[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote: Pierre wrote: Richard wrote: I have been a champion of OOo for more years than most of you have even used the programme. There are serious issues with OOo 3 and that's a fact and NOT ONE OF THE AH's REPLYING HERE CAN GIVE ME AN ANSWER AS TO WHY IT SAVES SLOW ONTO A FILE SERVER and OPENS SLOW FROM A FILE SERVER. MSO on the other hand is fast, same size and type of files, same file server and same workstations! So, given the issues you raise shouldn't you be posting to disc...@openoffice.orgr rather than the self help users? net.troll I'm adding him to a spam list. as i will do you, net.prick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
I reaaallyyy love this tread guys, don´t feel stupid when bombing this OO.o-forum with I used to use an pretty old shiny thing called XYZ-machine.. It hadn´t any keyboard or monitor or other vital stuff. But it didn´t matter.. It was so cool ! I was the first guy on the block with this thing, and I still have in my bedroom... Please... start an new forum called Me and my antique stuff ;-) but let this thread die. // Per James Knott skrev: Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. My first computer was an IMSAI 8080, which I built from a kit* in Nov 1976. Everything, memory, I/O etc., was extra. I also used cassettes with it, but later was able to use paper tape on my M35 ASR Teletype. Back in those days, there was very little software available for sale, so you often had to write your own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSAI_8080 *A kit consisted of bare boards and bags of parts that had to be soldered to the boards. The whole thing then had to be assembled. Isn't that how Bill Gates started out? He and Paul Allen came up with a BASIC interpreter for the Altair 8800. The IMSAI 8080 was a better quality clone of the Altair. He also used to dig source code out of the garbage for his own use and then got all upset when someone copied his BASIC interpreter.
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Post davep...@earthlink.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Ok, I'll play. How about a DEC PDP-8 with 4K (12-bit) memory locations and a teletype for reading/writing programs on paper tape? Or a Wang programmable desktop calculator with Nixie-tube display and the ability to read up to 2 (Yes! 2! We were agog.) cards on which you'd record programs by punching holes in them with a stylus? Um -- frightening. I don't know what my mom and her sister used. PDP-8? Might have been a PDP-10. I'd ask if we were still on speaking terms. She never told me. Her ex husband did when I made enquiries as to who my real father is. But that's way OT. I may have downloaded a user manual for one of those. Not QUITE as intimidating as the user manual I forget. Some monster neanderthal from the 1950s. Excuse the brain fart. I should know what it is called. Before my time. Sorry. I was only (???) born in the sixties. Could have been either PDP-8 or PDP-10. Basic difference was that the PDP-10 was 36 bit time share machine whereas the PDP-8 was a single user mini-computer. The operating system for the PDP-10 was a superset of OS-8, the PDP-8 operating system. Been a lot of years since I played with either. Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: Gene Heskett gene.hesk...@verizon.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. On Thursday 12 March 2009, Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Robert Hodgins wrote: Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder My Timex Sinclair saved to a tape recorder. Never could get the thing to load a program, though. Write only storage? ;-) WORN - Write Once Read Never. The Atari 8-bit series had tape decks like that. Neither had a patent on WORN. LOL! It probably wasn't DESIGNED that way; that's just how it happened.\ The cure was to pitch that 20$ deck in the trash and use one that had honest erase and bias oscillators in it instead of magnets, thereby lowering the tapes background noise about 30db. When folks asked me for some little program that ran on a coco, what they got was a hi bias metal tape, recorded one track only, in a 4 track stereo cassette deck. No one ever reported that it wouldn't load. I'd put 2 or 3 copies on a short cassette and I don't think anyone ever had to use the 2nd or 3rd copy. I'm surprised you recall those days, they are about 20 years back up the log. Nightmares don't go away easily, my friend. Luckily - and this wasn't a cure, but it helped - you could SAVE a file just like any other file in its native format, or you could LIST a file. In the BASIC language, of course, the LIST command typically lists the file to screen (on the Atari you can be redundant and type LIST E: to mean the same thing, E: referring to Editor, combination of Screen and Keyboard.) To be sure you can do a LIST S: to the screen. To the keyboard I suppose, but it's pointless. I forget if the listing goes to oblivion or if you get an error sending output to an input-only device. Regardless, my point is you could also do a LIST C: to list, per se, the file to tape (or to disk if you wish, but I found it helpful with the tape device. I used the original pathetic 410 unit). The effect was that when you do a normal CSAVE (filenames were not used on Atari tape files) it saves a file quickly in a compressed (they called it tokenized) format. When you try to load it back in, and it's corrupt in any way - you're S.O.L. whereas if you did an ENTER C: to load a LISTed file, at least it would load in what it could and if it craps out part way, you would at least salvage what the system managed to load up to that point. It became my standard until I managed to afford a 5¼ disk drive. Same commands would apply except using a D instead of C. While all my reference books are long gone I have found copies of some of them online. Just for the torture. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. *A kit consisted of bare boards and bags of parts that had to be soldered to the boards. The whole thing then had to be assembled. Isn't that how Bill Gates started out? He and Paul Allen came up with a BASIC interpreter for the Altair 8800. The IMSAI 8080 was a better quality clone of the Altair. He also used to dig source code out of the garbage for his own use and then got all upset when someone copied his BASIC interpreter. Aw. Why do I have no sympathy? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: Gordon gbpli...@gmail.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 1:37 PM Subject: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Forster gforst.1...@sbcglobal.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) To think that an old geezer like me felt I was really racing along when I upgraded my 16K 6502-based machine to 64K. Times sure change, young feller. Ah! Floppy A and B. Now. That was high tech. Try floppy D: (or D1: if I could afford a seond drive which would be D2: ) and cassette C: as it was with the Atari OS. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: Gordon gbpli...@gmail.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:27 PM Subject: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Barbara Duprey wrote: Gordon wrote: Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Forster gforst.1...@sbcglobal.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) To think that an old geezer like me felt I was really racing along when I upgraded my 16K 6502-based machine to 64K. Times sure change, young feller. Ah! Floppy A and B. These young whippers -- the Apple II+ that was my first PC, in 1978, loaded and saved only with a tape recorder! Balancing the volumes for the channels was quite a challenge. The mainframes I was working on were better, but the speed and capacity were laughable compared to the cheapest PDA today. Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder I have this cool ad of William Shatner peddling a Vic-20 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: Robert Hodgins ehodg...@telusplanet.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder My Timex Sinclair saved to a tape recorder. Never could get the thing to load a program, though. LOL! A classmate had one of those. Um. I'm not laughing quite as hard these days since the keyboard maybe IS superior to that of the Blackberry. Maybe not, but it isn't THAT much different. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: Dave Post davep...@earthlink.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Ok, I'll play. How about a DEC PDP-8 with 4K (12-bit) memory locations and a teletype for reading/writing programs on paper tape? Or a Wang programmable desktop calculator with Nixie-tube display and the ability to read up to 2 (Yes! 2! We were agog.) cards on which you'd record programs by punching holes in them with a stylus? Um -- frightening. I don't know what my mom and her sister used. PDP-8? Might have been a PDP-10. I'd ask if we were still on speaking terms. She never told me. Her ex husband did when I made enquiries as to who my real father is. But that's way OT. I may have downloaded a user manual for one of those. Not QUITE as intimidating as the user manual I forget. Some monster neanderthal from the 1950s. Excuse the brain fart. I should know what it is called. Before my time. Sorry. I was only (???) born in the sixties. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: JOE Conner joeconner2...@gmail.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Dave Post wrote: Ok, I'll play. How about a DEC PDP-8 with 4K (12-bit) memory locations and a teletype for reading/writing programs on paper tape? Or a Wang programmable desktop calculator with Nixie-tube display and the ability to read up to 2 (Yes! 2! We were agog.) cards on which you'd record programs by punching holes in them with a stylus? Dave Can we terminate this thread now? Please! Are you getting nausea, nightmares, or nostalgia? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. My first computer was an IMSAI 8080, which I built from a kit* in Nov 1976. Everything, memory, I/O etc., was extra. I also used cassettes with it, but later was able to use paper tape on my M35 ASR Teletype. Back in those days, there was very little software available for sale, so you often had to write your own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSAI_8080 *A kit consisted of bare boards and bags of parts that had to be soldered to the boards. The whole thing then had to be assembled. Isn't that how Bill Gates started out? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Gordon wrote: Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder Better known as a Commie 64. ;-) So -- referring to it as a Commie wasn't just a local thing - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Robert Hodgins wrote: Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder My Timex Sinclair saved to a tape recorder. Never could get the thing to load a program, though. Write only storage? ;-) WORN - Write Once Read Never. The Atari 8-bit series had tape decks like that. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: jonathon jonathon.bl...@gmail.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:22 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 22:12, David B Teague wrote: and the Pascal System editor to type my papers. There is one feature of that editor that I haven't seen on any other text editor, or word processor, that I really miss. Yeah? Yeah? And what is that? Oh the suspense! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
I have this cool ad of William Shatner peddling a Vic-20 My son called it the Victim-20 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
On Thursday 12 March 2009, JOE Conner wrote: I have this cool ad of William Shatner peddling a Vic-20 My son called it the Victim-20 I looked at it. I think your son was correct. -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) He who has imagination without learning has wings but no feet. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
On Thursday 12 March 2009, Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Post davep...@earthlink.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Ok, I'll play. How about a DEC PDP-8 with 4K (12-bit) memory locations and a teletype for reading/writing programs on paper tape? Or a Wang programmable desktop calculator with Nixie-tube display and the ability to read up to 2 (Yes! 2! We were agog.) cards on which you'd record programs by punching holes in them with a stylus? Um -- frightening. I don't know what my mom and her sister used. PDP-8? Might have been a PDP-10. I'd ask if we were still on speaking terms. She never told me. Her ex husband did when I made enquiries as to who my real father is. But that's way OT. I may have downloaded a user manual for one of those. Not QUITE as intimidating as the user manual I forget. Some monster neanderthal from the 1950s. Excuse the brain fart. I should know what it is called. That about had to be a Marchant, a 12 digit mechanical calculator. Or maybe a Boroughs? Before my time. Sorry. I was only (???) born in the sixties. Somebody get this fellow a towel, he might be still wet behind the ears. Said by someone born in the first half of the 30's, and whose warranty has long since expired... -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems. -- D. Winker and F. Prosser - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
On Thursday 12 March 2009, Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Robert Hodgins wrote: Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder My Timex Sinclair saved to a tape recorder. Never could get the thing to load a program, though. Write only storage? ;-) WORN - Write Once Read Never. The Atari 8-bit series had tape decks like that. Neither had a patent on WORN. The cure was to pitch that 20$ deck in the trash and use one that had honest erase and bias oscillators in it instead of magnets, thereby lowering the tapes background noise about 30db. When folks asked me for some little program that ran on a coco, what they got was a hi bias metal tape, recorded one track only, in a 4 track stereo cassette deck. No one ever reported that it wouldn't load. I'd put 2 or 3 copies on a short cassette and I don't think anyone ever had to use the 2nd or 3rd copy. I'm surprised you recall those days, they are about 20 years back up the log. -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) A dirty mind is a joy forever. -- Randy Kunkee - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
On 12/03/2009 22:14, Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gordon gbpli...@gmail.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:27 PM Subject: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Barbara Duprey wrote: Gordon wrote: Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Forster gforst.1...@sbcglobal.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) To think that an old geezer like me felt I was really racing along when I upgraded my 16K 6502-based machine to 64K. Times sure change, young feller. Ah! Floppy A and B. These young whippers -- the Apple II+ that was my first PC, in 1978, loaded and saved only with a tape recorder! Balancing the volumes for the channels was quite a challenge. The mainframes I was working on were better, but the speed and capacity were laughable compared to the cheapest PDA today. Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder The early versions of the BBC Micro (8 bit computer designed by the BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro) used standard audio cassettes as its main storage medium. The BBC used to broadcast computer literacy programmes on the radio. During these programmes it would send BASIC source code which you could record using a radio-cassette recorder. You could then then play the code into the micro and edit and/or run it (the computer used a BASIC interpreter natively). If you edited the code you could of course save your version to cassette for subsequent use.. This in the very early 80's. Just like downloading an application over Wifi today except you didn't need an internet connection which was handy because hardly anyone had heard of the internet. Oh, the code transmitted in this way was all free. I acquired any number of interesting programs this way. -- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to users@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. My first computer was an IMSAI 8080, which I built from a kit* in Nov 1976. Everything, memory, I/O etc., was extra. I also used cassettes with it, but later was able to use paper tape on my M35 ASR Teletype. Back in those days, there was very little software available for sale, so you often had to write your own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSAI_8080 *A kit consisted of bare boards and bags of parts that had to be soldered to the boards. The whole thing then had to be assembled. Isn't that how Bill Gates started out? He and Paul Allen came up with a BASIC interpreter for the Altair 8800. The IMSAI 8080 was a better quality clone of the Altair. He also used to dig source code out of the garbage for his own use and then got all upset when someone copied his BASIC interpreter. -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Original Message From: Harold Fuchs hwfa.openoff...@googlemail.com To: users@openoffice.org Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:47:25 + On 12/03/2009 22:14, Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gordon gbpli...@gmail.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:27 PM Subject: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Barbara Duprey wrote: Gordon wrote: Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Forster gforst.1...@sbcglobal.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) To think that an old geezer like me felt I was really racing along when I upgraded my 16K 6502-based machine to 64K. Times sure change, young feller. Ah! Floppy A and B. These young whippers -- the Apple II+ that was my first PC, in 1978, loaded and saved only with a tape recorder! Balancing the volumes for the channels was quite a challenge. The mainframes I was working on were better, but the speed and capacity were laughable compared to the cheapest PDA today. Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder The early versions of the BBC Micro (8 bit computer designed by the BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro) used standard audio cassettes as its main storage medium. The BBC used to broadcast computer literacy programmes on the radio. During these programmes it would send BASIC source code which you could record using a radio-cassette recorder. You could then then play the code into the micro and edit and/or run it (the computer used a BASIC interpreter natively). If you edited the code you could of course save your version to cassette for subsequent use.. This in the very early 80's. Just like downloading an application over Wifi today except you didn't need an internet connection which was handy because hardly anyone had heard of the internet. Oh, the code transmitted in this way was all free. I acquired any number of interesting programs this way. I still have my original (working) BBC Model B with a Solidisk 256K paged RAM/ROM piggyback board, plus a ton (well maybe 30kg.) of software (tapes, disks and books), collected and written over the years. Sad to say, it will be going to the garbage dump in the near future, due to my forthcoming overseas relocation. It will be like losing a much loved old friend. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
On Saturday 07 March 2009, Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Forster gforst.1...@sbcglobal.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) To think that an old geezer like me felt I was really racing along when I upgraded my 16K 6502-based machine to 64K. Times sure change, young feller. Yeah, but that 6502 was dain bramaged, it shoulda been a 6809 -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) You give me space to belong to myself yet without separating me from your own life. May it all turn out to your happiness. -- Goethe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 22:12, David B Teague wrote: and the Pascal System editor to type my papers. There is one feature of that editor that I haven't seen on any other text editor, or word processor, that I really miss. jonathon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
jonathon wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 22:12, David B Teague wrote: and the Pascal System editor to type my papers. There is one feature of that editor that I haven't seen on any other text editor, or word processor, that I really miss. jonathon I am intrigued. What is that feature that you liked and miss? David
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
David B Teague wrote: I tried the memory settings mentioned in the link. These settings are consonant with settings mentioned in other posts. After a reboot, or after not having OO.o loaded for a while (not measured, but longer than a half hour), the OO.o start time for a 50K odt file is 17 seconds. Time to start a new OO.o object is 15 seconds. The time to start an new odt document /after OO.o has been loaded then stopped, /is about 1 second. /After OO.o has been loaded then stopped,/ time to start OO.o and load a 50 K odt file is about 7 seconds. Given all the great features of OO.o, and that it is /free, /it is fairly easy to live with these startup times, though I would like to have the startup times to be shorter. David Teague Are you running on Vista perhaps? I've noticed this behaviour on Vista (only!). It /may/ be a ploy by MS to turn people away from OOit doesn't seem to happen on XP. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Forster gforst.1...@sbcglobal.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) To think that an old geezer like me felt I was really racing along when I upgraded my 16K 6502-based machine to 64K. Times sure change, young feller. Ah! Floppy A and B. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Gordon wrote: Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Forster gforst.1...@sbcglobal.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) To think that an old geezer like me felt I was really racing along when I upgraded my 16K 6502-based machine to 64K. Times sure change, young feller. Ah! Floppy A and B. These young whippers -- the Apple II+ that was my first PC, in 1978, loaded and saved only with a tape recorder! Balancing the volumes for the channels was quite a challenge. The mainframes I was working on were better, but the speed and capacity were laughable compared to the cheapest PDA today. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Barbara Duprey wrote: Gordon wrote: Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Forster gforst.1...@sbcglobal.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) To think that an old geezer like me felt I was really racing along when I upgraded my 16K 6502-based machine to 64K. Times sure change, young feller. Ah! Floppy A and B. These young whippers -- the Apple II+ that was my first PC, in 1978, loaded and saved only with a tape recorder! Balancing the volumes for the channels was quite a challenge. The mainframes I was working on were better, but the speed and capacity were laughable compared to the cheapest PDA today. Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder My Timex Sinclair saved to a tape recorder. Never could get the thing to load a program, though. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Ok, I'll play. How about a DEC PDP-8 with 4K (12-bit) memory locations and a teletype for reading/writing programs on paper tape? Or a Wang programmable desktop calculator with Nixie-tube display and the ability to read up to 2 (Yes! 2! We were agog.) cards on which you'd record programs by punching holes in them with a stylus? Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Dave Post wrote: Ok, I'll play. How about a DEC PDP-8 with 4K (12-bit) memory locations and a teletype for reading/writing programs on paper tape? Or a Wang programmable desktop calculator with Nixie-tube display and the ability to read up to 2 (Yes! 2! We were agog.) cards on which you'd record programs by punching holes in them with a stylus? Dave Can we terminate this thread now? Please! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 14:51 -0400, Dave Post wrote: Ok, I'll play. How about a DEC PDP-8 with 4K (12-bit) memory locations and a teletype for reading/writing programs on paper tape? Or a Wang programmable desktop calculator with Nixie-tube display and the ability to read up to 2 (Yes! 2! We were agog.) cards on which you'd record programs by punching holes in them with a stylus? Dave And we have a winner! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Barbara Duprey wrote: Gordon wrote: Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Forster gforst.1...@sbcglobal.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) To think that an old geezer like me felt I was really racing along when I upgraded my 16K 6502-based machine to 64K. Times sure change, young feller. Ah! Floppy A and B. These young whippers -- the Apple II+ that was my first PC, in 1978, loaded and saved only with a tape recorder! Balancing the volumes for the channels was quite a challenge. The mainframes I was working on were better, but the speed and capacity were laughable compared to the cheapest PDA today. My first computer was an IMSAI 8080, which I built from a kit* in Nov 1976. Everything, memory, I/O etc., was extra. I also used cassettes with it, but later was able to use paper tape on my M35 ASR Teletype. Back in those days, there was very little software available for sale, so you often had to write your own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSAI_8080 *A kit consisted of bare boards and bags of parts that had to be soldered to the boards. The whole thing then had to be assembled. -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Gordon wrote: Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder Better known as a Commie 64. ;-) -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Robert Hodgins wrote: Hmmm. My Commodore 64 had a tape recorder My Timex Sinclair saved to a tape recorder. Never could get the thing to load a program, though. Write only storage? ;-) -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Dave Post wrote: Ok, I'll play. How about a DEC PDP-8 with 4K (12-bit) memory locations and a teletype for reading/writing programs on paper tape? Or a Wang programmable desktop calculator with Nixie-tube display and the ability to read up to 2 (Yes! 2! We were agog.) cards on which you'd record programs by punching holes in them with a stylus? I used to maintain a PDP-8i, with 4K of memory (12 bit words). I recall toggling in the RIM loader. I also used to maintain punch card equipment and the Datapoint 2200, which was originally intended to use the Intel 8008 CPU, but they build their own CPU board, as the 8008 was too slow. One computer I used to work on was built with vacuum tubes and relays and was installed over a year before I was born. I've also got some core memory here and a Morse telegraph sounder that was originally in service in the mid 1930s. . -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Robert Hodgins wrote: On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 14:51 -0400, Dave Post wrote: Ok, I'll play. How about a DEC PDP-8 with 4K (12-bit) memory locations and a teletype for reading/writing programs on paper tape? Or a Wang programmable desktop calculator with Nixie-tube display and the ability to read up to 2 (Yes! 2! We were agog.) cards on which you'd record programs by punching holes in them with a stylus? Dave And we have a winner! You haven't seen my messages yet. Also, back in my Grade 12 FORTRAN class, we used pencil mark cards. ;-) -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:18 -0400, James Knott wrote: Robert Hodgins wrote: On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 14:51 -0400, Dave Post wrote: Ok, I'll play. How about a DEC PDP-8 with 4K (12-bit) memory locations and a teletype for reading/writing programs on paper tape? Or a Wang programmable desktop calculator with Nixie-tube display and the ability to read up to 2 (Yes! 2! We were agog.) cards on which you'd record programs by punching holes in them with a stylus? Dave And we have a winner! You haven't seen my messages yet. Also, back in my Grade 12 FORTRAN class, we used pencil mark cards. ;-) I just did. And it seems that I spoke too soon. Sorry! I retract my earlier statement. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: I tried the memory settings mentioned in the link. These settings are consonant with settings mentioned in other posts. After a reboot, or after not having OO.o loaded for a while (not measured, but longer than a half hour), the OO.o start time for a 50K odt file is 17 seconds. Time to start a new OO.o object is 15 seconds. The time to start an new odt document /after OO.o has been loaded then stopped, /is about 1 second. /After OO.o has been loaded then stopped,/ time to start OO.o and load a 50 K odt file is about 7 seconds. Given all the great features of OO.o, and that it is /free, /it is fairly easy to live with these startup times, though I would like to have the startup times to be shorter. David Teague Are you running on Vista perhaps? I've noticed this behaviour on Vista (only!). It /may/ be a ploy by MS to turn people away from OOit doesn't seem to happen on XP. This behavior is also present in at least some XP installations. Mine for example. I described my system in my first post on this that is is buried in these messages. There I indicated I have: XP SP3 Sempron 2800, 1.6 GHz 333 MHz backplane 1 GB RAM and OO.o 3.0.1 Warmest Regard David Teague - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Barbara Duprey wrote: Gordon wrote: Ugly Me wrote: - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Forster gforst.1...@sbcglobal.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) To think that an old geezer like me felt I was really racing along when I upgraded my 16K 6502-based machine to 64K. Times sure change, young feller. Ah! Floppy A and B. These young whippers -- the Apple II+ that was my first PC, in 1978, loaded and saved only with a tape recorder! Balancing the volumes for the channels was quite a challenge. The mainframes I was working on were better, but the speed and capacity were laughable compared to the cheapest PDA today. Well dang! You got me beat. In 1979, I used a TRS 80 to learn, then teach Z80 assembly language. I recall it having more memory than the Wikipedia article says. I remember it having 32K RAM and two 5 1/4 inch drives. Two years later I bought an Apple ][+ with 64K and the USD Pascal Language system to take with me to the University of Tennessee, for my retread program to retread from Math to CS there. It turned out to be be the single best purchase of my career. I did my compiler construction programming in Apple Pascal, and the Pascal System editor to type my papers. Formatting, of course, was minimal. I used the Hayes *Micromodem II *to connect to the University mainframe to do homework in the IBM assembly language course. The Apple ][ was an interesting, well designed and astonishingly powerful little computer. It made excellent use of its resources. I think Woz was the designer, and Jobs was the business brains, but Jobs seems to have plenty of hardware and software sense too. Warmest Regards David Teague
