Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
Il 08/11/2013 21:35, Gabriel Risterucci ha scritto: 2013/11/8 Pedro pedl...@gmail.com jmadero wrote No offense at all, I encourage open conversation but I tend to see a one side conversation THERE SHOULD BE A 64 BIT FLYING LIBREOFFICE THAT CAN BAKE ME A CAKE AND CALCULATE A QUADRILLION FORMULAS IN 0.001 SECONDS USING ALL 16 OF MY CORES! - without the other side of the equation - such a product would be incredibly costly and there are thousands of much more important things to get done that will benefit a lot more users. So, having a 64bit Linux version is Ok, creating a 64bit version for MacOS (starting in LO 4.2) is Ok, but asking for a 64bit Windows build is selfish... Interesting. Us Windows users should be ashamed of ourselves... Having 64bits binary in linux/macos is natural, as everything around is 64bit, and the toolchain is quite easy to handle. On windows, there is two issues regarding this: - 64bit software is not as common as one would expect. Some Java installation are still 32bit, which would break LibreOffice64bit instantly. - Building 64bit binary is somewhat tricky on windows; mingw64 is a way, but when you end up having dependencies that need to be built as 64bit too, and they don't build easily, it gets tedious, to say the least... assuming the code would build at all by just switching compiler target. Not sure of the current state of other open solutions like cygwin regarding this. And using MSVC would be more challenging than anything, as it introduce it's own set of surprise when going from 32bit build to 64bit build. And all that just to have a 64bit binary that would only give more work and no immediate benefit... After this reply I hope anyone whining about Windows users being let down because there's no 64 bit version of OpenOffice/LibreOffice shut the hell up and start complaining to Microsoft. :) -- Marcello Romani -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
On 2013-11-11 7:40 AM, Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote: Marcello Romani wrote And all that just to have a 64bit binary that would only give more work and no immediate benefit... After this reply I hope anyone whining about Windows users being let down because there's no 64 bit version of OpenOffice/LibreOffice shut the hell up and start complaining to Microsoft. :) Right... Because all FLOSS projects that have 64bit Windows versions (mentioned in this email http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/64-bit-tp4081444p4082245.html that some users choose to ignore) are all run by stupid people who choose to have a lot of work for no reason... sigh What is so hard to understand about: 1. Libreoffice is a *huge* project Yes, some of those projects mentioned are not so small (ie, postgresql), but... 2. There would be *very little* benefit for a 64bit port of Libreoffice for 99.9% of its userbase Again, as example, Postgresql benefits *greatly* from having a 64bit version, as large (4GB+) databases are extremely commonplace. 4GB+ Writer, or Calc, or Impress, or Base documents are *extremely* rare, and when they are encountered, there is a very large likelihood that it is an extremely poor and even *improper* usage in the first place. Bottom line: The benefit (none to negligible) of a 64bit version of Libreoffice simply is not justified by the cost (work required to make it happen). But by all means, feel free to organize a group of developers capable of rearchitecting the massive codebase to make it happen... -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
2013/11/11 Pedro pedl...@gmail.com Marcello Romani wrote And all that just to have a 64bit binary that would only give more work and no immediate benefit... After this reply I hope anyone whining about Windows users being let down because there's no 64 bit version of OpenOffice/LibreOffice shut the hell up and start complaining to Microsoft. :) Right... Because all FLOSS projects that have 64bit Windows versions (mentioned in this email http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/64-bit-tp4081444p4082245.html that some users choose to ignore) are all run by stupid people who choose to have a lot of work for no reason... Read your own post: a lot of work for no reason. First, some of these projects *have* reasons to have a 64bit build. GIMP can handle large and complicated images, and need to break the 4GB limit (2GB really on default build). Other needs to handle large quantity of data and might take advantage of new vectorizations instructions, etc... Second, it *is* a lot of work. Even in the post you mention, there is at least two project that kinda struggle with 64bit windows build: firefox, where they are not really supported, and FreeCAD, which seems to have dropped support for 64bit windows. It's costly to maintain program that build for many targets, and cost is an issue with some open source projects. And last, building a piece of software from the ground up and maintaining/evolving a (rather large) project for that long are very different. Here, we're not talking about writting code from