Hi, Quoting Dan Kegel from http://www.winehq.org/?issue=305 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 one of those cheapo 128MB boxes that uses shared video RAM). This was on a zippy Compaq Presario 3000 Athlon 64 3000+. All apps were downloaded from openoffice.org and mozilla.com. Results for first run of app after booting (1st column is startup time): 5 Firefox run1 native 416MB 12 Firefox run1 wine 416MB 11 Firefox run1 native 96MB 15 Firefox run1 wine 96MB 11 ooo run1 native 416MB 15 ooo run1 wine 416MB 60 ooo run1 native 96MB 37 ooo run1 wine 96MB So wine is 1.4 to 2.5 times slower at app startup generally, but when ram is really short, win32 openoffice starts up with wine 1.5 times *faster* than the native linux version! (Maybe because the Microsoft tools are better at avoiding I/O or relocations during loading?) I then measured how long it took to start up the app the second time, when the cache was nice and hot: 3 Firefox run2 native 416MB 4 Firefox run2 wine 416MB 4 ooo run2 native 416MB 6 ooo run2 wine 416MB 4 Firefox run2 native 96MB 6 Firefox run2 wine 96MB 36 ooo run2 native 96MB 28 ooo run2 wine 96MB The times are uniformly faster on the second run, but the patter holds, i.e. wine is 1.4-1.5 times slower than native generally, but win32 openoffice under wine is 1.5 times *faster* than the native version when starved for RAM. There was concern FC5 might be throwing off the results, but Dan tried with Ubuntu 5.10 and found similar results. == Do you have any suggestions of the cause that OOo Linux version is slower than Windows one? -- Marius Andreiana -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
