On 26/11/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sven Axelsson wrote:
>
> > Well, duh. The file is called .font.cache-1 and is stored in the root
> > of the current user profile (usually c:\Documents and
> > Settings\Username). The one I have hasn't been modified since August,
> > and rem
Sven Axelsson wrote:
Well, duh. The file is called .font.cache-1 and is stored in the root
of the current user profile (usually c:\Documents and
Settings\Username). The one I have hasn't been modified since August,
and removing it does not cause Lilypond to recreate the file. I've
tried with (al
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> Jan, do you know where the USERPROFILE variable should come from?
No. It might be set in several placen in the registry and may be
overridden in a command shell. It might be built-in, but the
documentation seems too vague to tell
http://www.microsoft.com/resourc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Odd. There were such files (most of them empty) in various installation
directories. I removed them all, and ran Lily in two different ways,
there seems to be no font cache file created :-(
Performance is not significantly different from what I'm used to, but
typically,
Odd. There were such files (most of them empty) in various installation
directories. I removed them all, and ran Lily in two different ways,
there seems to be no font cache file created :-(
Performance is not significantly different from what I'm used to, but
typically, it does *not* spend 30' doi
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you see what happens if you run lilypond with administrator rights?
I only ever run with admin rights.
XP is pretty unusable if you don't... haha.
In that case, the real question is where the cache is going on
platforms that don't ru
On 21/11/05, Sven Axelsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/11/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sven Axelsson wrote:
> > > On 21/11/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>I believe that this is related to a FontConfig problem. You can verify
> > >>this, by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you see what happens if you run lilypond with administrator rights?
I only ever run with admin rights.
XP is pretty unusable if you don't... haha.
In that case, the real question is where the cache is going on platforms
that don't run that slowly. Darius, can yo
On 21/11/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sven Axelsson wrote:
> >>It's understandable that reading things takes time. The strange thing is
> >>that this should all be cached, so second runs are much quicker. Can you
> >>check whether the font directory are changed (files (dis)appe
Sven Axelsson wrote:
It's understandable that reading things takes time. The strange thing is
that this should all be cached, so second runs are much quicker. Can you
check whether the font directory are changed (files (dis)appearing,
timestamps that change?) regularly?
Also, there should be a f
On 21/11/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sven Axelsson wrote:
> > On 21/11/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I believe that this is related to a FontConfig problem. You can verify
> >>this, by running the console version from cmd.exe and invoking it as
> >>
>
Sven Axelsson wrote:
On 21/11/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe that this is related to a FontConfig problem. You can verify
this, by running the console version from cmd.exe and invoking it as
lilypond --verbose bla.ly
Yes indeed. Lilypond sits at Initializing Fon
On 21/11/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that this is related to a FontConfig problem. You can verify
> this, by running the console version from cmd.exe and invoking it as
>
>lilypond --verbose bla.ly
Yes indeed. Lilypond sits at Initializing FontConfig... for at l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:42:46 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Is it globally slow, or is there a specific part which is recognizably
responsible for the poor performance ? (Generating
PS/PS2PDF/generating MIDI/parsing/analysis...)
D.
I don't believe it's the compiling
Is it globally slow, or is there a specific part which is recognizably
responsible for the poor performance ?
(Generating PS/PS2PDF/generating MIDI/parsing/analysis...)
D.
Quoting Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>the problem is that most of the Windows var
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the problem is that most of the Windows variants are just as quick.
There is some weird interaction between your windows version and our
compile.
I'm using Windows XP SP2, the latest, and installed only a few weeks
ago.
Yes, I have that too, but It Works For Me.
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is probably the same problem as
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2005-09/msg00207.html
Unfortunately, I don't think this problem has been resolved, and no
one is willing to trace this problem to its roots, or so it seems.
Well, I understand all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am using Lilypond 2.7.17 on Windows, native binary. I've
been using it on Windows since the Cygwin days, but I notice
that the native binaries are INCREDIBLY SLOW. It takes close
to 30-60 seconds to compile any file, even test.ly.
I r
NK wrote:
I am using Lilypond 2.7.17 on Windows, native binary. I've
been using it on Windows since the Cygwin days, but I notice that
the native binaries are INCREDIBLY SLOW. It takes close to 30-60
seconds to compile any file, even test.ly.
I remember Cygwin only use
I am using Lilypond 2.7.17 on Windows, native binary. I've
been using it on Windows since the Cygwin days, but I notice that
the native binaries are INCREDIBLY SLOW. It takes close to 30-60
seconds to compile any file, even test.ly.
I remember Cygwin only used to take a
20 matches
Mail list logo
