Just downloaded v3 and just have a couple of first impressions. First, the "forum" link does not seem to work and second, it takes a AGE (>7 secs) to load, even when cached. I have an i9-9900K running at 5GHz all the time and an SSD. Running Win 10 x64 and have 32GB ram. In contrast, LibreOffice takes about 1 second on its first run and that program is not a fast loader.
Hi DrTeeth! Thanks for your comment: we are aware of this 'problem'. I used the apostrophes because is not a real issue since, at the last stage of the development, we faced into a big decision:
- Use the one-file approach: everything (libraries, dependencies, software...) is embedded into a single executable. This choice is the most user-friendly but it requires some times to deploy the python interpreter and every stuff that the software needs to run smoothly.
- Or use the one-directory approach: Artemis is stored into a directory with the unpacked libraries and the python interpreter is already deployed and ready to go. In any case, you have an exe in order to run the software.
We clearly chose the first option but we know that is a little bit slower. If you have some spare time try the 'unpacked' version of the software that I've just prepared: the loading time must be greatly improved with this version: https://aresvalley.com/download/748/
Please, let us know. We will consider changing the packing method if necessary.
I have checked out the unpacked version. It initially took MUCH longer to load as, for some reason, my virus scanner was scanning the loading each time. With my AV disabled, it took 4 seconds. Though faster (@ 4 secs), I just would have expected it to load much faster considering the specs of my PC. I am also taking into account how much faster my programs load on this relatively new machine compared to my old one, a first generation Intel i7 860. Incscape used to take over 10 secs to load and now does it in approx 1½ secs.
It makes sense: if your antivirus (AV) checks every time the files it is possible that a longer time is needed to scan every library in the folder of the unpacked version. Anyway, this is a different story: every user use a different AV and many others don't use it. I don't want to talk about AV performances: it's clearly impossible to manage all possible scenery. As long as there are no real compatibility problems or false positive I will not consider the launch timings due to AV scan as a problem. Back to your problem (excluding the AV, of course): yes without any doubt your system is orders of magnitude more powerful compared to the minimum requirements to run Artemis. However, there is something strange: in my laptop (that is not super powerful) the packed version takes 5 sec to load and 2 sec for the unpacked version (the first launch take much more). I don't remember the tests on other pcs that we tried but the timings were not critical at all. Maybe it is useful to wait a little bit and see if other persons are able to replicate this strange behavior...
No problem. If you want me to run any tests or test beta/debug versions, please let me know as I will be happy to help. I backup daily and have no worries about running tests or test programs.
Thank you DrTeeth! Help in beta testing is super well appreciated: based on what you wrote, it seems that you have all the requirements for the 'dirty job'. In a few days, the new version of Artemis will be out. In few words, the latest version will solve all the problems listed in the GitHub issue board
UPDATE: Artemis 3.0.1 is now available!
I d/l the 3.0.1 and found my AV *really* slowing down the loading. I have disabled scanning of Artemis and the loading is now acceptable. AV in use is Kaspersky AV Free.
This makes sense: probably, during the very first moment, when decompression of the bundle takes place, some AV scans the files and the process become very slow. Thank you to point out this detail!