Board index » kylix » Re: Linux into the limelight

Re: Linux into the limelight


2004-02-06 01:31:20 AM
kylix1
Ender wrote:
Quote
>>Bob { Goddard } wrote:
>>>This means nothing unless you tell us how much memory it has to
>>>begin with.

>>Ok. Going to bother secretary again... At start Word XP take ~9Mb,
>>after loading 700K document it take 13Mb.

BG>No, you misunderstand. How much physical memory does the PC have to
BG>begin with? No how much memory does the app take.

Sorry i'm barely understand in what amount of memory you interested. I
mistaken when i wrote about Windows and Office versions.

Our secretary work with Windows 2000 Prof, 128Mb of total physical RAM.
Before MS Word 2000 start it has 64Mb of free physical RAM, after start it
has 55Mb of RAM free, after loading ~700K document it has 51Mb free.

My home PC is Windows XP with 384Mb ot total physical RAM.
Before MS Word XP start it has 148Mb of free physical RAM, after Word XP
start it has 134Mb of RAM free, after loading ~1.4Mb document (60 pages
with rich graphic) it has 121Mb free.
As I'm sure you understand from the above, all this does is show
that the amount of memory an app uses, either at the start or
having been used, largely depends on how much memory is available.
Or to put it another way..... You cannot compare the memory
used by WordXP on a system with 128MB with one running
OpenOffice with 512MB since the o/s with OO running will
load more of the app to fill the available space.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 
 

Re:Re: Linux into the limelight

Bob { Goddard } wrote:
Quote
As I'm sure you understand from the above, all this does is show
that the amount of memory an app uses, either at the start or
having been used, largely depends on how much memory is available.
Or to put it another way..... You cannot compare the memory
used by WordXP on a system with 128MB with one running
OpenOffice with 512MB since the o/s with OO running will
load more of the app to fill the available space.
Sorry, but i cannot agree. Before upgrading of my office PC i have 384Mb of
memory. Numbers for OpenOffice.Writer has not changed at all.
 

Re:Re: Linux into the limelight

Ender wrote:
Quote
Bob { Goddard } wrote:
>As I'm sure you understand from the above, all this does is show
>that the amount of memory an app uses, either at the start or
>having been used, largely depends on how much memory is available.
>Or to put it another way..... You cannot compare the memory
>used by WordXP on a system with 128MB with one running
>OpenOffice with 512MB since the o/s with OO running will
>load more of the app to fill the available space.

Sorry, but i cannot agree. Before upgrading of my office PC i have 384Mb
of memory. Numbers for OpenOffice.Writer has not changed at all.
Then stick to your development job.
I've had to size systems properly before and your method
is quite honestly, laughable. If you want to begin to get an idea
of how much memory a system requires, then start with a system
which when loaded up with your app, is able to load it without
touching any form of swap space.
You seem to be incapable of undestanding how modern systems work.
I'll give you a clue, caching, read-ahead, page aging, copy-on-write,
swap, page-file, speculative loading, memory mapping.
You have not shown whether OO or Word uses more memory under
ideal conditions.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Linux into the limelight

Bob { Goddard } wrote:
Quote
Then stick to your development job.
I've had to size systems properly before and your method
is quite honestly, laughable.
Well please explain what method is correct. How to determine how much
physical memory used by application? For Windows and for Linux.
Quote
If you want to begin to get an idea
of how much memory a system requires, then start with a system
which when loaded up with your app, is able to load it without
touching any form of swap space.
You seem to be incapable of undestanding how modern systems work.
I'll give you a clue, caching, read-ahead, page aging, copy-on-write,
swap, page-file, speculative loading, memory mapping.
You have not shown whether OO or Word uses more memory under
ideal conditions.
What is "ideal" conditions?
 

Re:Re: Linux into the limelight

Ender wrote:
Quote
Bob { Goddard } wrote:
>Then stick to your development job.
>I've had to size systems properly before and your method
>is quite honestly, laughable.

Well please explain what method is correct. How to determine how much
physical memory used by application? For Windows and for Linux.
I gave you it in the next paragraph.
Quote
>If you want to begin to get an idea
>of how much memory a system requires, then start with a system
>which when loaded up with your app, is able to load it without
>touching any form of swap space.

>You seem to be incapable of undestanding how modern systems work.
>I'll give you a clue, caching, read-ahead, page aging, copy-on-write,
>swap, page-file, speculative loading, memory mapping.
>You have not shown whether OO or Word uses more memory under
>ideal conditions.

What is "ideal" conditions?
Nothing else loaded, no services, no daemon, and above all
no paging/swapping.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

Re:Re: Linux into the limelight

Quote
Borland learned the hard way that proprietary and Open Source just don't mix
very well. Companies like Oracle and Sun will learn the same lesson
eventually.
What borland learned the hard way is that distros are updated every 6
months and if you are going to depend on winelib and qt lib you better
update your software. They also learned that Linux developers arent
interested in Pascal or Pascal in C++'s clothing.
 