scratch, but you have to make sure that every piece clicks. Going back through *all* the code to make sure that there isn't a pointer somewhere or an int there that would suddenly break because some OS API expect another type of value is indeed a lot of work, way more than just writing from scratch. LibreOffice might be a fairly recent project, but it's codebase goes way back. And again, all of the work needed to barely have a stable working build would yield very little benefit. The code don't magically take advantage of 64bit code by just changing the compiler's target. So, no, other projects didn't decide to have a lot of work for no reason. *Some* decided to have 64bit builds from the start, *some* decided to revamp their code, *some* decided not to, *some* gave up on it. But in every cases, ressources for such projects are limited, and focusing on bugfixes and enhancement seems more useful than having a 64bit build for what is, regarding LibreOffice, no reason. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
On 2013-11-08 5:28 PM, Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote: I know and I agree, Miguel. I just don't agree with the logic don't ask for a 64bit version because it's very time consuming and expensive and you don't need it anyway. Why do Linux and Mac people need it more than Windows people? They don't. If you had bothered to actually read the responses in this thread, you would understand that compiling 64bit versions on Linux is *trivial*, and on OSX *much* easier than on Windows. The reason there is none is because it is *hard* to do - *very* hard - and because the benefit is so little, it isn't a high priority. Yes, you are within your rights to *ask* for it... but when you start demanding someone else do the heavy lifting for FREE, you begin to sound like little children banging on the table that 'I want what I want when I want it!'... Do they work with files larger than 4Gb? Isn't the cost per developer hour the same? If there is no advantage why do developers bother at all? READ THE DAMNED RESPONSES AND STOP WASTING EVERYONES TIME -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
Hi Kind People! :-) I have already written in the past about win64 builds. And now, after reading this interesting entire thread I think: - I completely agree that it is a first priority to complete the Calc (LibreOffice?) code rewrite and modernization; - but (!!!) just after this further rewrite (and not after the next infinite ones!), I think (!) it will be useful to organize well the code so that all Microsoft Windows 32 and 64 bit codes build automatically and without any trouble (in my head this may be a big goal that may also have positive effects in later time... like deprecated Windows API cleaning, ...); - I am 44 years old and I am in computer science since I was 16, I am a computer science engineer since 1999, I have lived the 16 to 32 bit Windows migration in the half 90s and I remember similar talks about the priority to convert code or not (at the time not so much open source (floss) one at least on Windows...) from win16 to win32s (does someone remember these APIs?) or win32 (full); - in that case, in 90s, the migration doesn't complain only the API bit size, but a more fluid multithreading implementation, a native flat memory addressing and so on...; - now I suppose or try to guess (!), in particular on Windows systems, we are in front of a similar API improvement/modernization that go beyond the only bit size, data addressing size, memory address code allocation (i..e. over the firsts 4 Gbyte), data size computation, multicore suitable code, ...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_API#Versions - I think that making intra-project experiences exchange (!!!) in win64 porting (and not only in this...) may put down time and money costs: The Document Foundation are a XXI century Office Suite Management innovation, why don't continuing to innovate the floss deploy also formally exchanging experience without suffer to discover again (!) the same things???!!! It is better to pay for the discover of the very new things or ideas, isn't it? - in the Document Foundation Wiki I have seen something about this discuss, particularly about GSoC: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/GSoC/Ideas#Porting_LibreOffice_to_x64_Windows - below I build a little, absolutely not comprehensive, lists of already win64 and only win32 floss Windows applications: are these first list projects experiences useful to the GSoC student to reach our goal? I think at least for most! ;-) Already win64 floss application (All developers are genius? All projects are petroleum or gold or energy rich? I don't think so...): - Scribus (!!!); - GIMP (already said in this thread); - AviDemux (and developers have success over multi external library porting; it depends on many famous multimedia libraries!!!); - VideoLAN (and developers have success over multi external library porting; it depends on many famous multimedia libraries!!!); - Blender; - Paint.NET (I suppose a simple .NET capability inheritance); - FreeCAD (but there are