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) Greg Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: OO.o 3.0.0 was slow on startup, and 3.0.1 is also slow to start, slower than 2.4, even with the QuickStarter -- Have you tweaked the memory settings in Tools-Options? 3.01 starts as fast if not faster here than Office 2007 on Vista... The behavior is very different, right now, from the immediate past. If I right click quick starter and select new text document, starting is nearly instant. If I double click a document, it starts very quickly. I emphasize that this has NOT been my experience, and I cannot point to changes that might affect the loading time. I'll see how things go. The Tools | Options | OpenOffice.org Memory settings are exactly as they were when I installed OO.o 3.0.1: Number of steps 100 Graphics Cache 9 MB Memory per object 2.4 MB Remove from Memory after 10 min Number of objects cached 20 Box checked for load at startup. Do you suggest any changes? I think I won't change anything unless it bogs down again. I've ALWAYS changed those settings: My current settings for this on 2GB RAM on Vista Home Premium is Use for OpenOffice.org - 256MB Memory per Object - 128MB Settings on my Ubuntu Netbook (with 512MB RAM) are: Use for OpenOffice.org - 128MB Memory per Object - 64MB A new blank Writer document starts in about 3 seconds on both... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: Gregory L. Forster gforst.1...@sbcglobal.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. WOW! I tweaked up the memory as suggested: Use for OpenOffice.org - 256mb Memory per object - 128 mb OpenOffice really sizzles now. I have an AMD Athlon X2 dual core 64bit CPU at 2.6 Ghz with 4Gig memory and WinXP Pro SP3. I have to try that on my Ubuntu machine (1.6Gig Celeron with 512Meg) To think that an old geezer like me felt I was really racing along when I upgraded my 16K 6502-based machine to 64K. Times sure change, young feller. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
David B Teague wrote: Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: OO.o 3.0.0 was slow on startup, and 3.0.1 is also slow to start, slower than 2.4, even with the QuickStarter -- Have you tweaked the memory settings in Tools-Options? 3.01 starts as fast if not faster here than Office 2007 on Vista... The behavior is very different, right now, from the immediate past. If I right click quick starter and select new text document, starting is nearly instant. If I double click a document, it starts very quickly. I emphasize that this has NOT been my experience, and I cannot point to changes that might affect the loading time. I'll see how things go. The Tools | Options | OpenOffice.org Memory settings are exactly as they were when I installed OO.o 3.0.1: Number of steps 100 Graphics Cache 9 MB Memory per object 2.4 MB Remove from Memory after 10 min Number of objects cached 20 Box checked for load at startup. Do you suggest any changes? I think I won't change anything unless it bogs down again. I've ALWAYS changed those settings: My current settings for this on 2GB RAM on Vista Home Premium is Use for OpenOffice.org - 256MB Memory per Object - 128MB Settings on my Ubuntu Netbook (with 512MB RAM) are: Use for OpenOffice.org - 128MB Memory per Object - 64MB A new blank Writer document starts in about 3 seconds on both... XP SP3 Sempron 2800+, 1.6 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 333 MHz backplane. Remember the setting, Remove from Memory after 10 min ? You don't mention this setting. If I have had OO.o running recently, OO.o starts a blank page in about 1 second. After a while it takes about 15 seconds to start a blank page. For a while after that, it takes only a second to start a blank document. I checked both just before composing this message. Tell me about your system, please. I suspect you have system is significantly faster than mine. My computer store owner tells me there are systems back plane 10+ times as fast as mine available for about what I paid for mine 3+ years ago. Moore's law etc. Laptop Toshiba Satellite Dual T2330 Pentium with 2GB Ram and Vista Home Premium. Toshiba Notebook, 1.6GHz processor, 512 MB Ram and Ubuntu 8.04 Remix After thinking about this, I do not believe that allocating more memory to be used for OOo or per object can affect the speed of startup for a blank page Here's one link - there are quite a few if you Google. http://lifehacker.com/software/optimization/speed-up-openoffice-270775.php (or the time to start a document, but I bet it does for a large document). You only have to load the binaries for the blank page, and you have to both load the binaries, load the existing document and then do a small amount of processing to open it. (An odt document is a zip file.) NEVERTHELESS. I very much appreciate your remarks. I will try your settings, for I have been wrong more times than my opinionated self really wants to admit. With Warmest Regards David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Richard wrote: I have been a champion of OOo for more years than most of you have even used the programme. There are serious issues with OOo 3 and that's a fact and NOT ONE OF THE AH's REPLYING HERE CAN GIVE ME AN ANSWER AS TO WHY IT SAVES SLOW ONTO A FILE SERVER and OPENS SLOW FROM A FILE SERVER. MSO on the other hand is fast, same size and type of files, same file server and same workstations! So, given the issues you raise shouldn't you be posting to disc...@openoffice.orgr rather than the self help users? -- Pierre Worrigee, NSW, ,-._|\ / Oz \ \_,--._/ v The boys dressed themselves, hid their accoutrements, and went off grieving that there were no outlaws any more, and wondering what modern civilization could claim to have done to compensate for their loss. They said they would rather be outlaws a year in Sherwood Forest than President of the United States forever. Mark Twain's Adventures of Tom Sawyer - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Pierre wrote: Richard wrote: I have been a champion of OOo for more years than most of you have even used the programme. There are serious issues with OOo 3 and that's a fact and NOT ONE OF THE AH's REPLYING HERE CAN GIVE ME AN ANSWER AS TO WHY IT SAVES SLOW ONTO A FILE SERVER and OPENS SLOW FROM A FILE SERVER. MSO on the other hand is fast, same size and type of files, same file server and same workstations! So, given the issues you raise shouldn't you be posting to disc...@openoffice.orgr rather than the self help users? net.troll I'm adding him to a spam list. -- Joseph A Nagy Jr http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us http://www.ameliorations.us Subsiste Sermonem Statim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: OO.o 3.0.0 was slow on startup, and 3.0.1 is also slow to start, slower than 2.4, even with the QuickStarter -- Have you tweaked the memory settings in Tools-Options? 