Re:Re: Linux into the limelight

Quote
Borland learned the hard way that proprietary and Open Source just don't mix
very well. Companies like Oracle and Sun will learn the same lesson
eventually.

Guess we'll have to refund the 25k we just paid to Oracle to run their
db on Red Hat Advanced server. We better also get our $2,500 back
from Red hat. We arent using linux because it cheap.
 

Re:Re: Linux into the limelight

Mike Margerum wrote:
Quote
>Borland learned the hard way that proprietary and Open Source just don't
>mix
>very well. Companies like Oracle and Sun will learn the same lesson
>eventually.
>

Guess we'll have to refund the 25k we just paid to Oracle to run their
db on Red Hat Advanced server. We better also get our $2,500 back
from Red hat. We arent using linux because it cheap.
Aboslutely Mike.
While you are at it, please ask Oracle to get Microsoft to fund their next
round of server testing concerning security, benchmarking, load balancing,
scalability features, and cost effectiveness. That way, we can have a FAIR
AND BALANCED REPORT AND NOT SOME REPORT BASED UPON REAL WORLD EXEPERIENCE,
which we all know is an absoltely ridiculous way to test! :):):)
 

Re:Re: Linux into the limelight

Quote
Would you care to describe what features are missing in detail? I do not
know of anything missing in say Open Office 1.1 that are in MS Office,
unless you are referring to Access. Then there is KNoda, which while in
beta, is still pretty good in the latest incarnation. mySQL BTW, is much
more powerful, robust, and scalable than Access. I do not even think the
Windows weenies would argue about that. :)

Rekall is a good option too and is GPL now.
Quote
As stated, most of the time, released open source versions are more stable
than their commercial counterparts. Marketing does not drive Open Source,
like it does commercial software.

Server stuff i'd agree but the desktop apps do not have the finish of
commercialy windows apps. yet.
Quote
Open source development is not driven by market force, but by programmers.
Naturally, you would have better products when programmers, not some non IT
marketing and sales managers, coupled with PMs that do not know a "for
loop" from a "do while loop", are driving development.

Which is exactly the reason most linux desktop apps are buggy. Its
not nearly as e{*word*277}d to fix bugs as it is to code/design.
Quote
Again, you make generalized comments without providing a single example. In
this case, you are obviosuly ignorant of what these Linux apps offer.

I too get a kick out of people who are self described linux experts
after install red hat 5.2 4 years ago and still making assumptions
based on that experience.
Quote
In fact since nearly every Linux application is Open Source, you can go to
the very source code and fix, modify, or personally or corporately
customize anything you wish. Try that with MS Office, Access, Publisher.
Front Page, etc.

With all due respect, I wont be downloading the code for openOffice
anytime soon and fixing it. I'd still like it to work without me
having to break out my compiler.
Quote
Linux and Unix, have always contained 90% more and better scripting tools
than MS OSes ever have or ever will.

True. m$ is actually hurting themselves by not including perl and/or
python in their distro.
Quote
>7. Often when something wrong happening does not notify user about error.


Yes those GPF's on windows are very self explanatory.
Quote
>9. Work slower. This may be not noticeable on high-end machines, but
>clearly visible on low-end systems and large documents.

Gotta agree here. KDE, Gnome, Mozilla, and OpenOffice as memory hogs.
I created a vmware session with 256mb of ram and OO wouldnt even start
up. I can run office and IE in 2000 with the same config just fine.
Quote
I would say Excel speed and GNUMetric is about even stevens, both on modern
hardware. GNUMetric, Abi-Word, GNUCash, KWord, KPresentations, and DIA
actually require less RAM than say Office 2000 and up, Quicken, or Visio.

Unless you are a die hard number cruncher or novel author, openOffice
is perfectly acceptable.
 

Re:Re: Linux into the limelight

Quote
>What is "ideal" conditions?
BG>Nothing else loaded, no services, no daemon, and above all no
BG>paging/swapping.
:-)))) So you claim that even if you have 1Gb of memory you should create
that "ideal" conditions to measure how much of physical RAM application
takes? How about 2Gb? This is laughable, seems you one from the guys who
think that they understand that smart words like "caching, read-ahead, page
aging, copy-on-write, swap, page-file, speculative loading, memory mapping"
but fail to understand "common sense".
Ok. Specifically for that case i'm disabled all possible daemons and monitor
swap space which usage was 0 during entrie process. Numbers for Open Office
was not changed, not on a bit.
 

Re:Re: Linux into the limelight

Quote
>Borland learned the hard way that proprietary and Open Source just
>don't mix very well. Companies like Oracle and Sun will learn the
>same lesson eventually.
MM>What borland learned the hard way is that distros are updated every
MM>6 months and if you are going to depend on winelib and qt lib you
MM>better update your software. They also learned that Linux
MM>developers arent interested in Pascal or Pascal in C++'s clothing.
It is extremely easy to lose interest in any language/development tool when
it is not updated and full of bugs, independently from language.