some trouble in the building structure because win64 builds are somewhat abandoned since a lot of months... It is a very pity! It may be interesting ask them because and share experiences so that we continue never reinventing the wheel!!! This possible dialogue may be useful for both them and us...!!! And this approach may push down develop costs...); - BRL-CAD (recently!); - RawTherapee; - Ghostscript; - Mozilla Firefox (but only in the nightly builds, as already said in this thread, even though flash and java plugin win64 build are stable and running since at least one/two years); - PostgreSQL database; - MySQL/MariaDB databases; - Python; - Java; - PHP (experimental, interesting read here: http://marc.info/?l=php-internalsm=137002754604365w=2 or from Apache Lounge http://www.apachelounge.com/viewtopic.php?p=22259) - Apache HTTPD; - ... Not yet win64 (still win32) floss application: - LibreOffice (!!!) (and AOO, I suppose); - FileZilla (!!!); - Notepad++; - InkScape (!!!); - Merkaartor; - OpenCPN; - GPSBabel; - Mozilla Thunderbird (some win64 builds in the past were done..., do you remember http://www.mozilla-x86-64.com/? Recently a Customer of mine reaches the 4 Gbyte mail folder file limit I suppose due to SQLite limit, surely for bad mail management (I make him to archive mail per year), many mails with big attached files, ...); - pgadmin (PostgreSQL GUI admin client); - GNU Utils (I recently use gawk in windows environment to extract data from a digital marine echo sounder/fishfinder datalog file and create a .gpx xml GPS track file); - SQLite; - ... *I think we, all together, could do API upgrade.* *This is, of course (!), not in conflict with TDF donations, TDF project financing and other marketing or future growing things...* Have All a sunny weekend! Carlo -- ing. Carlo Strata - via Botticelli 1/4 30031 Dolo - VE Italia - Italy - tel./fax +39.041.822.0665 cell. +39.347.85.69.824 Skype carlo.strata Google
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 12:27 -0800, Pedro wrote: jmadero wrote No offense at all, I encourage open conversation but I tend to see a one side conversation THERE SHOULD BE A 64 BIT FLYING LIBREOFFICE THAT CAN BAKE ME A CAKE AND CALCULATE A QUADRILLION FORMULAS IN 0.001 SECONDS USING ALL 16 OF MY CORES! - without the other side of the equation - such a product would be incredibly costly and there are thousands of much more important things to get done that will benefit a lot more users. So, having a 64bit Linux version is Ok, creating a 64bit version for MacOS (starting in LO 4.2) is Ok, but asking for a 64bit Windows build is selfish... Interesting. Us Windows users should be ashamed of ourselves... Does MS provide a 64 bit version of MSO office? The last time I checked, MSO did come in separate 32/64 bit versions. One of the major benefits of 64 bit is the database size. But I think Access limits one to 2GB which is the limit for a 32 bit version. Often MS is more fanatic about backwards compatibility so their software is often limited by still supported Windows version. For years the base version of Windows was 32 bit XP. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
2013/11/8 Pedro pedl...@gmail.com jmadero wrote No offense at all, I encourage open conversation but I tend to see a one side conversation THERE SHOULD BE A 64 BIT FLYING LIBREOFFICE THAT CAN BAKE ME A CAKE AND CALCULATE A QUADRILLION FORMULAS IN 0.001 SECONDS USING ALL 16 OF MY CORES! - without the other side of the equation - such a product would be incredibly costly and there are thousands of much more important things to get done that will benefit a lot more users. So, having a 64bit Linux version is Ok, creating a 64bit version for MacOS (starting in LO 4.2) is Ok, but asking for a 64bit Windows build is selfish... Interesting. Us Windows users should be ashamed of ourselves... Having 64bits binary in linux/macos is natural, as everything around is 64bit, and the toolchain is quite easy to handle. On windows, there is two issues regarding this: - 64bit software is not as common as one would expect. Some Java installation are still 32bit, which would break LibreOffice64bit instantly. - Building 64bit binary is somewhat tricky on windows; mingw64 is a way, but when you end up having dependencies that need to be built as 64bit too, and they don't build easily, it gets tedious, to say the least... assuming the code would build at all by just switching compiler target. Not sure of the current state of other open solutions like cygwin regarding this. And using MSVC would be more challenging than anything, as it introduce it's own set of surprise when going from 32bit build to 64bit build. And all that just to have a 64bit binary that would only give more work and no immediate benefit... -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
Clearly the point didn't come across as I hoped. What I'm saying is that our resources are stretched incredibly thin and IMHO this is a waste of time expending so much energy discussing the potential benefits when we have 5,000 or so open bugs that need addressed, probably at least a couple thousand of which are much more important than a 64 bit version on Windows. That being said, if you want to continue listing all the reasons why we need one to anyone who will listen - feel free to do so, I just personally don't think it's very productive or conducive to the best LibreOffice experience. I would hope that some people who have taken so long listing all the great benefits of 64 bit would spend an equal amount of time triaging the 1,200 bugs that are currently UNCONFIRMED and need testers - the # of Windows bugs in particular in that state is disturbing as most users are Windows users. All the best, Joel On 11/08/2013 12:27 PM, Pedro wrote: jmadero wrote No offense at all, I encourage open conversation but I tend to see a one side conversation THERE SHOULD BE A 64 BIT FLYING LIBREOFFICE THAT CAN BAKE ME A CAKE AND CALCULATE A QUADRILLION FORMULAS IN 0.001 SECONDS USING ALL 16 OF MY CORES! - without the other side of the equation - such a product would be incredibly costly and there are thousands of much more important things to get done that will benefit a lot more users. So, having a 64bit Linux version is Ok, creating a 64bit version for MacOS (starting in LO 4.2) is Ok, but asking for a 64bit Windows build is selfish... Interesting. Us Windows users should be ashamed of ourselves... -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/64-bit-tp4081444p4082136.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
And there's also the Open Source Answer: if users think that such a project would be worthwhile they can band together, take the code, and try to port it themselves. On 11/8/2013 1:41 PM, Joel Madero wrote: Clearly the point didn't come across as I hoped. What I'm saying is that our resources are stretched incredibly thin and IMHO this is a waste of time expending so much energy discussing the potential benefits when we have 5,000 or so open bugs that need addressed, probably at least a couple thousand of which are much more important than a 64 bit version on Windows. That being said, if you want to continue listing all the reasons why we need one to anyone who will listen - feel free to do so, I just personally don't think it's very productive or conducive to the best LibreOffice experience. I would hope that some people who have taken so long listing all the great benefits of 64 bit would spend an equal amount of time triaging the 1,200 bugs that are currently UNCONFIRMED and need testers - the # of Windows bugs in particular in that state is disturbing as most users are Windows users. All the best, Joel On 11/08/2013 12:27 PM, Pedro wrote: jmadero wrote No offense at all, I encourage open conversation but I tend to see a one side conversation THERE SHOULD BE A 64 BIT FLYING LIBREOFFICE THAT CAN BAKE ME A CAKE AND CALCULATE A QUADRILLION FORMULAS IN 0.001 SECONDS USING ALL 16 OF MY CORES! - without the other side of the equation - such a product would be incredibly costly and there are thousands of much more important things to get done that will benefit a lot more users. So, having a 64bit Linux version is Ok, creating a 64bit version for MacOS (starting in LO 4.2) is Ok, but asking for a 64bit Windows build is selfish... Interesting. Us Windows users should be ashamed of ourselves... -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/64-bit-tp4081444p4082136.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
On 11/07/2013 07:29 AM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) 2 possible ways to make it go faster Toolos - Options - Memory and just ramp everything up that looks vaguely relevant. I tend to take things up to at least 20Mb but perhaps even higher like 200Mb might be better. Also which format are you using? If native Ods then that should be a lot faster and better than MS's formats and especially better than the one with X on the end, such as .XlsX Third is to use a dedicated spreadsheet tool for hefty jobs like that. Gnumeric knocks the spots off Excel and leaves it far behind in your rear-view mirror. Again it's best if using it's native Ods format that is also native to LibreOffice. However even if your file is in XlsX then Gnumeric can still open it https://projects.gnome.org/gnumeric/ It's not particularly unusual to have MS Office, LO (or AOO) and Gnumeric all on the same machine, perhaps with Scribus or some other proper DTP in addition. Office Suites are meant to be a jack of all trades but not necessarily master of any. While Writer and Draw are more like DTPs than Word they are still not dedicated to that sort of thing and getting a proper tool such as Scribus or some LaTeX package takes it to the next level. Similarly with Gnumeric. It doesn't have to worry about side-issues so it can focus on purely spreadsheet functionality. Non-OpenSource tries to make 1 monolithic program to do everything but in OpenSource world we are more into the idea of having different specialist programs co-operating with each other. LibreOffice is quite unusual in that regard because it combines several different sorts of things but that usually works out superbly in LOs case. However, there are times when it's best to