3.01 starts as fast if not faster here than Office 2007 on Vista... The behavior is very different, right now, from the immediate past. If I right click quick starter and select new text document, starting is nearly instant. If I double click a document, it starts very quickly. I emphasize that this has NOT been my experience, and I cannot point to changes that might affect the loading time. I'll see how things go. The Tools | Options | OpenOffice.org Memory settings are exactly as they were when I installed OO.o 3.0.1: Number of steps 100 Graphics Cache 9 MB Memory per object 2.4 MB Remove from Memory after 10 min Number of objects cached 20 Box checked for load at startup. Do you suggest any changes? I think I won't change anything unless it bogs down again. I've ALWAYS changed those settings: My current settings for this on 2GB RAM on Vista Home Premium is Use for OpenOffice.org - 256MB Memory per Object - 128MB Settings on my Ubuntu Netbook (with 512MB RAM) are: Use for OpenOffice.org - 128MB Memory per Object - 64MB A new blank Writer document starts in about 3 seconds on both... XP SP3 Sempron 2800+, 1.6 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 333 MHz backplane. Remember the setting, Remove from Memory after 10 min ? You don't mention this setting. If I have had OO.o running recently, OO.o starts a blank page in about 1 second. After a while it takes about 15 seconds to start a blank page. For a while after that, it takes only a second to start a blank document. I checked both just before composing this message. Tell me about your system, please. I suspect you have system is significantly faster than mine. My computer store owner tells me there are systems back plane 10+ times as fast as mine available for about what I paid for mine 3+ years ago. Moore's law etc. Laptop Toshiba Satellite Dual T2330 Pentium with 2GB Ram and Vista Home Premium. Toshiba Notebook, 1.6GHz processor, 512 MB Ram and Ubuntu 8.04 Remix After thinking about this, I do not believe that allocating more memory to be used for OOo or per object can affect the speed of startup for a blank page Here's one link - there are quite a few if you Google. http://lifehacker.com/software/optimization/speed-up-openoffice-270775.php (or the time to start a document, but I bet it does for a large document). You only have to load the binaries for the blank page, and you have to both load the binaries, load the existing document and then do a small amount of processing to open it. (An odt document is a zip file.) NEVERTHELESS. I very much appreciate your remarks. I will try your settings, for I have been wrong more times than my opinionated self really wants to admit. I tried the memory settings mentioned in the link. These settings are consonant with settings mentioned in other posts. After a reboot, or after not having OO.o loaded for a while (not measured, but longer than a half hour), the OO.o start time for a 50K odt file is 17 seconds. Time to start a new OO.o object is 15 seconds. The time to start an new odt document /after OO.o has been loaded then stopped, /is about 1 second. /After OO.o has been loaded then stopped,/ time to start OO.o and load a 50 K odt file is about 7 seconds. Given all the great features of OO.o, and that it is /free, /it is fairly easy to live with these startup times, though I would like to have the startup times to be shorter. David Teague
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
David B Teague wrote: OO.o 3.0.0 was slow on startup, and 3.0.1 is also slow to start, slower than 2.4, even with the QuickStarter -- Have you tweaked the memory settings in Tools-Options? 3.01 starts as fast if not faster here than Office 2007 on Vista... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: OO.o 3.0.0 was slow on startup, and 3.0.1 is also slow to start, slower than 2.4, even with the QuickStarter -- Have you tweaked the memory settings in Tools-Options? 3.01 starts as fast if not faster here than Office 2007 on Vista... The behavior is very different, right now, from the immediate past. If I right click quick starter and select new text document, starting is nearly instant. If I double click a document, it starts very quickly. I emphasize that this has NOT been my experience, and I cannot point to changes that might affect the loading time. I'll see how things go. The Tools | Options | OpenOffice.org Memory settings are exactly as they were when I installed OO.o 3.0.1: Number of steps 100 Graphics Cache 9 MB Memory per object 2.4 MB Remove from Memory after 10 min Number of objects cached 20 Box checked for load at startup. Do you suggest any changes? I think I won't change anything unless it bogs down again. I am very happy that OO.o is loading faster, even if I don't understand it. If someone can help me get the expletive expurgated spelling checker to work again I'll be even happier. But since have the LanguageTool installed, I imagine that's a separate post, to Lingucomponent ... With Warmest Regards David Teague - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
David B Teague wrote: Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: OO.o 3.0.0 was slow on startup, and 3.0.1 is also slow to start, slower than 2.4, even with the QuickStarter -- Have you tweaked the memory settings in Tools-Options? 3.01 starts as fast if not faster here than Office 2007 on Vista... The behavior is very different, right now, from the immediate past. If I right click quick starter and select new text document, starting is nearly instant. If I double click a document, it starts very quickly. I emphasize that this has NOT been my experience, and I cannot point to changes that might affect the loading time. I'll see how things go. The Tools | Options | OpenOffice.org Memory settings are exactly as they were when I installed OO.o 3.0.1: Number of steps 100 Graphics Cache 9 MB Memory per object 2.4 MB Remove from Memory after 10 min Number of objects cached 20 Box checked for load at startup. Do you suggest any changes? I think I won't change anything unless it bogs down again. I've ALWAYS changed those settings: My current settings for this on 2GB RAM on Vista Home Premium is Use for OpenOffice.org - 256MB Memory per Object - 128MB Settings on my Ubuntu Netbook (with 512MB RAM) are: Use for OpenOffice.org - 128MB Memory per Object - 64MB A new blank Writer document starts in about 3 seconds on both... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Adam Tauno Williams wrote: snip (a) You have no idea how long anyone here has been using OOo. I've been using StarOffice for years before there was an OpenOffice. In 2007 your first post stated you'd been using OOo for 4 - 5 years. That means you started in late 2001 at the earliest; I assure you there are *many* people here who have been using SO/OOo for much longer [like a decade!] snip I started with StarOffice 5.2, myself. Loving it ever since. -- Joseph A Nagy Jr http://blog.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us http://www.ameliorations.us Subsiste Sermonem Statim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
I like the new ver. 3... It can open MS docx files... Save a lot of money, didn't have to buy MSO 2007... Great product.. --- On Thu, 3/5/09, Gordon gbpli...@gmail.com wrote: From: Gordon gbpli...@gmail.com Subject: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. To: users@openoffice.org Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 5:42 AM David B Teague wrote: OO.o 3.0.0 was slow on startup, and 3.0.1 is also slow to start, slower than 2.4, even with the QuickStarter -- Have you tweaked the memory settings in Tools-Options? 3.01 starts as fast if not faster here than Office 2007 on Vista... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Thanks for this - the Windows memory settings below make it quick to load on Win XP too. G - Original Message - From: David B Teague davidbtea...@verizon.net To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish. Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: OO.o 3.0.0 was slow on startup, and 3.0.1 is also slow to start, slower than 2.4, even with the QuickStarter -- Have you tweaked the memory settings in Tools-Options? 