![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Well said
Andrew Brown
Hi 
+1
Looks like they get a lot of snow
Regards from
Tom
Can you please put your conversation about Anti-Viruses and
Contraceptive Pills on another forum or at least another thread?
I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
secs is not a huge win too!
I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. Also these
manual experiments are not accurate enough to be a precise benchmark but
can show you some approximate slowness of LO Writer. Let see how long LO
Writer takes to open or save a heavy (~185 pages thesis) document:
From clicking document to being able to edit @ .odt: 2'17"
Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .odt: 1'25"
From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .odt: 3'00"
Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .odt: (another try): 1'40"
From clicking document to being able to edit @ .doc: 5'26"
Completing "Opening document..." bar @ .doc: 3'14"
From Ctrl+S to being able to edit again @ .doc: 3'20"
Completing "Saving document..." bar @ .doc: 3'17"
Other minimized software:
- Another heavy (~186 pages) document open in LO Writer
- Thunderbird 17.0 with 5 accounts minimized
- XChat with many channels open minimized
- GoldenDict with many dictionaries minimized
- FreeU proxy software minimized
- No browser open
File size:
- A ~185 pages thesis in either .doc and .odt formats
- .doc file size: 6.8 MBytes
- .odt file size: 5.6 MBytes
Software spec:
- Linux Mint Debian Edition Update Pack 6 (latest version and repo)
- XFCE 4.8 Desktop Environment
- LibreOffice 3.5.4.2
- Thunderbird 17 (minimized)
- XChat 2.8.8 (minimized)
Hardware Spec:
- Laptop: Dell Latitude D830
- CPU: Intel Core2Due T7500 Dual Core @2.2GHZ
- RAM: 4GB @677MHz
- GPU: NVidia quadro NVS 140m
- HDD: 500GB @5400 RPM
This experiment shows that LO Writer is very very slow (at least 1'30")
when it deals with heavy documents. It's specially not acceptable when I
realized that LO Writer always use ONLY 1 core of my CPU and it's why LO
Writer works better on my Pentium4 @2.8GHz single core computer than my
dual core @2.2GHz laptop. Being single-threaded for such a heavy
software is not acceptable in a world of multi-core CPUs.
Another limitation of LO Writer is that when it saves a document it
blocks the whole software and you have to wait until completion of
saving. This issue is solved in MS Word because MSO is a multi-threading
software. Because I must save my document at least each 30min therefor I
have to rest each 30min for at least 2min because LO Writer takes this
amount of time when it saves my huge document.
I'm not pleased with save and open operations of LO Writer at all.
Regards,
Sina Momken
Hi Sina
You have supplied good info for LO, on your system, but I would like to point out a few issues I see why your system with LO could be slow. Your laptop was launched in May 2007 and discontinued a year later, so five to six year old technology, not completely fair to put the blame at a modern up to date LO's door for slow run times.
You don't mention whether your Linux Mint with XFCE is 32bit or 64bit. If 32bit, then you are already hindered by only having 3.2GB of actual RAM available for everything you indicate you have running/open. This is a physical limit and only upgrading to a 64bit version of O/S, will it help you better to utilise your full 4 GB at least, and to upgrade to 6 or 8GB even better. And this RAM is old DDR 2 667MHZ type, quite slow compared to laptops with 1333MHZ and 1600MHZ DDR3.
In the case of your laptop, when I last worked on that model of some of my clients, it was installed with a 4500RPM hard drive, the slowest spin speeds of any hard drive for battery endurance, but poorly for performance, are you sure of your speed. But even at 5400RPM it does not lend itself well to performance. Notebook drives have always lagged similiar capacity and spin speed desktop drives, due to the manufacturer focussing on battery endurance as a priority in most cases of general population consumption. Not all of us can afford the Alienware and like monsters, or VoodooPC ones either. But things are getting better hence in the last year maybe two, mechanical laptop drives have increased to 7200RPM, or gone solid state, to relieve the bottleneck, and in the case of SSD, total performance with very good battery life.
I have a Toshiba midrange laptop i3, running Ubuntu 64bit and LO, about a year old now with an original 5400RPM 500GB mechanical HDD and only 2GB of RAM originally. A couple of months ago I upgraded it to a 256GB SSD, with 8GB of RAM (max of laptop), and found an incredible performance boost, in everything running on it.
And as I mentioned I used heavy documents to the size of around 5MB, for my tests on my desktop, likewise not a solid scientific benchmark, but supplied as a performance indicator that LO is nut a slug as is perceived.