find the specialist tool instead Regards from Tom :) Reminds me of the good old days of DOS, when Lotus had 1-2-3, Ashton-Tate had dBase, and WordPerfect had, well, WordPerfect. Three different programs that each dominated their respective fields. Rather than office suites we had integrated programs like MS Works, or Claris Works and Perfect Works. They were truly the one-program-does-everything-but-not-necessarily-well. Serious users avoided the works programs and used the dedicated, but narrowly tailored program. Thanks, Tom, for the Gnumeric tip. I just tried it today, and like it. But, then, my spreadsheets are extremely simple affairs. Speaking of DOS, rather than clamoring for a 64-bit programs running on multi-core processors, I would prefer to go back the fastest computer I ever used... a 286 machine with a 20 meg. hard drive running DOS, PC-Write and As-Easy-As, a shareware 1-2-3 clone. Man, it blazed! Virgil -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
+ 1 - Mensaje original - De: Pedro pedl...@gmail.com Para: users@global.libreoffice.org Enviados: Viernes, 8 de Noviembre 2013 16:28:51 Asunto: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit mariosv wrote I love to waste my time as I please. And as I know this is an open project, everyone is free to take their choice about this thread as he/she likes, so I would pleased not being told about what must be my choice. +1 mariosv wrote On the last months there is in development a deep work in the calc core, to get a better performance and set up the basics for further improvements. What I think will bring more benefits on the performance than a 64 bits version. So maybe we should have some patience, leaving the steps going on their own time. I know and I agree, Miguel. I just don't agree with the logic don't ask for a 64bit version because it's very time consuming and expensive and you don't need it anyway. Why do Linux and Mac people need it more than Windows people? Do they work with files larger than 4Gb? Isn't the cost per developer hour the same? If there is no advantage why do developers bother at all? -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/64-bit-tp4081444p4082156.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
On 11/08/2013 02:16 PM, mariosv wrote: I love to waste my time as I please. And as I know this is an open project, everyone is free to take their choice about this thread as he/she likes, so I would pleased not being told about what must be my choice. +1, my apologies. All the best, Joel -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
Hi :) 2 possible ways to make it go faster Toolos - Options - Memory and just ramp everything up that looks vaguely relevant. I tend to take things up to at least 20Mb but perhaps even higher like 200Mb might be better. Also which format are you using? If native Ods then that should be a lot faster and better than MS's formats and especially better than the one with X on the end, such as .XlsX Third is to use a dedicated spreadsheet tool for hefty jobs like that. Gnumeric knocks the spots off Excel and leaves it far behind in your rear-view mirror. Again it's best if using it's native Ods format that is also native to LibreOffice. However even if your file is in XlsX then Gnumeric can still open it https://projects.gnome.org/gnumeric/ It's not particularly unusual to have MS Office, LO (or AOO) and Gnumeric all on the same machine, perhaps with Scribus or some other proper DTP in addition. Office Suites are meant to be a jack of all trades but not necessarily master of any. While Writer and Draw are more like DTPs than Word they are still not dedicated to that sort of thing and getting a proper tool such as Scribus or some LaTeX package takes it to the next level. Similarly with Gnumeric. It doesn't have to worry about side-issues so it can focus on purely spreadsheet functionality. Non-OpenSource tries to make 1 monolithic program to do everything but in OpenSource world we are more into the idea of having different specialist programs co-operating with each other. LibreOffice is quite unusual in that regard because it combines several different sorts of things but that usually works out superbly in LOs case. However, there are times when it's best to find the specialist tool instead Regards from Tom :) H On 7 November 2013 05:44, Denis Navas Vega denis.na...@gmail.com wrote: El 2013-11-05 05:51 p.m., Pedro escribió: krackedpress wrote The next thing people will insist on is LO being designed to run on all 2, 4, 6, or even 8 cores of the CPU at the same time to make it even faster. Do you really think it makes sense that Calc and Base are not prepared to use all the computing power available? Why do you think TDF and AMD are trying to bring GPU calculation to LO? Because Calc (I haven't even tried Base...) is absurdly slow! A heavy calculation spreadsheet I have takes 50 seconds to open in Excel 2010 and takes more than 10 *minutes* to open in Calc! (both 32bit versions) No wonder Kohei Yoshida (one of, if not *the* main Calc developer) said recently (August 2013): You can’t compare Calc with Excel yet. They are still miles ahead of us. When Calc is able to use all cores and threads and eventually 64bit operations then it might be on par... Why do you assume the OP isn't doing number crunching? -- View this message in context: http://nabble. documentfoundation.org/64-bit-tp4081444p4081605.