3.01 starts as fast if not faster here than Office 2007 on Vista... The behavior is very different, right now, from the immediate past. If I right click quick starter and select new text document, starting is nearly instant. If I double click a document, it starts very quickly. I emphasize that this has NOT been my experience, and I cannot point to changes that might affect the loading time. I'll see how things go. The Tools | Options | OpenOffice.org Memory settings are exactly as they were when I installed OO.o 3.0.1: Number of steps 100 Graphics Cache 9 MB Memory per object 2.4 MB Remove from Memory after 10 min Number of objects cached 20 Box checked for load at startup. Do you suggest any changes? I think I won't change anything unless it bogs down again. I am very happy that OO.o is loading faster, even if I don't understand it. If someone can help me get the expletive expurgated spelling checker to work again I'll be even happier. But since have the LanguageTool installed, I imagine that's a separate post, to Lingucomponent ... With Warmest Regards David Teague - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: Gordon wrote: David B Teague wrote: OO.o 3.0.0 was slow on startup, and 3.0.1 is also slow to start, slower than 2.4, even with the QuickStarter -- Have you tweaked the memory settings in Tools-Options? 3.01 starts as fast if not faster here than Office 2007 on Vista... The behavior is very different, right now, from the immediate past. If I right click quick starter and select new text document, starting is nearly instant. If I double click a document, it starts very quickly. I emphasize that this has NOT been my experience, and I cannot point to changes that might affect the loading time. I'll see how things go. The Tools | Options | OpenOffice.org Memory settings are exactly as they were when I installed OO.o 3.0.1: Number of steps 100 Graphics Cache 9 MB Memory per object 2.4 MB Remove from Memory after 10 min Number of objects cached 20 Box checked for load at startup. Do you suggest any changes? I think I won't change anything unless it bogs down again. I've ALWAYS changed those settings: My current settings for this on 2GB RAM on Vista Home Premium is Use for OpenOffice.org - 256MB Memory per Object - 128MB Settings on my Ubuntu Netbook (with 512MB RAM) are: Use for OpenOffice.org - 128MB Memory per Object - 64MB A new blank Writer document starts in about 3 seconds on both... XP SP3 Sempron 2800+, 1.6 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 333 MHz backplane. Remember the setting, Remove from Memory after 10 min ? You don't mention this setting. If I have had OO.o running recently, OO.o starts a blank page in about 1 second. After a while it takes about 15 seconds to start a blank page. For a while after that, it takes only a second to start a blank document. I checked both just before composing this message. Tell me about your system, please. I suspect you have system is significantly faster than mine. My computer store owner tells me there are systems back plane 10+ times as fast as mine available for about what I paid for mine 3+ years ago. Moore's law etc. After thinking about this, I do not believe that allocating more memory to be used for OOo or per object can affect the speed of startup for a blank page (or the time to start a document, but I bet it does for a large document). You only have to load the binaries for the blank page, and you have to both load the binaries, load the existing document and then do a small amount of processing to open it. (An odt document is a zip file.) NEVERTHELESS. I very much appreciate your remarks. I will try your settings, for I have been wrong more times than my opinionated self really wants to admit. With Warmest Regards David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Richard wrote: OOo3 is the worst version ever and like Netscape ver 4 a complete disaster that will loose countless users and loyal supporters. I am officially removing OOo 3 from my office 7 machines, I have used OOo since ver 1 but can no longer support its very slow operation, my staff are complaining bitterly and this is despite upgrades in PC's etc., It appears no one is capable of answering the reasons for the slow and unacceptable speeds of opening and closing a file from a file server. Let all be warned, this ver 3 is a step backwards and mso is becoming more and more attractive despite its cost as time saved relates to money saved. The issues I raise are genuine, and frankly this news room has never solved any major issues I have ever had, you don't provide answers, because there is no solution or you simply do not know, you are the AH's for not accepting there is a problem and burying your heads in the sand. Frustration certainly, and I wonder how many of you have used OOo as long as I have and how many of you use it in an environment such as mine and not just on a single machine? I have been a champion of OOo for more years than most of you have even used the programme. There are serious issues with OOo 3 and that's a fact and NOT ONE OF THE AH's REPLYING HERE CAN GIVE ME AN ANSWER AS TO WHY IT SAVES SLOW ONTO A FILE SERVER and OPENS SLOW FROM A FILE SERVER. MSO on the other hand is fast, same size and type of files, same file server and same workstations! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Twayne wrote: Richard wrote: OOo3 is the worst version ever and like Netscape ver 4 a complete disaster that will loose countless users and loyal supporters. I am officially removing OOo 3 from my office 7 machines, I have used OOo since ver 1 but can no longer support its very slow operation, my staff are complaining bitterly and this is despite upgrades in PC's etc., It appears no one is capable of answering the reasons for the slow and unacceptable speeds of opening and closing a file from a file server. Let all be warned, this ver 3 is a step backwards and mso is becoming more and more attractive despite its cost as time saved relates to money saved. LOL! I know this isn't nice, but: 1. I won't miss you; glad you're leaving. 2. I'd sure hate to have YOU taking care of MY machines or even anyone I know for that matter. 3. Ask and ye shall receive (KUCK). Well, you might have originally anyway. Your silliness, although probably born of unnecessary frustration, is noted and has probably made a lot of people not care about your issues. I know I don't due to your attitude. You've shot yourself in the foot, IMO. Regards, Twayne And do you even know what I'm talking about? as stated in another post, no serious problem has to date ever been solved here, because people like you are completely unable to simulate the environment, because if you were, you would agree, so shooting myself in the foot is unlikely. You would be so lucky as to have me look after your systems. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:49:40 +0200 Came this utterance formulated by Richard to my mailbox: Richard wrote: OOo3 is the worst version ever and like Netscape ver 4 a complete disaster that will loose countless users and loyal supporters. I am officially removing OOo 3 from my office 7 machines, I have used OOo since ver 1 but can no longer support its very slow operation, my staff are complaining bitterly and this is despite upgrades in PC's etc., It appears no one is capable of answering the reasons for the slow and unacceptable speeds of opening and closing a file from a file server. Let all be warned, this ver 3 is a step backwards and mso is becoming more and more attractive despite its cost as time saved relates to money saved. The issues I raise are genuine, and frankly this news room has never solved any major issues I have ever had, you don't provide answers, because there is no solution or you simply do not know, you are the AH's for not accepting there is a problem and burying your heads in the sand. Frustration certainly, and I wonder how many of you have used OOo as long as I have and how many of you use it in an environment such as mine and not just on a single machine? I have been a champion of OOo for more years than most of you have even used the programme. There are serious issues with OOo 3 and that's a fact and NOT ONE OF THE AH's REPLYING HERE CAN GIVE ME AN ANSWER AS TO WHY IT SAVES SLOW ONTO A FILE SERVER and OPENS SLOW FROM A FILE SERVER. MSO on the other hand is fast, same size and type of files, same file server and same workstations! This is a user help list - not a list where you can demand the program be fixed. Quality assurance is where you want to be. http://qa.openoffice.org/ I looked up qa's issue tracker and found this bug. http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=50983 You have two votes to vote for the bug to be fixed. That will go towards you helping to get the issue resolved. -- Michael All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well - Julian of Norwich 1342 - 1416 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