Regards
Andrew Brown
Hi
Brilliant. Larger file-size is a better test and some of those comparisons were really interesting. So.doc loads and saves much more slowly.
I dont know how they do it but the docs team write each chapter of the guides separately and then combine them into 1 book at the end. Master documents perhaps?
Regards from
Tom
Hi Sina
You have supplied good info for LO, on your system, but I would like to
point out a few issues I see why your system with LO could be slow. Your
laptop was launched in May 2007 and discontinued a year later, so five
to six year old technology, not completely fair to put the blame at a
modern up to date LO's door for slow run times.
I don't think it's the fault of my laptop (at least not its CPU, but
maybe its RAM speed). Because I have a single core Pentium 4 @2.8GHz
desktop PC with 2*1GB RAM (lower or equal frequency than 677MHz) and
open and save operations on LO Writer is faster on that!
I guess the problem is because of LO Writer being single-threaded which
doesn't uses all power of my CPU and RAM.
You don't mention whether your Linux Mint with XFCE is 32bit or 64bit.
When I have 4GB RAM (2*2GB @677MHz) I know I must have a 64bit linux. So
yes, I have a LMDEx64 (64bit). All my installed software are 64bit too.
If 32bit, then you are already hindered by only having 3.2GB of actual
RAM available for everything you indicate you have running/open. This is
a physical limit and only upgrading to a 64bit version of O/S, will it
help you better to utilise your full 4 GB at least, and to upgrade to 6
or 8GB even better.
I'm sure that 4GB RAM is even more than enough for my work. Because I
monitored the system using XFCE System Monitor (or htop) and only 30-40%
of my RAM was used. Unfortunately LO Writer only used less than 400MB of
my Physical Memory, while I had more than 2GB available and unused,
despite the fact that LO Settings for Memory were set to their maximum
(Graphics Cache->Use for LibreOffice=256MB, Memory per object=20MB,
Remove from memory after=00:30, Cache for inserted objects->Number of
objects=100, LibreOffice QuickStarter=Disable).
And this RAM is old DDR 2 667MHZ type, quite slow
compared to laptops with 1333MHZ and 1600MHZ DDR3.
I can't do for that now, 667MHz is the max FBS of the laptop's
motherboard and I don't have enough money to buy a new laptop.
In the case of your laptop, when I last worked on that model of some of
my clients, it was installed with a 4500RPM hard drive, the slowest spin
speeds of any hard drive for battery endurance, but poorly for
performance, are you sure of your speed. But even at 5400RPM it does not
lend itself well to performance. Notebook drives have always lagged
similiar capacity and spin speed desktop drives, due to the manufacturer
focussing on battery endurance as a priority in most cases of general
population consumption. Not all of us can afford the Alienware and like
monsters, or VoodooPC ones either. But things are getting better hence
in the last year maybe two, mechanical laptop drives have increased to
7200RPM, or gone solid state, to relieve the bottleneck, and in the case
of SSD, total performance with very good battery life.
I have replaced HDD of my laptop myself. So I'm sure that it's a Western
Digital 500GB @5400rpm. However I don't think that it's a HDD problem
because first the final file is less that 7MB and its write will not
take so much time. Second I noticed the HDD busy LED of my laptop and
either during save or open it was not busy very much.
I have a Toshiba midrange laptop i3, running Ubuntu 64bit and LO, about
a year old now with an original 5400RPM 500GB mechanical HDD and only
2GB of RAM originally. A couple of months ago I upgraded it to a 256GB
SSD, with 8GB of RAM (max of laptop), and found an incredible
performance boost, in everything running on it.
The SSD may increase performance of OS but in the case of LO open and
save, why should it increase performance? Why LO open and save may need
heavy I/O operations while the final written file is only ~7MB and there
are more than 2GB of free ram which can eliminate its need to disk cache?
And as I mentioned I used heavy documents to the size of around 5MB, for
my tests on my desktop, likewise not a solid scientific benchmark, but
supplied as a performance indicator that LO is nut a slug as is perceived.
Dunno! Surely a hardware upgrade will improve the performance but in
this case I guess power of a single core of CPU and RAM speed are more
effective than other factors, mainly because of wrong LO architecture.
Best
Hi
Even so that is not really all that low spec. It's actually qite respectable compared to a lot of systems at my work or other places.
3.2 Gb is higher than most machines in my office. Most are 1Gb or 2Gb at most. We just got a batch of new ones but i haven't really checked out the specs on them much yet. If you look at how much ram is actually being used and then at how much swap you'll probably find about 0 swap is used and only 1 or maybe 2Gb ram at the most. There's not much reason to get more ram if you're running Gnu&Linux.