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. I won't insist on 64 bits, because I use machines that work on 32 bits, but the affirmation that Excel is more faster than Calc is true. I have been working the last six weeks with databases from a census, and can confirm the following: -- Calc is really slow with lots of data. When the book requires more than 384 MB of memory, it slows down to an impractical speed. Days ago, I spent the whole day building a crosstab. Open/Save is really slow and does not help a different file format to speed up things. Another difficult thing, is with sorting and filtering. Is slow too. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to- unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
On 11/05/2013 06:51 PM, Pedro wrote: krackedpress wrote The next thing people will insist on is LO being designed to run on all 2, 4, 6, or even 8 cores of the CPU at the same time to make it even faster. Do you really think it makes sense that Calc and Base are not prepared to use all the computing power available? Why do you think TDF and AMD are trying to bring GPU calculation to LO? Because Calc (I haven't even tried Base...) is absurdly slow! A heavy calculation spreadsheet I have takes 50 seconds to open in Excel 2010 and takes more than 10 *minutes* to open in Calc! (both 32bit versions) No wonder Kohei Yoshida (one of, if not *the* main Calc developer) said recently (August 2013): You can’t compare Calc with Excel yet. They are still miles ahead of us. When Calc is able to use all cores and threads and eventually 64bit operations then it might be on par... Why do you assume the OP isn't doing number crunching? To be honest, number crunching on a GPU is better than a CPU, since GPUs were designed to number crunch. Look at the newer CUDA and ATI GPU cards. They have 32, 64, 128, 512, or more cores or streams. There is a movement to create systems that are GPU based instead of CPU based. The gaming systems are almost all GPU based, since they do not need to run traditional packages that a home or business computer needs to work with. Well, the Excel vs. Calc speed comparison on the same system [32-bit] is a different thing than making a 64-bit version of LO or a GPU based LO package. The difference between Calc and Excel may be the efficiency of the coding. There are still a lot of old legacy code in LO that is being worked on to make it work better and much more efficient. Just saying we need to create a 64-bit version of LO to fix the speed issues is not really solving that issue. As for making LO work with a GPU card, well I would not be surprised that not too long from now, both Windows and Linux will have a version that is GPU based. That is one of the things that would make our current systems faster without replacing the motherboard or CPU. Just buy a newer, faster, GPU for the system. This is what the gamers do currently. The price of these faster GPUs are going down. For $100, I could buy a GPU 3 to 4 time faster than one I could buy 2 or 3 years ago. The GPU speeds per price is a much better ratio than the CPU speed per price. You just get more speed or number crunching power for you money with a GPU card, compared to the CPU/motherboard costs. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
2013/11/6 Kracked_P_P---webmaster webmas...@krackedpress.com To be honest, number crunching on a GPU is better than a CPU, since GPUs were designed to number crunch. Look at the newer CUDA and ATI GPU cards. They have 32, 64, 128, 512, or more cores or streams. There is a movement to create systems that are GPU based instead of CPU based. The gaming systems are almost all GPU based, since they do not need to run traditional packages that a home or business computer needs to work with. Well, the Excel vs. Calc speed comparison on the same system [32-bit] is a different thing than making a 64-bit version of LO or a GPU based LO package. The difference between Calc and Excel may be the efficiency of the coding. There are still a lot of old legacy code in LO that is being worked on to make it work better and much more efficient. Just saying we need to create a 64-bit version of LO to fix the speed issues is not really solving that issue. As for making LO work with a GPU card, well I would not be surprised that not too long from now, both Windows and Linux will have a version that is GPU based. That is one of the things that would make our current systems faster without replacing the motherboard or CPU. Just buy a newer, faster, GPU for the system. This is what the gamers do currently. The price of these faster GPUs are going down. For $100, I could buy a GPU 3 to 4 time faster than one I could buy 2 or 3 years ago. The GPU speeds per price is a much better ratio than the CPU speed per price. You just get more speed or number