Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1

    Tezz27000's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 25, 2007
    Posts
    12
    Specs:
    Mac Mini (early 06) 1.66GHz Core Duo, 1.25GB RAM, 250GB HD, Tiger + eMac G4 1GHz, 768MB RAM, 40GB HD
    why do word processors take so long to start up
    How come word processors take so long to start up. I just got NeoOffice because i was so annoyed with how long it took MS office applications to launch. As it stands NeoOffice takes 24 seconds and MS Word takes 30 seconds which is quite ludicrous considering that my computer only takes 36 seconds to start up, what are these applications doing with all this time.

  2. #2

    cwa107's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 20, 2006
    Location
    Lake Mary, Florida
    Posts
    26,947
    Specs:
    15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD
    Quote Originally Posted by Tezz27000 View Post
    How come word processors take so long to start up. I just got NeoOffice because i was so annoyed with how long it took MS office applications to launch. As it stands NeoOffice takes 24 seconds and MS Word takes 30 seconds which is quite ludicrous considering that my computer only takes 36 seconds to start up, what are these applications doing with all this time.
    MS Word is not a universal binary. So if you're running it on an Intel Mac, it will take more time to start due to its need to run under Rosetta emulation.

    NeoOffice has always been this way, although it's gotten better in recent versions. Make sure you have the latest (2.1, I believe) it only takes about 10-15 seconds to open for me.

    Don't forget about TextEdit. It may not look like much, but it's got plenty of features found in Word Processors and it's pretty darned quick to start. Also, if you've only got 512MB of RAM, you might consider upgrading to 1GB - that should speed just about everything up dramatically.
    Liquid and computers don't mix. It might seem simple, but we see an incredible amount of people post here about spills. Keep drinks and other liquids away from your expensive electronics!

    https://youtu.be/KHZ8ek-6ccc

  3. #3

    Tezz27000's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 25, 2007
    Posts
    12
    Specs:
    Mac Mini (early 06) 1.66GHz Core Duo, 1.25GB RAM, 250GB HD, Tiger + eMac G4 1GHz, 768MB RAM, 40GB HD
    your right it's quite definately the emulation with MS word as it only takes 10 seconds with my old 1Ghz 768Mb ram eMac. I do use TextEdit when i can but for the most part i need a program that has better fidelity with MS Office as just about everyone else uses it.

  4. #4

    wheels5894's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 09, 2007
    Posts
    47
    you don't say what hardware you are using so this may play a part. I am running Opern Office 2.2 on a windows XP machine, Athlon dual core 3800 and my time is 5secs. I did it 3 times before I saw what was happening. I was watching one of my screen and the came straight on the other screen. Microsoft Word XP does the same.

    I hope a Mac expert can think of something for you.
    wheel-chairing househusband who enjoys cooking singing and music an Early Jewish History

  5. #5

    Kash's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 03, 2006
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    9,385
    Specs:
    Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
    I don't blame Office for loading so slowly because I know why it does so, but I can't figure out why OpenOffice/NeoOffice take so long to load, despite being Universal binaries. I guess this is the one reason why I can't ever use the latter seriously.

    Most of the time, I use Pages. I absolutely love it, loads in just a few seconds. Though I've noticed many of my programs loading quicker since I upgraded to 2GB of RAM....

  6. #6

    dtravis7's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 04, 2005
    Location
    Modesto, Ca.
    Posts
    28,980
    Specs:
    iMac 2010 27" QuadI7 OSX10.11, iMac 2008 OSX10.11, MBP Late2011OSX10.11 , iPad Air, iPhone 3GS
    Yeah agreed. Pages loads fast. NeoOffice even on my iMac G5 2.1 Ghz takes a while to load so it's not just on the Intel Macs.

    Open Office is slower loading because it also has to load X11 first before it can open, but NeoOffice does not use X11.

    There is also AbiWord. It loads real fast. AbiWord opens here in less then 2 seconds!

  7. #7

    knightlie's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 22, 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,463
    Specs:
    Lenovo Z560 Hackintosh -:- '06 iMac -:- iPod Touch 2ndGen
    NeoOffice is a Java app, nes pas? That's bound to have an affect on loading time.
    [URL="http://beadia.net"]Beadia[/URL - Jewelry Business Management Software]
    I judge you when you use poor grammar.

