I have no problem with users having whatever performance experiences they have. However, it is no basis for *us* who have technical responsibilities here to presume that is usable as a technical fact.
It is like saying 9 out of 12 users perceive improved performance of Apache OpenOffice 3.4.0. So what? Automobile gasoline mileage ratings are better than that and remember, YMMV!! It is meaningless and we should not be so anxious to rely on hearsay. What's needed is dependable, repeatable statistics gathered under controlled conditions. The information should be available for the purpose of our technical assessment of areas for improvement, of places where feature attempts add degradation, etc. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Andre Fischer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 00:27 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Performance! On 10.05.2012 18:23, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > All right, this seems like a good place to splice in a comment I made in the > private thread that it is time to be careful and not get into exaggerated > claims, especially when a variation is not consistently present to all users > in all situations. > > Unsubstantiated subjective experiences are not trustworthy. That is true. But OpenOffice is not a high performance computing application. When a user thinks that it is fast enough then it IS fast enough. -Andre > It is also very difficult to control the variations that exist from one > setting and execution to another. > > So let's stop making so much of this. > > - Dennis > > A LESSON ON PERFORMANCE-CLAIM HUMILITY: > > I just stubbed my toe on a performance situation where there is a serious > worse-than-linear degradation in performance as a particular kind of ODF Text > document grows. Using a hot machine, I only noticed the pain when opening > the document extended into an intolerable number of minutes as I continued > work on successive drafts. On my slower laptop, where I repeated the test > for comparison purpose, the document now takes over an hour to open. This is > on OO.o 3.3.0, AOO 3.4.0, and a variety of LibreOffice releases. > > Yes there are differences among the different releases, and they are rather > consistent when the time is so long, but the fastest (OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 in > my crude tests) is still swamped by whatever the serious performance > degradation is and it is common to all releases tested. > > This is not the kind of problem that can be isolated into a small test case > for reproducibility, so the forensic work to demonstrate it and capture data > points is really tedious. Ordinary users probably think that their software > has hung or is not even starting when it is just that there is something that > is taking a very long time as part of loading the document (but neither disk > nor network, something in the logic that pegs the CPU for minutes when not > hours). > > Bug reports will follow shortly. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 08:45 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Performance! > > [ ... ] > > But the point right now is that the majority of users don't care about > this and see only that AOO is starting fast. A fact that I like very > much because there were indeed some improvements for 3.4. > > And how nice is it when users notice such improvements without deeper > analysis. The fact that users simply having the impression that it > starts fast is very nice. > > So let us focus on further improvement going in this direction. Let us > make our users happy. Many many happy users and their positive feedback > is the payment that we get for our work here. > > Juergen > > [ ... ] >