crunching power for you money with a GPU card, compared to the CPU/motherboard costs. Whoa, you're leaping way too fast here. GPU are better at number crunching, but only at that, and litteraly at number crunching. Branching, working with the rest of the hardware, interrupts, and even some kind of float or integer operation are not exactly their shining part. I agree that moving the *relevant* operations to GPU-based hardware can (and actually do) provide a very large boost, but the kind of operation that benefit from them is really limited. There is a reason we still have those general-purpose CPU around you know. Talking about windows or linux systems that are GPU based is a bit of a stretch. Even for LO Calc, formulas that are more complicated than add x and y, for example using lookup functions, statistical functions and other funny stuff would probably not run better on GPU. One of the key point of the GPU (or GPGPU, general purpose GPU) performance boost is that you can handle *arithmetic operations* that are *massively* parallel, not that you have a lot of raw computing power. -- Cley Faye http://cleyfaye.net -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: 64 bit
On 11/06/2013 11:18 AM, Gabriel Risterucci wrote: 2013/11/6 Kracked_P_P---webmaster webmas...@krackedpress.com To be honest, number crunching on a GPU is better than a CPU, since GPUs were designed to number crunch. Look at the newer CUDA and ATI GPU cards. They have 32, 64, 128, 512, or more cores or streams. There is a movement to create systems that are GPU based instead of CPU based. The gaming systems are almost all GPU based, since they do not need to run traditional packages that a home or business computer needs to work with. Well, the Excel vs. Calc speed comparison on the same system [32-bit] is a different thing than making a 64-bit version of LO or a GPU based LO package. The difference between Calc and Excel may be the efficiency of the coding. There are still a lot of old legacy code in LO that is being worked on to make it work better and much more efficient. Just saying we need to create a 64-bit version of LO to fix the speed issues is not really solving that issue. As for making LO work with a GPU card, well I would not be surprised that not too long from now, both Windows and Linux will have a version that is GPU based. That is one of the things that would make our current systems faster without replacing the motherboard or CPU. Just buy a newer, faster, GPU for the system. This is what the gamers do currently. The price of these faster GPUs are going down. For $100, I could buy a GPU 3 to 4 time faster than one I could buy 2 or 3 years ago. The GPU speeds per price is a much better ratio than the CPU speed per price. You just get more speed or number crunching power for you money with a GPU card, compared to the CPU/motherboard costs. Whoa, you're leaping way too fast here. GPU are better at number crunching, but only at that, and litteraly at number crunching. Branching, working with the rest of the hardware, interrupts, and even some kind of float or integer operation are not exactly their shining part. I agree that moving the *relevant* operations to GPU-based hardware can (and actually do) provide a very large boost, but the kind of operation that benefit from them is really limited. There is a reason we still have those general-purpose CPU around you know. Talking about windows or linux systems that are GPU based is a bit of a stretch. Even for LO Calc, formulas that are more complicated than add x and y, for example using lookup functions, statistical functions and other funny stuff would probably not run better on GPU. One of the key point of the GPU (or GPGPU, general purpose GPU) performance boost is that you can handle *arithmetic operations* that are *massively* parallel, not that you have a lot of raw computing power. The real thing needed is to make the LO Calc coding more efficient than it is now. Just giving it a new place to do the number crunching will not solve the true issue of why Calc is slower than Excel. Once the developers clean up the legacy coding in the Calc code objects, and make as much as possible more efficient, then people should be happier about how long it takes Calc to do it work. To be strictly honest, the future will be a system that takes the best of the CPU and GPU computing options and blend them into a system where the OS can use the most efficient route to do the work, and then write software packages to do the same. Also, not too many OSs and packages can take advantage of a multi-core system to bring all 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, or more cores, to do the processing of the package running. There are a few though. I have 4 cores and I see many times where one core is running at 90+% while the others are running under 15 or 20% for the other packages I have open in the background. As I type this, each core is running between 0% and 4 % at 1.15 GHz. So I am not taxing the CPu so I am not running at the 2.30 GHz max speed of the processor. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
