Re: [Fwd: JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1]

1999-05-26 Thread jais
nux-Beginner. Maybe you have another idea how to help me Thank you Markus jais wrote: > > -------- > > Subject: Re: JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1 > Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 22:15:00 -0400 > From: daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1

1999-05-25 Thread daly
jais, it seems that you might have a later version of the libstdc file. look in the /lib directory (or maybe /usr/lib) for the libstdc* files. you probably have one like libstdc++-lib6.1-1.so.2. if so, do ln -s libstdc++-lib6.1-1.so.2 libstdc++-lib6.0-1.so.2 tim daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] >

JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1

1999-05-25 Thread jais
Hi, I have a problem with the JDK 1.2 under SuSE 6.1 (the newest SuSE-Release) Ich wanted to test a small programm with swing, which I got from the last linuxjournal. Compiling was no problem, but when I start the java Interpreter, I get the following message: Exception in thread "main" java.la

RE: JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1

1999-05-10 Thread Peter Schuller
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > This is not true on my system!!! > JDK1.1.7 *without JIT* worked much faster than JDK1.2 with the JIT (any > chance > to check if the JIT was actually activated?) Well. Specify a non-existent JIT (which will make the JDK run in interpreted mode) an

Re: JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1

1999-05-10 Thread Nathan Meyers
Kontorotsui wrote: > > Sadly, it's also a huge memory hog compared to 1.1.7, so on my machine any > > larger app is much slower on 1.2. > > Yes... damn, it is a nightmare! > > I get 11 java processes, each one with size 81512 (RSS: 24324). > How can this happen?? 11 threads, not processes -- th

RE: JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1

1999-05-10 Thread Christian Blug
Am Mon, 10 May 1999 schrieb Kontorotsui: > On 09-May-99 Peter Schuller wrote: > >> 2) Should it be S slow?? > > I think so. Unless you're on a P-III 500 mhz with 256 megs of RAM... (I'm > > guessing this has nothing to do with the Linux port, but rather with JDK 1.2 > > in > > general). > > I

RE: JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1

1999-05-10 Thread Kontorotsui
On 09-May-99 Peter Schuller wrote: >> 2) Should it be S slow?? > I think so. Unless you're on a P-III 500 mhz with 256 megs of RAM... (I'm > guessing this has nothing to do with the Linux port, but rather with JDK 1.2 > in > general). I meant... so slow compared to JDK 1.1.7. I have a K6-II

Re: JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1

1999-05-09 Thread Dimitris Vyzovitis
Peter Schuller wrote: > > The JIT is on by default. > > If you do some experimenting, you'll notice that JDK 1.2 with JIT enabled is > *much* faster than JDK 1.1.7+TYA when it comes to loops and stuff like that. > But when method calls come into the picture, I've found it to be about as > fast as

Re: JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1

1999-05-09 Thread Nathan Meyers
Kontorotsui wrote: > > I've installed SuSE 6.1 and the JDK 1.2 now works somehow. > > Two questions: > > 1) Why does it say this: > > Font specified in font.properties not found [--zapf > dingbats-medium-r-normal--*-%d-*-*-p-*-adobe-fontspecific] > > The JDK 1.1.7 never complained about missi

RE: JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1

1999-05-09 Thread Peter Schuller
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > 2) Should it be S slow?? I think so. Unless you're on a P-III 500 mhz with 256 megs of RAM... (I'm guessing this has nothing to do with the Linux port, but rather with JDK 1.2 in general). > The graphics (swing heavily used) is at least > twic

JDK 1.2 and SuSE 6.1

1999-05-09 Thread Kontorotsui
I've installed SuSE 6.1 and the JDK 1.2 now works somehow. Two questions: 1) Why does it say this: Font specified in font.properties not found [--zapf dingbats-medium-r-normal--*-%d-*-*-p-*-adobe-fontspecific] The JDK 1.1.7 never complained about missing fonts. When I run the old 1.1.7 binari