300+ free and legal portable apps (over 9GB), up-to-date, & new apps regularly (Jul 28, 2014: Transmission-qt).
Get the fast, new 64GB PortableApps.com Companion, encrypted PortableApps.com Carbide, or carry your KeyZ.
PA.c Platform 12.0 Beta 3.2 (May 20, 2014) | PortableApps.com needs your help: Please donate today.

LO s-LO-w install, painfully

DustWin - February 8, 2011 - 11:48am

On Win XP Pro 3GHz 2GB Ram, decent computer. BUT is LO really missing the 's' infront and 'w' at the end? so far nothing else running but install and now IE to write this, 1 hour 40 mins just to install and still have about 25% more to install to complete. s-LO-w s-LO-w s-LO-w! OOo still seems open enough to me, and talk about LO running s-LO-w portably, dont think I will be making the switch. Terribly s-LO-w. Has anyone at portable apps asked Oracle if 3.3 could be made portable? right now LO = s-LO-w and not worth using being like 15% freer/open then OOo.


( categories: )

Are you installing to the

Are you installing to the machine itself or to a flash drive? It could be the speed of the flash drive causing the issue, though an hour and 40 min does seem insanely long.

The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705

First Complaint About Install Time

I haven't seen anyone thus far complain about the speed (or lack thereof) of the installation of LibreOffice. Your experience doesn't sound normal to me. The installation speed bears no relation to the application speed, and it should take just as long as any similar sized app with a similar number of files.

Sorry to point fingers but it sounds like something might be wrong with your computer setup or hardware.*

The slow running of LibreOffice has been (fairly) well documented however and some workarounds have been suggested.

EDIT: *I should have also added that this might just be "par for the course" for your particular hardware given the size of the LO installation. In other words there might not be a hardware failure per se, just that it is taking the normal amount of time given the type of flash drive you're using.

Well

I had kinda the same experience installing LO, actually - but this was clearly caused by the machine I was installing on, a ~1 GHz age-old laptop running Win7 (which in itself is a bit silly, runs slow as ice) and with only one USB 1.0 or 1.1 port.
Not sure about actual installation time, but I left it at about 50%, and at that point the installation had run for at least 40 minutes. Add to that a drive with 4K write IOPS under 8, and I think the guilty part has been found - here it was clearly a hardware issue being the main cause.

USB 1.X

USB 1 is significantly slower than 2, and I think I'm right in saying that it doesn't come anywhere close to allowing the drives to operate at their maximum potential. I wouldn't call that a "fair test". That's like saying booting DOS off of a floppy is slower than off of a hard drive. Um... yes, yes it is!

My thoughts exactly, but a

My thoughts exactly, but a IRL test could be revealing in that regard.

I may visit that old laptop later today, and if so, will do a few tests - SIW to find out what the hardware actually is, CrystalDiskMarks and installations of both LO and OOo on a couple of drives to see if there are any significant differences.

Still going (install). USB

Still going (install). USB 4GB a HP v125w, which is working properly. Had portable OOo removed it for the install just in case. when I installed OOo it was quick and did not take long, same with other apps firefox, sunbird, chrome, VLC, pidgin and Foxit (rest were a lot smaller). have a feeling this is totally not worth the wait. LO = s-LO-w

I'm sorry that you have this

I'm sorry that you have this kind of experience.

I just did a quick test and even as I found a significant difference between OOo and LO in install time it is nowhere near unbearable.
OOo is anything but a quick installation, with more than 17 minutes even if LO takes as much as 12 minutes longer on my system.

Both take too much time to wait for and run unattended, so what.
These are huge apps to portablize, mostly because they consist of many small files. LO is larger by ca. 163MB but has more than twice as many files, mostly small ones, which logically take much longer to copy, especially to flash drives.

There is no real point in compairing OOo 3.2 and LO 3.3, though. The base app of OOo 3.3 is considerably larger than 3.2 and as it is not availlable as portable app (yet?) you could just guess how large it will be.
The main difference between OOo and LO is multi language support which is considered a key feature of the Platform - and by design adds to the apps size.

-edit-
Oops, John has specified some of the things I said in the meantime. That happens when you got other things to do while posting. :rolleyes:

I had no problem

installating portableapps.com LibreOffice 3.3 on the hard disk of a Win XP SP3 PC. I do have a lot of free disk space. Running also is as fast, if not faster.

