On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 11:34 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote:
As you say though - convincing Ulrich it is a good idea
is the main challenge here :-)
What's the status of that effort BTW? :)
Hard to say; the sole insightful prognostication available is:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 12:46:02PM +, michael meeks wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 11:34 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote:
As you say though - convincing Ulrich it is a good idea
is the main challenge here :-)
What's the status of that effort BTW? :)
Hard to say; the sole
Hi Andreas,
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 16:33 +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
Well, but that was a rather rough-shot reply, and your reply to that
(if it was valid) was quite important, so for now it seems he doesn't have
too much of a point here.
So my personal feeling (having never used it) is
From: michael meeks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So my personal feeling (having never used it) is that prelink is a pain
to setup, maintain, get distros running with, fragments the disk etc.
etc. ;-) [ but this is all 2nd hand angst ].
I run FC4, and AFAIK it is implemented on that system.
I must say
On 2/15/06, Dimi Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: michael meeks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So my personal feeling (having never used it) is that prelink is a pain
to setup, maintain, get distros running with, fragments the disk etc.
etc. ;-) [ but this is all 2nd hand angst ].
I run FC4, and
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 21:40 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
I then measured how long it took to start up the app the second
time, when the cache was nice and hot:
4 Firefox run2 native 96MB
6 Firefox run2 wine 96MB
36 ooo run2 native 96MB
28 ooo run2 wine 96MB
It takes you 28 secs
From: michael meeks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4 Firefox run2 native 96MB
6 Firefox run2 wine 96MB
36 ooo run2 native 96MB
28 ooo run2 wine 96MB
It takes you 28 secs to warm-start OO.o ? that's pretty amazing ;-)
it's ~4 seconds for me.
On the same 96MB config? With or without your
On 2/13/06, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's 4 or 6 seconds for me, too, if I run with 96 MB ram.
gaah, I meant it's fast for me too if I use 400MB of ram.
--
Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:40:31PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
On 1/29/06, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To see how reasonable it might be to use OOo 2.0.1 and Firefox 1.5
under Wine routinely, I benchmarked their startup time
on a Fedora Core 5 test 2 system under four conditions:
On 1/29/06, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To see how reasonable it might be to use OOo 2.0.1 and Firefox 1.5
under Wine routinely, I benchmarked their startup time
on a Fedora Core 5 test 2 system under four conditions:
native vs. with wine from cvs, and with 416MB RAM vs. 96 MB RAM
[On
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 21:40 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
Nope. Measurement error. Turns out running Firefox in wine
and then OpenOffice in wine makes OpenOffice start up fast,
since wine's in the cache. Gotta reboot between runs of
even different apps.
I don't know -- it may be more interesting
To see how reasonable it might be to use OOo 2.0.1 and Firefox 1.5
under Wine routinely, I benchmarked their startup time
on a Fedora Core 5 test 2 system under four conditions:
native vs. with wine from cvs, and with 416MB RAM vs. 96 MB RAM
(by booting with mem=96M; this was to simulate running
On 1/30/06, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To see how reasonable it might be to use OOo 2.0.1 and Firefox 1.5
under Wine routinely, I benchmarked their startup time
on a Fedora Core 5 test 2 system under four conditions:
native vs. with wine from cvs, and with 416MB RAM vs. 96 MB RAM
(by
On 1/29/06, n0dalus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very interesting. Keep in mind that the FC5t2 kernels and libraries
currently have some debugging stuff enabled that might have a big
effect in these tests.
The few bits I've verified in Ubuntu 05.10 are the same as in FC5t2,
so perhaps that isn't a
14 matches
Mail list logo
