On Mon, 03 May 2004 02:46:17 +1000
Stephen Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 15:09, David E. Fox wrote:
> If you're going to browse for binaries, don't use PAN; use
> "getbinnews" instead. Not a hog at all. Very fast.
Steve - great. I got it. Will give it a try. I just wis
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:27:42 +, Miark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I deleted the ~/.openoffice folder which contains my personal
> OpenOffice configuration. Whenever something gets messed up,
> one of the first things I normally do is delete the personal
> config files. Do a "ls -a" to see all
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 15:09, David E. Fox wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:09:06 +
> Miark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > 4 seconds? Cripes, in KDE in 9.2.1 it takes me about a minute and
> > a half! I have a 1.1 GHz Athlon, and a gig of RAM. I monitored it
>
> I just (re)installed it in
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:09:06 +
Miark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4 seconds? Cripes, in KDE in 9.2.1 it takes me about a minute and
> a half! I have a 1.1 GHz Athlon, and a gig of RAM. I monitored it
I just (re)installed it in 10.0. I have an Athlon 1000 mhz box, with 768
megs of RAM (I rece
B McKee wrote:
Thanks now I get it :-)
But if I delate this .openoffice directory do I erase the software with
it?
Thanks
Christphe
No, it shouldn't touch the software itself. Files and folders in any
home directory only affect that user. That's why they are there :-) A
program installed in you
Thanks now I get it :-)
But if I delate this .openoffice directory do I erase the software with
it?
Thanks
Christphe
No, it shouldn't touch the software itself. Files and folders in any
home directory only affect that user. That's why they are there :-) A
program installed in your home folder w
Op Sat, 01 May 2004 10:53:46 +0300 schreef rhein:
> Thanks now I get it :-)
> But if I delate this .openoffice directory do I erase the software
> with it? Thanks
> Christphe
Only if you installed the entire OO-software in .openoffice. I suppose
you didn't.
Paul
--
"Isn't it a pity that the fr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:09 pm, Miark wrote:
Certainly it is the slowest program to kick in on my
machines. 4 seconds by my watch if nothing else is being loaded as well.
This machine has 512 MB RAM, but I just timed it on the one with half as
much, 256 RAM and it is the s
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:09 pm, Miark wrote:
> Certainly it is the slowest program to kick in on my
>
> > machines. 4 seconds by my watch if nothing else is being loaded as well.
> > This machine has 512 MB RAM, but I just timed it on the one with half as
> > much, 256 RAM and it is the same. I don't
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 19:41, Miark wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:01:43 -0400, Marc wrote:
>
> > SO is way faster than OOo which was beginning to lag
> > on my machine. SO is cute and it comes with a 500+
> > pages manual very well done.
>
> Not to lose sight of your question, but I've been pr
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:32:32 +0300, robin wrote:
> > 4 seconds? Cripes, in KDE in 9.2.1 it takes me about a minute and
> > a half! I have a 1.1 GHz Athlon, and a gig of RAM. I monitored it
> > starting with top running, and the most CPU intensive thing
> > running at the time was top itself at abo
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:22:21 +0300, rhein wrote:
>
>> >4 seconds? Cripes, in KDE in 9.2.1 it takes me about a minute and a
>> half! I have a 1.1 GHz Athlon, and a gig of RAM. I monitored it
>> starting with top running, and the most CPU intensive thing
>> >running at the time was top itself at ab
Miark wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:05:51 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any reason that OO would gradually become slower
over a period of a couple months? Has anyone else
experienced this?
No, but you might have something running in the background when you open it
up. I sometimes open
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:22:21 +0300, rhein wrote:
> >4 seconds? Cripes, in KDE in 9.2.1 it takes me about a minute and
> >a half! I have a 1.1 GHz Athlon, and a gig of RAM. I monitored it
> >starting with top running, and the most CPU intensive thing
> >running at the time was top itself at about 1
Miark wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:05:51 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any reason that OO would gradually become slower
over a period of a couple months? Has anyone else
experienced this?
No, but you might have something running in the background when you open it
up. I some
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:05:51 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Is there any reason that OO would gradually become slower
> > over a period of a couple months? Has anyone else
> > experienced this?
>
> No, but you might have something running in the background when you open it
> up. I sometimes
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:01:43 -0400, Marc wrote:
>
>> SO is way faster than OOo which was beginning to lag
>> on my machine. SO is cute and it comes with a 500+
>> pages manual very well done.
>
> Not to lose sight of your question, but I've been pretty
> annoyed lately with OO because of its slow
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:41 pm, Miark wrote:
> Not to lose sight of your question, but I've been pretty
> annoyed lately with OO because of its slowness. I seem
> to remember it starting, loading and saving files, and
> other operations being faster when my 9.2.1 was fresh.
> But it could be my imagi
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:01:43 -0400, Marc wrote:
> SO is way faster than OOo which was beginning to lag
> on my machine. SO is cute and it comes with a 500+
> pages manual very well done.
Not to lose sight of your question, but I've been pretty
annoyed lately with OO because of its slowness. I s
I have downloaded StarOffice7 from SUN website, which by the way is free for
education (read the license).
SO is way faster than OOo which was beginning to lag on my machine. SO is cute
and it comes with a 500+ pages manual very well done.
I use SO at school to teach my computer courses. THANKS
20 matches
Mail list logo
