| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pluto101
n00b
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 22
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 7:28 pm Post subject: How long did it take you to emerge Open Office? |
 |
|
So far I'm at 18 hours. It took me 13 hours to emerge Gnome, and 8 for Mozilla. I have a Pentium II w/ 128mb of PC 100 RAM. Should I be worried?
_________________
If there weren't any walls or fences, who would need Windows and Gates? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kraqrawk
n00b
Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 40
Location: Jackson,MS
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It took me somewhere around 8hours to emerge OpenOffice on a AthlonXP 2400 w/513mb of DDR400, so I would think you might want to try emerging the pre-compiled openoffice.
| Code: | | emerge openoffice-bin |
_________________
Duh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shm
Advocate
Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Posts: 2380
Location: Atlanta, Universe
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 2:57 am Post subject: Re: How long did it take you to emerge Open Office? |
|
|
| Pluto101 wrote: | | So far I'm at 18 hours. It took me 13 hours to emerge Gnome, and 8 for Mozilla. I have a Pentium II w/ 128mb of PC 100 RAM. Should I be worried? |
Let's just say that the only thing OO can rival is emerging _all_ of KDE+X11
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChojinDSL
l33t
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 784
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is there any practical advantage to compiling openoffice as opposed to installing the binary version? I mean, office work doesnt require blazingly fast fps.
On the other hand, I can imagine that paradoxically, since compiling takes longest on low end machines, it is also most useful to these machines since every little bit of performance counts.
But then again, this is office work we are talking about.
Has anyone noticed any differences between self-compiled and pre-compiled binary versions of OpenOffice? (I'm sure there are some, but I'm wondering what those would be.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lovechild
Advocate
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 2858
Location: Århus, Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I dunno - 18 hours I was compiling GNOME -current at the same time - so timing it was hard... was done largely at night though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theBlackDragon
l33t
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 768
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChojinDSL wrote: | | I mean, office work doesnt require blazingly fast fps. |
If you need a fast office app you shouldn't be using OOo anyway, it's so _slow_, I just stopped using it because of it's slowness... 
Anyway last time took me something of 9-10 hours for OOo 1.1 on an Athlon XP2000+ with 512Mb RAM.
_________________
Fvwm|Fvwm forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nylle
Guru
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 308
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChojinDSL wrote: | Is there any practical advantage to compiling openoffice as opposed to installing the binary version? I mean, office work doesnt require blazingly fast fps.
On the other hand, I can imagine that paradoxically, since compiling takes longest on low end machines, it is also most useful to these machines since every little bit of performance counts.
But then again, this is office work we are talking about.
Has anyone noticed any differences between self-compiled and pre-compiled binary versions of OpenOffice? (I'm sure there are some, but I'm wondering what those would be.) |
Generally, compiling will probably only result in negligible speed improvements. However, it used to be the case that UI fonts and such were nicer on the self-compiled version of OO, but that was quite long ago now.
Note also that slower machines won't have things like sse2 and such, which could result in speed increases if you compile with support for them. However, I seriously doubt that OO will benefit from such optimizations.
_________________
"Do you hear that sound your Highness?"
"Those are the shrieking eels, they always grow louder when they are about to feed on human flesh." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shm
Advocate
Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Posts: 2380
Location: Atlanta, Universe
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| theBlackDragon wrote: | | ChojinDSL wrote: | | I mean, office work doesnt require blazingly fast fps. |
If you need a fast office app you shouldn't be using OOo anyway, it's so _slow_, I just stopped using it because of it's slowness...
Anyway last time took me something of 9-10 hours for OOo 1.1 on an Athlon XP2000+ with 512Mb RAM. |
Agreed.. 1.1 is a small improvement, but even on my 2200+, there is interface lag, I hope 1.2 (or 2.0) is a release that is focused on speed. I also hope that wvWare is improved so that kword and abiword get better MS Word compatability, which pretty much is the only major thing I need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shm
Advocate
Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Posts: 2380
Location: Atlanta, Universe
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| theBlackDragon wrote: | | ChojinDSL wrote: | | I mean, office work doesnt require blazingly fast fps. |
If you need a fast office app you shouldn't be using OOo anyway, it's so _slow_, I just stopped using it because of it's slowness...
Anyway last time took me something of 9-10 hours for OOo 1.1 on an Athlon XP2000+ with 512Mb RAM. |
Agreed.. 1.1 is a small improvement, but even on my 2200+, there is interface lag, I hope 1.2 (or 2.0) is a release that is focused on speed. I also hope that wvWare is improved so that kword and abiword get better MS Word compatability, which pretty much is the only major thing I need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neysx
Retired Dev
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 795
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| theBlackDragon wrote: | | ChojinDSL wrote: | | I mean, office work doesnt require blazingly fast fps. |
If you need a fast office app you shouldn't be using OOo anyway, it's so _slow_, I just stopped using it because of it's slowness...
Anyway last time took me something of 9-10 hours for OOo 1.1 on an Athlon XP2000+ with 512Mb RAM. |
OOo 1.1 is much faster. calc starts in 4 seconds and menus are responsive (they were really sluggish in 1.0.x)
I saw no noticeable difference between the binary packages and the compiled ones.
