Enrico == Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Enrico Is this with Qt/X11? What really puzzles me is that on Windows
Enrico Qt3/X11 outperforms Qt/Win. Or perhaps I should say that LyX
Enrico 1.4.x using the Qt3/X11 frontend is noticeably faster than LyX
Enrico 1.4.x using the native Qt3
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:12:31PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
Basically everything before 4.1.0 has been unusable speed-wise for me.
4.1.0+ is still much worse than 3.x but came into the 'barely usable'
region.
Is this with Qt/X11?
There are some general coding practices that makes
> "Enrico" == Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Enrico> Is this with Qt/X11? What really puzzles me is that on Windows
Enrico> Qt3/X11 outperforms Qt/Win. Or perhaps I should say that LyX
Enrico> 1.4.x using the Qt3/X11 frontend is noticeably faster than LyX
Enrico> 1.4.x using
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:12:31PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > Basically everything before 4.1.0 has been unusable speed-wise for me.
> > 4.1.0+ is still much worse than 3.x but came into the 'barely usable'
> > region.
>
> Is this with Qt/X11?
There are some general coding practices
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than LyX-1.4.0
(Qt3) ever was. And it's slow in
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:01:03PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
The bad news is that it is S L O
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
> I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
> using gcc-4.1.0. ...
>
> The good news is that it works.
>
> The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than LyX-1.4.0
> (Qt3) ever was. And it's slow
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:01:03PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
> > I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
> > using gcc-4.1.0. ...
> >
> > The good news is that it works.
> >
> > The bad news is that
Bennett Helm a écrit :
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
This is great news, thanks for doing this effort Bennett.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than LyX-1.4.0 (Qt3)
ever was. And
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than LyX-1.4.0
(Qt3) ever was. And it's slow in
On May 19, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than
Martin Vermeer a écrit :
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than LyX-1.4.0
(Qt3) ever was.
Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
Martin Vermeer a écrit :
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower
Bennett Helm a écrit :
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
This is great news, thanks for doing this effort Bennett.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than LyX-1.4.0 (Qt3)
ever was. And
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
> I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
> using gcc-4.1.0. ...
>
> The good news is that it works.
>
> The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than LyX-1.4.0
> (Qt3) ever was. And it's slow
On May 19, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than
Martin Vermeer a écrit :
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than LyX-1.4.0
(Qt3) ever was.
Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
Martin Vermeer a écrit :
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:42:49AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than LyX-1.4.0
(Qt3) ever was. And it's slow in every kind of operation, from
launching the application to accessing
I finally managed to get a version of LyX with Qt4 to compile on Mac
using gcc-4.1.0. ...
The good news is that it works.
The bad news is that it is S L O W -- much slower than LyX-1.4.0
(Qt3) ever was. And it's slow in every kind of operation, from
launching the application to accessing
20 matches
Mail list logo