Plus LO is supposed to run quite well on lower spec anyway. The thing i found really interesting was the comparisons between different things rather than the actual figures themselves.
There might be a few odd things that could be done to significantly improve the performance of the machine. Having
/home
on it's own partition might be nice and would make it easier to do a reintall of the OS without risk to any of the data (although backing up is always wise jic). I'm not sure if it's worth putting the time in to get that increased performance though.
This guide is pretty much copy&paste without really having to understand it too much but rsyncing the data to the other partition can take quite a few hours.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Partitioning/Home/Moving
During most of the process you can keep using the existing /home and then at the end use rsync again to sync-up the last bit that you changed while all that was going on. Just make sure you have a back-up of the crucial file jic you accidentally sync the wrong way around! Then the actual switch over to the new /home is very quick and if it doesn't work you can go back to the one that did work.
Regards from
Tom
Hi Sina
You have supplied good info for LO, on your system, but I would like to
point out a few issues I see why your system with LO could be slow. Your
laptop was launched in May 2007 and discontinued a year later, so five
to six year old technology, not completely fair to put the blame at a
modern up to date LO's door for slow run times.
I don't think it's the fault of my laptop (at least not its CPU, but
maybe its RAM speed). Because I have a single core Pentium 4 @2.8GHz
desktop PC with 2*1GB RAM (lower or equal frequency than 677MHz) and
open and save operations on LO Writer is faster on that!
I guess the problem is because of LO Writer being single-threaded which
doesn't uses all power of my CPU and RAM.
You don't mention whether your Linux Mint with XFCE is 32bit or 64bit.
When I have 4GB RAM (2*2GB @677MHz) I know I must have a 64bit linux. So
yes, I have a LMDEx64 (64bit). All my installed software are 64bit too.
If 32bit, then you are already hindered by only having 3.2GB of actual
RAM available for everything you indicate you have running/open. This is
a physical limit and only upgrading to a 64bit version of O/S, will it
help you better to utilise your full 4 GB at least, and to upgrade to 6
or 8GB even better.
I'm sure that 4GB RAM is even more than enough for my work. Because I
monitored the system using XFCE System Monitor (or htop) and only 30-40%
of my RAM was used. Unfortunately LO Writer only used less than 400MB of
my Physical Memory, while I had more than 2GB available and unused,
despite the fact that LO Settings for Memory were set to their maximum
(Graphics Cache->Use for LibreOffice=256MB, Memory per object=20MB,
Remove from memory after=00:30, Cache for inserted objects->Number of
objects=100, LibreOffice QuickStarter=Disable).
And this RAM is old DDR 2 667MHZ type, quite slow
compared to laptops with 1333MHZ and 1600MHZ DDR3.
I can't do for that now, 667MHz is the max FBS of the laptop's
motherboard and I don't have enough money to buy a new laptop.
In the case of your laptop, when I last worked on that model of some of
my clients, it was installed with a 4500RPM hard drive, the slowest spin
speeds of any hard drive for battery endurance, but poorly for
performance, are you sure of your speed. But even at 5400RPM it does not
lend itself well to performance. Notebook drives have always lagged
similiar capacity and spin speed desktop drives, due to the manufacturer
focussing on battery endurance as a priority in most cases of general
population consumption. Not all of us can afford the Alienware and like
monsters, or VoodooPC ones either. But things are getting better hence
in the last year maybe two, mechanical laptop drives have increased to
7200RPM, or gone solid state, to relieve the bottleneck, and in the case
of SSD, total performance with very good battery life.
I have replaced HDD of my laptop myself. So I'm sure that it's a Western
Digital 500GB @5400rpm. However I don't think that it's a HDD problem
because first the final file is less that 7MB and its write will not
take so much time. Second I noticed the HDD busy LED of my laptop and
either during save or open it was not busy very much.
I have a Toshiba midrange laptop i3, running Ubuntu 64bit and LO, about
a year old now with an original 5400RPM 500GB mechanical HDD and only
2GB of RAM originally. A couple of months ago I upgraded it to a 256GB
SSD, with 8GB of RAM (max of laptop), and found an incredible
performance boost, in everything running on it.
The SSD may increase performance of OS but in the case of LO open and
save, why should it increase performance? Why LO open and save may need
heavy I/O operations while the final written file is only ~7MB and there
are more than 2GB of free ram which can eliminate its need to disk cache?
And as I mentioned I used heavy documents to the size of around 5MB, for
my tests on my desktop, likewise not a solid scientific benchmark, but
supplied as a performance indicator that LO is nut a slug as is perceived.