  8. #8


    Member Since
    Mar 30, 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,744
    Specs:
    12" Apple PowerBook G4 (1.5GHz)
    Quote Originally Posted by knightlie View Post
    NeoOffice is a Java app, nes pas? That's bound to have an affect on loading time.
    Bingo. NeoOffice uses Java (instead of X11 like OpenOffice) and that's a huge performance drain.

    On my PowerPC Mac, Word takes <5 seconds to open, and Word is pretty bloated. NeoOffice took upwards of 40 seconds.

    I expect that Word 2008 will be faster for Intel Mac users.

  9. #9

    Tezz27000's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 25, 2007
    Posts
    12
    Specs:
    Mac Mini (early 06) 1.66GHz Core Duo, 1.25GB RAM, 250GB HD, Tiger + eMac G4 1GHz, 768MB RAM, 40GB HD
    so it all boils down to emulation, Java for NeoOffice and Rosetta for MS Office.

  10. #10

    knightlie's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 22, 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,463
    Specs:
    Lenovo Z560 Hackintosh -:- '06 iMac -:- iPod Touch 2ndGen
    Java isn't emulated, it's a Virtual Machine. NeoOffice takes 15 seconds to start on my MacBook C2D.
    [URL="http://beadia.net"]Beadia[/URL - Jewelry Business Management Software]
    I judge you when you use poor grammar.

  11. #11

    Tezz27000's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 25, 2007
    Posts
    12
    Specs:
    Mac Mini (early 06) 1.66GHz Core Duo, 1.25GB RAM, 250GB HD, Tiger + eMac G4 1GHz, 768MB RAM, 40GB HD
    and the difference is....

  12. #12

    knightlie's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 22, 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,463
    Specs:
    Lenovo Z560 Hackintosh -:- '06 iMac -:- iPod Touch 2ndGen
    ...that a virtual machine is not an emulator.
    [URL="http://beadia.net"]Beadia[/URL - Jewelry Business Management Software]
    I judge you when you use poor grammar.

  13. #13

    Tezz27000's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 25, 2007
    Posts
    12
    Specs:
    Mac Mini (early 06) 1.66GHz Core Duo, 1.25GB RAM, 250GB HD, Tiger + eMac G4 1GHz, 768MB RAM, 40GB HD
    that didnt answer my question at all, what is the actual difference?

  14. #14

    cwa107's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 20, 2006
    Location
    Lake Mary, Florida
    Posts
    26,947
    Specs:
    15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD
    Quote Originally Posted by Tezz27000 View Post
    that didnt answer my question at all, what is the actual difference?
    Under emulation, the CPU has to pretend to be a different CPU translating commands on-the-fly while attempting to run a program. This can be very taxing and adds another degree of overhead.

    Under Java, a program is compiled to run on a 'virtual machine' so that it is capable of being run cross-platform - that is - as long as you have an OS that can run a version of Java, any Java program will run on your machine. The developer doesn't have to cater to a specific OS. Again, this adds a layer of complexity and hinders performance to some extent.
    Liquid and computers don't mix. It might seem simple, but we see an incredible amount of people post here about spills. Keep drinks and other liquids away from your expensive electronics!

    https://youtu.be/KHZ8ek-6ccc

  15. #15

    knightlie's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 22, 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,463
    Specs:
    Lenovo Z560 Hackintosh -:- '06 iMac -:- iPod Touch 2ndGen
    Quote Originally Posted by cwa107 View Post
    Under emulation, the CPU has to pretend to be a different CPU translating commands on-the-fly while attempting to run a program. This can be very taxing and adds another degree of overhead.

    Under Java, a program is compiled to run on a 'virtual machine' so that it is capable of being run cross-platform - that is - as long as you have an OS that can run a version of Java, any Java program will run on your machine. The developer doesn't have to cater to a specific OS. Again, this adds a layer of complexity and hinders performance to some extent.
    What cwa said. A VM is more efficient than emulation, but does add a layer of slowness.
    [URL="http://beadia.net"]Beadia[/URL - Jewelry Business Management Software]
    I judge you when you use poor grammar.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. multiple word processors
    By ipsdude in forum OS X - Operating System
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-25-2010, 04:02 PM
  2. Word processors on new Macs...
    By Willravel in forum OS X - Apps and Games
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-10-2007, 10:59 PM
  3. Free word processors for mac
    By Angelojoseph17 in forum OS X - Apps and Games
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-13-2007, 11:15 PM
  4. mac word processors
    By mobrien in forum OS X - Apps and Games
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-08-2006, 12:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •