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
19 matches
Mail list logo