Dunno! Surely a hardware upgrade will improve the performance but in
this case I guess power of a single core of CPU and RAM speed are more
effective than other factors, mainly because of wrong LO architecture.
Best
Cable modem - i.e. always on connection - needs a Firewall and a better one than what I heard MS's built in one is. I prefer to use Comodo Internet Security suite that included anti-virus and firewall. And yes, they have a free version. They have a host of free security packages. If you use AVG, the pair it with a free firewall like Zonealarm, since the last time I knew AVG with firewall was not free.
Also you should use a variety of different types of blockers and scanner/cleaners. The more you use the less likely that something might slip through all of your packages. Of course you should never have 2 firewalls and two anti-virus packages running at the same time.
Then to the anti-elephant power, well just because you do not see elephant foot prints does not mean that they did not get inside your house and searched the place before leaving. The same is true with all those "nasties". If you do not keep everything up-to-date, then these "elephants" could come in and shut down the monitors letting you know that they were ever there. I know of several cases where people never kept their security databases up-to-date and they let the "elephants" into the "house" and were never the wiser since the "had the protection" and never felt the need to keep it fed with the needed "data" bread crumbs to keep their protection happy and healthy. I know of one system that had an owner add the security and someone else removing it since it "slowed down" his file transfers and stopped him for accessing "certain" sites, one that the security would stop you from going to.
Well said
Andrew Brown
Hi
I've not had any problems with AVG so far. Afaik!But i definitely think anti-malware stuff is definitely one of those things that people have to make up their own minds about which is best for them. After-all if it works really well then you never know it's doing anything. if it does log lots of things happening then is that stuff that it's making up or would the attacks have happened anyway.
It's a bit like the fella in Peckham sprinkling anti-elephant powder on his doorstep each morning. It 'obviously' works because there are no elephants in Peckham.
Even better is the example from House MD where a lady said that her monthles had stopped but that was one of the possible side effects of her birth-control pills working. House pointed out it was also a possible side-effect of her pills NOT working.
Regards from
Tom------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Andrew Brown <andrewbr@icon.co.za>
*To:* Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>
*Cc:* Kracked_P_P---webmaster <webmaster@krackedpress.com>;
users@global.libreoffice.org
*Sent:* Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 19:05
*Subject:* Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speedHi Tom
You are on track, but one thing I will give in defence of freeware
malware protection, is MS Security Essentials. It along with the MS
firewall built in and Windows Defender built in and activated
fully with
MSSE installed, make for a not bad system. And you are correct, MS
I am
sure are fully aware of their exploitable code/bugs/weaknesses, not
necessary found by themselves, but by very clever honest and
dishonest
malware practitioners out there. With personal experience, usage and
fighting a good fight, my trust of AVG has waned big time, and
MSSE is
now top, as I said for freeware. One must remember freeware tools are
not strong with active protection and scanning of your system,
plugged
in devices and email, this is where MSSE does excel.In this order, I mention a Linux scanner that is now ported to MS, as
it's not bad and totally opensource.Freeware
1. MSSE
2. Avast
3. ClamAV for WindowsFor payware there is only two, by continuous test, both personal,
business and enterprize, and without starting a flame warKaspersky
ESET Nod32Regards
Andrew Brown
<snip>
Hi
Brilliant. Larger file-size is a better test and some of those comparisons were really interesting. So.doc loads and saves much more slowly.I dont know how they do it but the docs team write each chapter of the guides separately and then combine them into 1 book at the end. Master documents perhaps?
Regards from
Tom
Hi Tom,
Hmmm! Very interesting idea. I don't know why the idea of writing each
chapter separately was not brought to my mind. Maybe because I didn't
know how Master documents work. Or maybe because the original .doc
template had not used Master document. But I had seen different chapters
combining together in .tex template of my university, and I was aware of
that capability in LaTeX but not in LO Writer.
Anyway I have currently written many parts of my work in a huge document
and I must cope with it.
I really don't expect LO Writer to do magic for me, especially that I've
seen that MS Office is slow too in loading heavy files. But I think that
MS Office is still much faster in loading and saving huge files partly
because it fully uses multiple cores of a CPU, partly because it doesn't
load whole of a file at once (e.g. you can read and edit first parts of
a doc while it's loading further parts if needed) and partly because it
can save the file while you can scroll.
Anyhow, it's very important for LO to support multi-threading because
number of cores in upcoming CPUs is continually increasing and without
using multi-threading LO won't be able to use the vast performance power
of future CPUs.
