snip>
I mentioned the other office suites specifically for this reason. Even with the quickstarted (which should give OOo the same advantage), it still takes a good while longer than any other office suite to start. Heck, Word/Excel even starts faster through Crossover Office than OpenOffice does. Which pretty much eliminates the OS aspect of the argument, doesn't it?
2) Windows loads a lot of bloat (even right in the operating system kernel) -- which means a lot of stuff, libraries, etc ... is
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?)? pre-loaded
and all you are doing is starting a thin interface to it. Doesn't change the fact that OOo starts slow. I really don't care what they do to make it faster.
On my notebook OOo takes 8 seconds to display the spash screen, and another 5 seconds from there to bring up the Writer interface. That is unacceptable. Also doesn't change the fact that, once started, OOo *is* slower than any other office suite to use. When I click on the file menu for the first time, for example, there is a noticeable delay before the menu appears. I just checked, after opening Writer, I click on the "open" button. 4 seconds before the open dialog appears. It feels like working Windows 95 on a 486. Of course, once it is open and running and you've used it a little,
True. The customer experience is the important thing. things
speed up a little. But that's no justification for the really slow start up times.
Hans, I stand corrected -- your numbers seem to indicate true slowness. I haven't been annoyed by the difference myself (except on occasion) and I haven't taken any numbers because of this. Either way, I am still trapped into keeping Windows on one machine because of one specific app anyway (two if I count tax software). 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 that is an indicator of when we will see parity with the desktop -- as an upper bound: how long was it from launch of 95 to launch of XP (6 years I think). Linux has been in this state for 1.5 to 2 years, leaving 4 years-ish till parity (assuming windows does not make some incredible stride that people will just be unwilling to do without in the meantime -- however MS's new focus on security has them really playing a different game and I don't think they will respond well).
*technologically* superior, per se -- the problem you complain about is about more about customer perception. No it's not. A 12 second difference in starting time is way more than can be blamed on perception.
What I meant by perception here was not really what you perceive, but about the customer experience as different from the actual loading (which I think you addressed above). However, the 12s you mention -- that is not with a *tuned* OOo startup is it? I think the more concerning number is the difference you see in the already loaded app. How does it respond after you have used the tools (which you are comparing) once (on both)?
It's very difficult, for example, to persuade my dad to try out linux on his PC, when I show him all the apps on my computer and they're all much slower than what he's used to, considering he's using a 400mhz celeron with 196mb Ram. There's no way you can explain that kind of difference away.
I think your Dad has to make a decision between his application startup time and your free tech support <grin>.
I don't mean to diss OOo in any way, it is a good product. But it's has a long way to go to catch up with the commercial offerings, and they keep improving to, so it keeps lagging behind. And saying "but Microsoft cheats/does this or that" doesn't do anythign to excuse OOo's shortcomings.
I have to admit, I have neglected in this discussion to draw the point about OOo specifically. <snip> Regards, Patrick