OOo 2.0.4 works fine on my ancient (somewhat upgraded) Pentium III operating with Ubuntu 6.10 ; the only more salient complaint I have is that despite installing practically all the fonts available, there remain a large number of Chinese glyphs and other symbols from the Table de caractères Unicodethat aren't reproduced properly on my screen, which affects both OOo and other applications. But given, as it seems, that John Jason Jordan's problem is common to amd64 users (or 64-bit users in general), Ubuntu would be wise to correct it as soon as possible. Even old fogies like myself aren't going to be using 32-bit set-ups forever....
Henri 2007/1/27, John Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
John Jason Jordan wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 02:16:39 -0800 (PST) > TerryJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dijo: > >> Against my better judgment, I tried an amd64 OS version about 6 months ago. >> I could not launch the firefox installed by the OS installer and had to >> re-emerge it (it was a Gentoo-based distro and a good one). I tried in >> vain to install OpenOffice twice before I counted the cost in time too high. >> >> I am sceptical that software development has caught up with amd64. I would >> ditch your OS and go back to a plain i586 or whatever Ubuntu has and get an >> OpenOffice version that works. > > Each to his own. I bought this amd-64 laptop in May, 2005. First I > tried Suse, then Mandriva, Fedora, and finally Ubuntu -- all 64-bit > versions. All worked perfectly except for the video -- Ubuntu was the > only one that found and automatically configured the video, so that's > why I settled on Ubuntu. That was all the way back with Hoary. Too true about "each to his own". I started with SuSE and you couldn't pry me away from it with an iron pole. I tried Fedora Core once, and the installation was a total failure in my mind. Though I would suspect that OpenOffice is to the point where distributions would automatically bundle it with their software, at least the bigger distributions.
