Mark, I wasn't able to download the linux binaries from either coast..what about you? Anthon

Thanks for the heads up, I'm on my way to d'load it now.

On Sun, 2002-03-31 at 13:31, Ron Cordell wrote:

...

In light of the recent discussions about reading/writing MS docs and general office/prodctivity suites, I thought that I would report on the latest OpenOffice release, 641D. This is the last release before OpenOffice 1.0, and was just made available Friday.

One of the biggest complaints has been how long it takes OpenOffice to start up. That situation has been greatly improved. Total time to startup the Word processor for OpenOffice has decreased from 20 seconds to 8 seconds on my machine.

Until MS opens up their doc formats and conforms fully to an open XML document specification, OpenOffice remains the best means of working with complex MS docs that I have. It does very well at PowerPoint and Excel; it is quite useable with complex Word docs as well.

This is you last chance to use OO and submit requests for the 1.0 release. I encourage you to do so.

-ronc

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com

Total time to startup the Word processor for OpenOffice has decreased from 20 seconds to 8 seconds on my machine.

Start up is still slow as hell on my machine (PIII 750, 256MB RAM). Have also noticed that when compared with SO5.2 and SO6.0 that the fonts in OO are very rough looking and this goes for printing as well. SO6.0 looked like it had AA fonts - nice on the eyes. I never managed to get 641C running properly (always segfaulted within a few seconds of startup). With 641D I've already done a whole days work, and apart from a couple of small quirks and the font problem found it to be useable. Jethro

* Jethro Cramp (jsc@rock-tnsc.com) [020331 20:36]: -> ->Start up is still slow as hell on my machine (PIII 750, 256MB RAM). Have also ->noticed that when compared with SO5.2 and SO6.0 that the fonts in OO are very ->rough looking and this goes for printing as well. SO6.0 looked like it had AA ->fonts - nice on the eyes. Weird, it starts up quite nice on my Duron 800 but then again I have 1.5G of RAM..but that shouldn't be a big factor. CPU speed and disk IO are the big factors with OO on start up. As far as fonts. I'm not sure it takes hints from KDE2 as far as AA fonts are concerned. It's toolkit is GTK and I have the Gnome patch for AA fonts so I guess that's why mine look fine. *shrug* -> ->I never managed to get 641C running properly (always segfaulted within a few ->seconds of startup). With 641D I've already done a whole days work, and apart ->from a couple of small quirks and the font problem found it to be useable. 641c had issues with resolutions on some boxes..it was random and was purely based on the phase of the moon. On my machine if I went above 1280X1024 it would die as soon as I clicked on a popdown menu, but for others it worked fine at 1600x1200. *shrug* Weird stuff. 641d has preformed quite nicely for me the last three days ..and I've been doing peer reviews and reports from hell. I guess we shall see if it actually turns out not to suck. Cheers! -=Ben --=====-----=====-- mailto:ben@whack.org --=====-- "I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around the more I think it might not be a bad thing." -JC --=====-----=====--

I'll try that, then. Thanks, Anthony

I've had the same trouble with the main servers. Just overload I suppose. I'm getting it from the first german site via ftp right now at 100k/s so that's not bad at all.

Cheers

On Sun, 2002-03-31 at 19:10, Anthony W. Marino wrote:

...

Mark, I wasn't able to download the linux binaries from either coast..what about you?

Anthon