StarOffice 7 user question

[Collins Richey]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:35:23 -0500 Joel Hammer <Joel at hammershome.com> wrote:

> I just tried to time the starts on three machines. The older version of
> Star Office (6.0) let me count to 15 (one one thousand, two one thousand,
> etc) before it was started on a 1 gig duron with 256meg. SO 5.2 on an .8
> gig Athlon and 770 megs took so long I thought it wasn't going to start
> (got to over 20 counting before I gave up counting, but it finally started,
> maybe in 25 secs.) On a 1 gig duron with 650megs SO 7.0 started up by
> the time I got to 5. So, startup time is reduced by 66% in my tests,
> which I consider official and final.
> 
> I can't compare SO 6 and SO 7 on the same machine because SO 7 removed
> SO 6 when it was installed.
> 

The improvements are similar with OO.  I run an AthlonXP 1800+ with 512M. 
Earlier versions of OO took 20+ seconds to initialize.  OO 1.1.0 takes 5.5
seconds on initial startup, 3.5 seconds on subsequent startups.  On prior
versions, there was a substantial difference between source-compiled code (10+
hours and 5 Gig temporary space, ouch) and binary code from OO, but this is less
noticeable now that OO has cleaned up their code.

Take 2.  Just for comparison, MozillaFirebird0.7 takes about 7 seconds to
initialize first time, and the gimp1.2.5 takes about 16 seconds, so OO/SO are
doing quite well as far as large code behemoths go.  Even a midget like
textmaker takes 4 seconds!

-- 
Collins Richey - Denver Area
if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the 
worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for.