Hi :) Good point. I only had the anti-malware stuff running. None of the usual other windows open.
On Windows machines i typically have 2 running. 1. Microsoft Security Essentials, the one that kinda forces it's way onto your system through automatic updates and stuff even if you don't want it 2. A free one. Usually AVG in the company where i kinda work. In a different place i might be using a different one but AVG seems reasonably ok to me. On machines that are desperately slow running like that i switch off one or the other. Usually the MS one because i still don't completely trust it yet. The number 1 job of any malware has to be to either knock-out the anti-malware stuff or find a way to permanently bypass it without raising any alarms. So anti-malware stuff needs to think in a very different way from whatever in-built security might be around. I don't have any confidence in MS being able to do that. I think a 3rd party program is more likely to have different structures. On the other hand MS might have more of an idea where all their most well-known flaws are and might be able to structure their one to deal with likely threats. So, who knows which is going to be best in the next years or so. Regards from Tom :) >________________________________ > From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster <webmas...@krackedpress.com> >To: users@global.libreoffice.org >Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 14:56 >Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speed > > > >Actually my 3 second test, as stated in a past post, was with 3 >utilities open on the screen and 2 or 3 Firefox browser windows open. >The utilities are always loaded at boot by my choice. I have several FF >windows open with many tabs involved. That is part of my "normal" >desktop use so I do not have to keep opening those pages every day or >so, and sometimes 3 or 6 times a day. > >So with all that background packages, 3 seconds is not bad at all for a >Ubuntu 12.04LTS system. > >Now on my Win7 laptops, well that is a different story, or similar >maybe. I have a "ton" of security packages loaded up at boot time. >Also there are some utilities and other options loaded, like printer >management and other "stuff" like that. So there is much more packages >running in the background with the Win7 laptops - both dual core but >different power - so click to splash to ready for work will take >longer. To be honest, I am one of those people that believes that >Windows is a OS that can be easily infected with "nasties" so you must >have a lot of security utilities running to keep that from happening. I >know some fools that do not even run anti-virus packages. They say "why >bother", "I am safe", "I never go to sites that will infect me", or my >favorite "It will never happen to me. You are just paranoid". > >So, the key is that fact that LO is faster loading to a usable state, >now, than it was last year. Also, it is not the speed to the splash >screen, but the speed of how long it will take till you are able to use >the package. > >So if you run all of the security package, like I do, on Windows it >will take longer to load up completely than with less security. The >same with Linux and how much is running in the background. The same >system, down to the exact same CPU, RAM, drive, OS, etc., will take >different times depending on what is installed and running. Even a >fragmented drive will reduce the load and usage speeds. > >So let us just say LO is loading faster than before and if a person >cannot wait for a few seconds for load time, then they will not be happy >with most packages out there that does similar "work". Tablets can be >worse load times for their packages and I know of no one locally who has >complained about that. > > > >On 08/06/2013 07:06 AM, Andrew Brown wrote: >> Ha! Ha! there you go, LO just runs on whatever platform and O/S of >> your choice. And for the most part, what is a minute or less really >> from switch on to productive use of something. I can't make a cup of >> tea in that time, and I mean a real brewed cup of tea. Now at least >> the movies can show an actor sitting down in front of a PC and almost >> instantly start to work on it, I used to laugh at this in the past :-P >> >> Regards >> >> Andrew >> >> On 06/08/2013 04:12 AM, Virgil Arrington wrote: >>> On 08/05/2013 05:03 PM, Tom Davies wrote: >>>> Hi :) >>>> That is weird. >>>> >>>> >>>> On this fairly crumby laptop, 2.2GHz (hmmm, not so crumby after all) >>>> it took about 0-1 seconds for the LO splash-screen to appear. Same >>>> on my really nice desktop, 1.86GHz (hmmm, not so nice after all!). >>>> Both running Ubuntu and fairly old versions of LO (i think). >>>> Meanwhile on Windows 2.93GHz it took about 1s to open Writer >>>> completely. Didn't even have time to see the splash screen. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I have a Sony Vaio laptop. I'm running a dual boot Windows 7 and >>> Linux Mint 15 (running in the Windows WUBI installer). I just started >>> using LO 4 on the Linux Mint side and immediately noticed how much >>> faster it runs on Mint rather than Win7. I'm sure there are a lot of >>> variables, and I haven't tested them all, but so far, I'm really >>> pleased with the performance of LO on Mint. >>> >>> 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 > > > -- 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