I also believe that shifting LO source code from Java to C++ could be a
good idea, because Java and its virtual machine have considerable
overhead which could slow down the performance specifically during the
work with large files.
Best,
Sina Momken
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.
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.
So, maybe someone should collect some data and let us know how it worked out. Maybe we could be surprised on what we find.
I sure was running DeVeDe on 2 different laptops, both as XP/Vista and Ubuntu 10.04/ U. 10.04 systems.
Hi, Andrew,
I found out about that site a long time ago in another newsgroup, probably. But I hadn't visited in a long time, and was surprised to see some names missing, and some new ones. So the programs being tested is not stagnant.
MS Essentials used to be listed, but it was in the bottom half of the pack. There's been a recent upgrade, so the old results would now be invalid.
I didn't reread the site, but IIRC the programs tested are the ones submitted by others.
<snip>
Hi
Even so that is not really all that low spec. It's actually qite respectable compared to a lot of systems at my work or other places.3.2 Gb is higher than most machines in my office. Most are 1Gb or 2Gb at most. We just got a batch of new ones but i haven't really checked out the specs on them much yet. If you look at how much ram is actually being used and then at how much swap you'll probably find about 0 swap is used and only 1 or maybe 2Gb ram at the most. There's not much reason to get more ram if you're running Gnu&Linux.
Plus LO is supposed to run quite well on lower spec anyway. The thing i found really interesting was the comparisons between different things rather than the actual figures themselves.
There might be a few odd things that could be done to significantly improve the performance of the machine. Having
/home
on it's own partition might be nice and would make it easier to do a reintall of the OS without risk to any of the data (although backing up is always wise jic). I'm not sure if it's worth putting the time in to get that increased performance though.This guide is pretty much copy&paste without really having to understand it too much but rsyncing the data to the other partition can take quite a few hours.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Partitioning/Home/Moving
During most of the process you can keep using the existing /home and then at the end use rsync again to sync-up the last bit that you changed while all that was going on. Just make sure you have a back-up of the crucial file jic you accidentally sync the wrong way around! Then the actual switch over to the new /home is very quick and if it doesn't work you can go back to the one that did work.
Regards from
Tom
Hello Davis,
Thank you for your suggestion. I also have my /home placed on a separate
partition than / partition. However it's not related to this issue 
Best,
Sina 
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
Hi
+1
It's beyond the scope of this list and certainly beyond the scope of individuals here to do rigorous bench-marking. The amount of data we did get was impressive.
Regards from
Tom
Hi
If you have your /home on a separate partition then it might be possible to install the 64bit version of Ubuntu without disturbing your 32 it version. I tend to use a 10-15Gb partition for / for Ubuntu. It doesn't really need all that much space but Ubuntu is about the most bloated distro at the moment. Having plenty of space makes it easier when installing programs.
Regards from
Tom
I did that on PCLOS. It works well, altho a few apps that are strictly
32-bit will not run on the 64-bit installation.I lost Adobe Reader on
the 64-bit os, because there is no 64-bit version of that s/w. I had to
go find a 64-bit version of one or two other programs. But basically,
it's a lot simpler than having to back up all your files to an external
storage medium and then having to copy everything back to a completely
new install.
You will have to make a new blank partition on the drive, using
gparted or something similar, and format it to ext4 and call it /
Then when you install the 64-bit version, DO NOT format /home,
only / (Your distro may or may not make it mandatory to reformat /
during the install, even tho you formatted it already.)
Be careful when you install the 64-bit os, so as to NOT make a new
/home. Note that you probably already have a swap partition, so
don't make another one. Any and all Linux os's on the disk can use
the one swap.
It has been quite a while since I did an Ubuntu install, so I can't
be more specific. And I don't think I would try this with Korora--
its installation would drive a saint crazy! (Just to get it onto
two partitions is maddening!)
Good luck--doug
Ubuntu install is the same, if using the default install options it creates the swap partition (at least equal to installed RAM amount), and then then one partition for all. I change this and like many here, create the root / (100MB), and the balance of the drive capacity to /home, keeping my data separate.
Regards
Andrew Brown
Hi
I tend to make / around 10-15Gb now for Ubuntu. 100Mb is about enough for a separate /boot partiiton but not enough for the / of most distros, especially not for the most bloated distro of all. I've found that even 8Gb gets in trouble quite quickly unless you are quite good at doing maintenance such as using the Janitor fairly often.
You don't get much of a performance boost by having a separate /home unless that /home is on a physically separate drive but it does make he system more robust and safer to upgrade.
Regards from
Tom