Compile time was 7h15 on dual AMD MP1900+ w/ 1Gb ram |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andvin
n00b
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 23
Location: Linköping, Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I tried to emerge OpenOffice on a machine with 2Gb of /var... didn't work since I ran out of space... How much space does this beast need while building?
/Andreas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andvin
n00b
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 23
Location: Linköping, Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andvin wrote: | I tried to emerge OpenOffice on a machine with 2Gb of /var... didn't work since I ran out of space... How much space does this beast need while building?
/Andreas |
Never mind... I looked at the OO site... they state 3Gb of free disk for building... That's incredibly much... wonder if they have something like gcc's 'bootstrap-lean' that makes it behave a bit nicer during compile?
/Andreas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daganoth
Apprentice
Joined: 12 Jun 2002
Posts: 194
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andvin wrote: | | andvin wrote: | I tried to emerge OpenOffice on a machine with 2Gb of /var... didn't work since I ran out of space... How much space does this beast need while building?
/Andreas |
Never mind... I looked at the OO site... they state 3Gb of free disk for building... That's incredibly much... wonder if they have something like gcc's 'bootstrap-lean' that makes it behave a bit nicer during compile?
/Andreas |
Andreas,
One solution is to change where your portage tmp directory is in make.conf. I changed it to something like /usr/portage/tmp, or something like that, because I had 6 GBs free on my usr partition.
Oh, and btw, it takes me about 4 hours to compile OO. Dual Athlon 1200  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tecknojunky
Veteran
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 1937
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't recall exactly, but it's been the longest of all the ebuilds I ever merged. It took more than 24 hours (maybe 28 or 30, dunno) on a Celeron 600 with 256 MB ram.
If I would have knew it would have been that long, I think I would have gone for binaries instead.
_________________
(7 of 9) Installing star-trek/species-8.4.7.2::talax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theBlackDragon
l33t
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 768
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| undeuxtroisout wrote: | | theBlackDragon wrote: | | ChojinDSL wrote: | | I mean, office work doesnt require blazingly fast fps. |
If you need a fast office app you shouldn't be using OOo anyway, it's so _slow_, I just stopped using it because of it's slowness...
Anyway last time took me something of 9-10 hours for OOo 1.1 on an Athlon XP2000+ with 512Mb RAM. |
OOo 1.1 is much faster. calc starts in 4 seconds and menus are responsive (they were really sluggish in 1.0.x)
I saw no noticeable difference between the binary packages and the compiled ones.
Compile time was 7h15 on dual AMD MP1900+ w/ 1Gb ram |
That's what I heard too, but apparently it's _slower_ than 1.0 on some systems, seems like I was one of the lucky few then...
Anyway, I really hope they're going to work on the speed, even if 1.1 is faster it won't be that much faster i think, the thing that struck me about 1.1 was the _much_ better interface, but as I said it was unworkably slow on my system...
Maybe the Ximian port is workable? Dunno if it's already been released in public though, one can only hope...
_________________
Fvwm|Fvwm forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Metaphaze
n00b
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Since most of you optimizations are stripped during an OOo compile anyway, I really don't think you gain anywhere near what you lose if you were to compile. It took me 8+ hours on an Athlon XP 1400 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ScubaStreb
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I actually had a strange situation where my compiled version was slower than the binary version. My cflags are pretty vanilla, but It seemed odd to me. Now I just install the -bin versions. RC2 is working very well now!
I used some tips from this thread https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=46433&highlight=oooqs+kde and it helped quite a bit.
_________________
"Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza." --Dave Barry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nermal
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 259
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
try upping the amount of memory OO can use as a graphics cache. You can do this in Options - > memory.
I upped mine to around 15 and it does make the GUI a lot more responsive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadEgg
l33t
Joined: 06 Jun 2002
Posts: 678
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The reason I'm compiling OOo is the interface lag, I do hope that it at least improves the situation a little bit, because OOo is the most sluggish program I've ever seen.
I still wonder why they make an office suite relyant on Java. Java is slow, why try to make something that huge even slower.
Anyway, my machine has been compiling OpenOffice-1.1_rc3 for the past 15 hours and isn't giving any sign of finishing soon.
This is on an Intel Pentium IV 1,7 GHz with 1,5 GB memory. It seems really really long in comparison with some of the other posts in this thread  I wonder what would cause it...
_________________
Pentium 4 Prescott 3,2 GHz
Asus P4P800 SE, i865PE chipset
1024 MB PC3200 RAM
AOpen Aeolus GeForce 6800 Ultra 256 MB DDR2
Creative Audigy2 ZS
gentoo-sources-2.6.20-r7
nVidia-drivers version 9755 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shm
Advocate
Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Posts: 2380
Location: Atlanta, Universe
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MadEgg wrote: | I still wonder why they make an office suite relyant on Java. Java is slow, why try to make something that huge even slower.
|
More than 90% of OpenOffice is written in C++, including what you are likely using. Remember that OOo is a complex application with a complex infastructure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20589
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Duplicate Threads
