http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=29562
What I found is that OpenOffice runs from the program folder significantly faster (by a factor of from 1.5 to 5) than it runs from an sfs file, no matter how the sfs file is mounted In fact, OpenOffice runs faster than I have ever seen it before, fast enough to be a delight to use—which has never been the case for me before. OOo has always been too slow and frustrating. IMO this is huge because I think Linux (and by extension Puppy) needs a full featured office suite and OOo is the only candidate (other than KOffice). Additionally, I believe there might be other advantages to using program folders.
Here are some numbers. These timings have been done on my Thinkpad T22, 900 MHz PIII Coppermine, 256MB, 4 GB Sandisk Extreme 4 CF to IDE udma 4 disk formatted ext3 with frugal install, a more or less representative Puppy machine I think. If I mount the sfs OOo after Puppy boots (by clicking on the sfs file), then it takes OOo 11 seconds to start from the program folder and 39 seconds to start from the sfs installation. If I mount the sfs file when Puppy boots (by adding it in the Bootmanager config) then it takes OOo the same 11 seconds to start from the folder but a full 60 seconds to start from the sfs installation! There is clearly some sort of memory problem in that second case—it seems to me anyway, so if I then boot with pfix=noram (a hint from fatdog) the startup times get a lot closer: OOo from the folder starts in 11 seconds and the sfs OOo starts in 15-17 seconds.
Since it seems not only simpler but faster in every case to just use a folder containing all of the program files, should that be standard procedure, or is there something wrong that I haven's seen? In addition to speed there are other things to recommend the program folder approach, one being that it is very easy to update—I like to keep my browser current, so updating Firefox (which I am also running in the same way, from a single folder with all the program files) is just a matter of downloading and unzipping. Voila, Firefox 3 rc—and I have not used up any user memory in doing so (unlike with a pet file). A few years ago I know Rox was pushing an install method with all files in one folder, and it was the way Macintosh worked until they shifted to Unix. And finally, it seems to me that the one folder method could satisfy Puppy's goal of being easy to use and understand, coupled with high performance: just download the folder, put it in the right place, and the program waits there unobtrusively, taking up no memory until you want to run it. It could even be made to be automatic like the Petget package manager. Click a program and then it is there when you need it. It seems like it could apply not only to frugal installations but also to USB installs and even to those who routinely run from the CD—either by putting the extra programs on the CD or on the pup_save disk. It seems like a good way to provide some of the extra programs that are either too large or too specialized to go into the puppy400.sfs file.
One problem could be, I guess, that not all programs could be made to live nicely in a single folder—surely some would harder but I doubt that any or many would be impossible. Another problem might be that some features would be compromised by this method of installation, but, again, I doubt there would be insurmountable problems.
There is one trick to all of this. When I move the folder to /mnt/home Puppy takes 25M of memory to remember that I have done so. What I mean is that if, for instance, I was to download Firefox, unzip it, and move it to /mnt/home then I would have used 25mb of my available memory, because Puppy would be keeping a record of what I was doing. But, ah-ha, if I move the folder to /mnt/home and clean up any remaining mess, then when I reboot, Puppy forgets all about the folder and it's 25M. The folder just sits there unobtrusively until I call on it. It uses ram to run of course, and takes up the 25M of hard disk, but none of the precious user memory (the stuff in the lower right corner of the desktop
) as a Pet or Pup does. Theoretically, it is like running an Underdog Linux, but with only the programs instead of an entire Linux installation. Because which other Linux can run those programs with the speed and elegance of Puppy?!