Drive Speed

Install time has zero to do with app speed and everything to do with drive speed. And by drive speed we're talking about actual speed of the internal memory chips and controller chip, not the drive's speed rating in specs (which only applies to writing single large contiguous files).

LibreOffice Portable is a large application with 10,041 files in 1,544 folders totally 424MB. It's not the 424MB that makes it take a while to install, it's the 10,000 files. That taxes not only the memory in your drive but it taxes the controller as well. OpenOffice.org Portable 3.2.0 is 4,107 files in 518 folders totaling 230MB by comparison. OpenOffice.org Portable 3.3.0, when it is released following licensing discussions with Oracle, will be much larger than 3.2.0.

In short, the only thing affecting the speed of the install is the speed of your flash drive (and the speed of your USB port if you somehow got an ancient 1.1 port, which I don't think you do). There is no way to speed it up other than buying a flash drive with better performance for lots of small files.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

CrystalDiskMark: 4GB HP v125w

Downloaded CrystalDiskMark Portable 3.0.1a DevTest 1, and ran it on my 4GB HP v125w (funny thing, isn't that what DustWin said he has)
I'm not sure how this compares with other FlashDrives (first time I've bothered to benchmark one) but here it is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

           Sequential Read :     4.726 MB/s
          Sequential Write :     4.100 MB/s
         Random Read 512KB :     4.752 MB/s
        Random Write 512KB :     1.797 MB/s
    Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :     1.671 MB/s [   407.8 IOPS]
   Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :     0.016 MB/s [     4.0 IOPS]
   Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :     2.002 MB/s [   488.9 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :     0.017 MB/s [     4.3 IOPS]

  Test : 1000 MB [N: 22.5% (856.8/3814.5 MB)] (x5)
  Date : 2011/02/11 13:00:37
    OS : Windows XP Media Center 2005 SP3 [5.1 Build 2600] (x86)

Image here:
tiikoni.com/tis/view/?id=4de887b
Will expire February 28

     ~3D1T0R
I don't know how "back" I am, but for now: here I am.

jeez

That's awful, at least for read speed - here's from a couple of mine: http://portableapps.com/node/26563#comment-170011

Pretty Slow

I compared it to my 2GB PA.c branded drive from OSCON, a high-end 8GB drive and an avg 16GB drive and it's quite a bit slower than all of them. My random 4KB reads are all in the neighborhood of 5.5 to 8 MB/s.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Donation Drive

This is kind of off topic but on this weeks status update you said there would be a Donation Drive leading up to the 2.0 release, will PortableApps.com branded USB FlashDrives be available again? (I missed last time, and I Really want one)

     ~3D1T0R
I don't know how "back" I am, but for now: here I am.

Not So Fast (pun intended)

Just an observation regarding installation time and possible operational problems.

There may be more to it than just

1)the LOp program and installer, and

2)the disk drive and/or flash drive.

Because of

3)OO user profiles ...

It seems the LOp "installation" (unlike the OOp "installation") will seek out and utilize your existing OO standard version user profile as stored it the OO user directory (if any).

From that, LOp (somehow) captures personal dictionaries, macros, autotext, and extensions (and probably more).

Wonderful idea, but I suspect not without hiccups.

LOp's Extension Manager had a host of warnings and errors on OO extensions I'd been using that I guess it doesn't understand well (some as "oxt" and some as "zip")

(Not talking about the forced language locks. And I don't know how I'll validate my macros except for "I guess it works/obviously doesn't work."

(FYI It also lays a "flag" in OO that I guess lets LOp do this once, but the next "install/update" will do the old "copy new LOp on top of the old LOp" and preserve the current LOp user data rather than importing the old OO one. (Just guessing.))

(Anyone know of a LO/LOp FAQ about such? Please provide to John for the anticipated "Read First..." forum entry)

Thus, an extra, variable "task" that must effect the install time as it's processed. I'd hope it would be quick, but I do recall the problems in some user's OO profiles, or at least complexity, and how the OpenOffice.org forum moderators would suggest starting fresh to correct many a problem. Might there sometimes be issues reading it into the LOp install process?

Bh2ooo