2009/3/3 Richard <judgesi...@netscape.net> > Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > >> OOo3 is the worst version ever and like Netscape ver 4 a complete disaster >>>> that will loose countless users and loyal supporters. >>>> I am officially removing OOo 3 from my office 7 machines, I have used >>>> OOo since ver 1 but can no longer support its very slow operation, my staff >>>> are complaining bitterly and this is despite upgrades in PC's etc., It >>>> appears no one is capable of answering the reasons for the slow and >>>> unacceptable speeds of opening and closing a file from a file server. >>>> Let all be warned, this ver 3 is a step backwards and mso is becoming >>>> more and more attractive despite its cost as time saved relates to money >>>> saved. >>>> >>> The issues I raise are genuine, and frankly this news room has never >>> solved any major issues I have ever had, you don't provide answers, >>> >> >> Remember the parable of the college student who had one horrible >> room-mate after another, she couldn't get along with any of them. In >> every situation what [or who] was the common denominator? >> >> because there is no solution or you simply do not know, you are the AH's >>> for not accepting there is a problem and burying your heads in the sand. >>> Frustration certainly, and I wonder how many of you have used OOo as long >>> as I have and how many of you use it in an environment such as mine >>> >> >> I've used it long enough that I paid a German company for my first copy. >> >> and not just on a single machine? >>> >> >> I've got quite a few users who use it, and not just on a LAN, but over a >> WAN that spans three states. >> >>> I have been a champion of OOo for more years than most of you have even >>> used the programme. >>> >> >> (a) You have no idea how long anyone here has been using OOo. I've been >> using StarOffice for years before there was an OpenOffice. In 2007 your >> first post stated you'd been using OOo for 4 - 5 years. That means you >> started in late 2001 at the earliest; I assure you there are *many* >> people here who have been using SO/OOo for much longer [like a decade!] >> than you. It is interesting that your post then was about exactly the >> issue you are complaining about now. >> (b) Claiming to be a champion is always in poor taste. A simple Google >> search of your e-mail address provides no evidence of such. And nearly >> every single one of your messages is unequivocally negative. Your >> frequent use of profanity doesn't help the case. >> >> There are serious issues with OOo 3 and that's a fact and NOT ONE OF THE >>> AH's REPLYING HERE CAN GIVE ME AN ANSWER AS TO WHY IT SAVES SLOW ONTO A FILE >>> SERVER and OPENS SLOW FROM A FILE SERVER. >>> >> >> (a) Why would I even try? Your coming across as an angry jerk. Pay me >> and I might consider putting up with that. For free? No way. >> >> <constructive and technical> >> (b) what diagnostics have you tried? Did you analyze the traffic to see >> what was going on? Listing the files open on a fileserver is very >> trivial admin stuff, and a good place to start. You've provided nothing >> concrete enough to make even the wildest guess. If it is a Samba server >> just do an "smbstatus" and it will list open files. Also wireshark, or >> even etherape, will provide a nice picture of what is going on on the >> wire. I'd suspect this is much more likely to be a network >> configuration issue than an application issue. Different applications >> can respond quite differently to subtle network configuration issues - >> the fact that you perceive MSO as faster doesn't help [it might just be >> shuttling some task into a background thread and generating even more >> network I/O than OOo for all we know - unless you check]. >> </constructive and technical> >> >> (c) Obviously not everyone is having your problem which means the issue >> is probably local to your configuration. See (b) that anyone would need >> real information in order to help you. >> >> MSO on the other hand is fast, same size and type of files, same file >>> server and same workstations! >>> >> > "Pay me and I might consider putting up with that" you have no idea what > the problem is hot shot, cause if you did, you would show off about it here. > I am very computer literate and as clearly, only a lot of wind was being > blown here I have in fact, discovered a fix, the file server has remained > unchanged for years and it is OOo specific as word does not behave in the > same manner and after a few changes to the registry I have changed the open, > auto saving, saving and closing of the OOo files to "instant" over the > network, the reg changes though, should not have needed to have been made > and are certainly not at user level.
This thread may possibly have been amusing initially, but didn't it lose its fraîcheur quite some time ago ? Perhaps we can let it die a natural death ?... Henri