OOo3 is the worst version ever and like Netscape ver 4 a complete disaster that will loose countless users and loyal supporters. I am officially removing OOo 3 from my office 7 machines, I have used OOo since ver 1 but can no longer support its very slow operation, my staff are complaining bitterly and this is despite upgrades in PC's etc., It appears no one is capable of answering the reasons for the slow and unacceptable speeds of opening and closing a file from a file server. Let all be warned, this ver 3 is a step backwards and mso is becoming more and more attractive despite its cost as time saved relates to money saved. The issues I raise are genuine, and frankly this news room has never solved any major issues I have ever had, you don't provide answers, Remember the parable of the college student who had one horrible room-mate after another, she couldn't get along with any of them. In every situation what [or who] was the common denominator? because there is no solution or you simply do not know, you are the AH's for not accepting there is a problem and burying your heads in the sand. Frustration certainly, and I wonder how many of you have used OOo as long as I have and how many of you use it in an environment such as mine I've used it long enough that I paid a German company for my first copy. and not just on a single machine? I've got quite a few users who use it, and not just on a LAN, but over a WAN that spans three states. I have been a champion of OOo for more years than most of you have even used the programme. (a) You have no idea how long anyone here has been using OOo. I've been using StarOffice for years before there was an OpenOffice. In 2007 your first post stated you'd been using OOo for 4 - 5 years. That means you started in late 2001 at the earliest; I assure you there are *many* people here who have been using SO/OOo for much longer [like a decade!] than you. It is interesting that your post then was about exactly the issue you are complaining about now. (b) Claiming to be a champion is always in poor taste. A simple Google search of your e-mail address provides no evidence of such. And nearly every single one of your messages is unequivocally negative. Your frequent use of profanity doesn't help the case. There are serious issues with OOo 3 and that's a fact and NOT ONE OF THE AH's REPLYING HERE CAN GIVE ME AN ANSWER AS TO WHY IT SAVES SLOW ONTO A FILE SERVER and OPENS SLOW FROM A FILE SERVER. (a) Why would I even try? Your coming across as an angry jerk. Pay me and I might consider putting up with that. For free? No way. constructive and technical (b) what diagnostics have you tried? Did you analyze the traffic to see what was going on? Listing the files open on a fileserver is very trivial admin stuff, and a good place to start. You've provided nothing concrete enough to make even the wildest guess. If it is a Samba server just do an smbstatus and it will list open files. Also wireshark, or even etherape, will provide a nice picture of what is going on on the wire. I'd suspect this is much more likely to be a network configuration issue than an application issue. Different applications can respond quite differently to subtle network configuration issues - the fact that you perceive MSO as faster doesn't help [it might just be shuttling some task into a background thread and generating even more network I/O than OOo for all we know - unless you check]. /constructive and technical (c) Obviously not everyone is having your problem which means the issue is probably local to your configuration. See (b) that anyone would need real information in order to help you. MSO on the other hand is fast, same size and type of files, same file server and same workstations! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
- Original Message - From: Pierre openoff...@finalfiler.com To: users@openoffice.org Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:23 AM Subject: Re: [users] ver 3 is rubbish. Richard wrote: OOo3 is the worst version ever and like Netscape ver 4 a complete disaster that will loose countless users and loyal supporters. Troll, surely? Well it DOES have its weak points. After several annoying crashes I went back to 3.0.0 from 3.1 - for now. Perhaps when a more stable update is available. So right now I'm re-installing 3.0.0 - I was overly optimistic that 3.1 would suit my needs and deleted it. Fool that I am. But I haven't written it off totally - just for now. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Richard wrote: OOo3 is the worst version ever and like Netscape ver 4 a complete disaster that will loose countless users and loyal supporters. I am officially removing OOo 3 from my office 7 machines, I have used OOo since ver 1 but can no longer support its very slow operation, my staff are complaining bitterly and this is despite upgrades in PC's etc., It appears no one is capable of answering the reasons for the slow and unacceptable speeds of opening and closing a file from a file server. Let all be warned, this ver 3 is a step backwards and mso is becoming more and more attractive despite its cost as time saved relates to money saved. I haven't experienced anything bad regarding its responsiveness as compared to versino 2.4. This is on two different machines, on is a new dual core machine with 4 GB ram and the other is an older 1.9GHz machine with 1 GB RAM. In fact, OOO 3.x is an improvement over the previous version. It has more features, tremendous improvements in collaboration features and slight progress in outline mode as well, to name just a few. With all the new stuff, it is a bit slower to start up, I don't think that is such a terrible thing, however, from what I hear, developers are working on this and the new version will be a huge improvement in this respect as well, among other things. Now, till you actually give some specifics, I am inclined to think you are a troll working just to put some matter showing negative points regarding OOo to be found in future google search by some people. -- Please reply to this list only. I read this list on its corresponding newsgroup on gmane.org. Replies sent to my email address are just filtered to a folder in my mailbox and get periodically deleted without ever having been read. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
[users] Re: ver 3 is rubbish.
Richard wrote: OOo3 is the worst version ever and like Netscape ver 4 a complete disaster that will loose countless users and loyal supporters. I am officially removing OOo 3 from my office 7 machines, I have used OOo since ver 1 but can no longer support its very slow operation, my staff are complaining bitterly and this is despite upgrades in PC's etc., It appears no one is capable of answering the reasons for the slow and unacceptable speeds of opening and closing a file from a file server. Let all be warned, this ver 3 is a step backwards and mso is becoming more and more attractive despite its cost as time saved relates to money saved. LOL! I know this isn't nice, but: 1. I won't miss you; glad you're leaving. 2. I'd sure hate to have YOU taking care of MY machines or even anyone I know for that matter. 3. Ask and ye shall receive. Well, you might have originally anyway. Your silliness, although probably born of unnecessary frustration, is noted and has probably made a lot of people not care about your issues. I know I don't due to your attitude. You've shot yourself in the foot, IMO. Regards, Twayne - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
