This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue; browsing, email etc.
This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
Any ideas?
JDL
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, John Lagrue wrote:
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue; browsing, email etc.
This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
Any ideas?
check your disk I/O speed. OO takes quite a hit on the disk to load. My laptop (Inspiron 8200) has obtained a really low disk I/O speed, as checked with the command hdparm -t /dev/hda of about 3-10 MB/sec (erratic). Previously I had found out that it was a bad interaction between the cd-automounter (magicdev for gnome on previous versions of redhat), but i'm now also getting this I/O rate on the console. I didn't see anything wrong with the DMA setting, though should doublecheck. That kind of bug of not setting it correctly is from the long past.
So, basically I have the same problem (perhaps not as much as 5 minutes though), but I don't know how to get my disk back to full speed (in my case rh9 gives me 27MB/sec).
- peter
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:37:14PM +0000, John Lagrue wrote:
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue; browsing, email etc.
This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
Any ideas?
JDL
Another tip that appeared recently is find the dictionary.lst file and comment out all the language entries whose dictionaries you don't want to use.
That's a neat idea. I've noticed OOo often slows to a c..r..a..w..l when I first use the spell checker on a single word in a document. I'm going to try this and see if it fixes my problem.
Although, I have not noticed OOo being slow to start on my machine....at least no slower than on any other distribution/computer around here. --andy
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 16:52 -0600, akonstam@trinity.edu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:37:14PM +0000, John Lagrue wrote:
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue; browsing, email etc.
This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
Any ideas?
JDL
Another tip that appeared recently is find the dictionary.lst file and comment out all the language entries whose dictionaries you don't want to use. --
======================================================================= You can't mend a wristwatch while falling from an airplane.
Aaron Konstam Computer Science Trinity University One Trinity Place. San Antonio, TX 78212-7200
telephone: (210)-999-7484 email:akonstam@trinity.edu
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 16:52 -0600, akonstam@trinity.edu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:37:14PM +0000, John Lagrue wrote:
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue; browsing, email etc.
This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
Any ideas?
JDL
Another tip that appeared recently is find the dictionary.lst file and comment out all the language entries whose dictionaries you don't want to use. --
======================================================================= You can't mend a wristwatch while falling from an airplane.
Aaron Konstam Computer Science Trinity University One Trinity Place. San Antonio, TX 78212-7200
telephone: (210)-999-7484 email:akonstam@trinity.edu
As a watchmaker I must agree with the airplane thing, but why bother, when you hit the ground someone would have to mend it again anyway after they take it off your wrist, if they can find your arm.
I'm running AMD 2000 w/512 of ram and it opens for me in 10 to 15 seconds in FC3.
Tim...
Timothy Payne wrote:
I'm running AMD 2000 w/512 of ram and it opens for me in 10 to 15 seconds in FC3.
Tim...
Hummm. 500 MHz Pentium III here with 256 MB RAM and (after I took the advice about hashing out the non-needed languages) my OOo loads in a blazing 40 seconds......
I just attribute it to OOo bloat plus my "dinosaur" box . :-)
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 21:10 -0700, Scott wrote:
Timothy Payne wrote:
I'm running AMD 2000 w/512 of ram and it opens for me in 10 to 15 seconds in FC3.
Tim...
Hummm. 500 MHz Pentium III here with 256 MB RAM and (after I took the advice about hashing out the non-needed languages) my OOo loads in a blazing 40 seconds......
I just attribute it to OOo bloat plus my "dinosaur" box . :-)
i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock OOo install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
Jeff Vian wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 21:10 -0700, Scott wrote:
Timothy Payne wrote:
I'm running AMD 2000 w/512 of ram and it opens for me in 10 to 15 seconds in FC3.
Tim...
Hummm. 500 MHz Pentium III here with 256 MB RAM and (after I took the advice about hashing out the non-needed languages) my OOo loads in a blazing 40 seconds......
I just attribute it to OOo bloat plus my "dinosaur" box . :-)
i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock OOo install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
Since AMD dropped Processer speeds I'm not up to snuff on this stuff but at the very least, you have twice the RAM I do.....
S
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Scott wrote:
i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock OOo install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
Since AMD dropped Processer speeds I'm not up to snuff on this stuff but at the very least, you have twice the RAM I do.....
They didn't "drop processor speeds" -- they stopped labeling their models by clock tick rate, which is only one factor in processor speed.
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Scott wrote:
i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock OOo install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
Since AMD dropped Processer speeds I'm not up to snuff on this stuff but at the very least, you have twice the RAM I do.....
They didn't "drop processor speeds" -- they stopped labeling their models by clock tick rate, which is only one factor in processor speed.
Close enough for me... ;-)
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 04:21 -0700, Scott wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Scott wrote:
i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock OOo install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
Since AMD dropped Processer speeds I'm not up to snuff on this stuff but at the very least, you have twice the RAM I do.....
They didn't "drop processor speeds" -- they stopped labeling their models by clock tick rate, which is only one factor in processor speed.
Close enough for me... ;-)
Clock speeds and memory differences are not the only thing. I have a laptop with P-III 600 celeron and 192mb ram that loads OOo in < 20 seconds cold.
Some people have had various problems with packages and the reported fix has often been erase the package and reinstall it.
Jeff Vian wrote:
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 04:21 -0700, Scott wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Scott wrote:
i have Athalon 2000+ with 512mb mem running FC3 and totally stock OOo install fully updated. it loads cold in 15 seconds.
Since AMD dropped Processer speeds I'm not up to snuff on this stuff but at the very least, you have twice the RAM I do.....
They didn't "drop processor speeds" -- they stopped labeling their models by clock tick rate, which is only one factor in processor speed.
Close enough for me... ;-)
Clock speeds and memory differences are not the only thing.
I'm aware of this......
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 08:08:06AM -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
Clock speeds and memory differences are not the only thing. I have a laptop with P-III 600 celeron and 192mb ram that loads OOo in < 20 seconds cold.
Some people have had various problems with packages and the reported fix has often been erase the package and reinstall it.
Mine also loads in 20 seconds. Now the question is that slow or fast. Certainly slow compared to Word in Windows. And I have 256MB ram and 1.4 Ghz processor. So fast and slow are relative. The original poster noted 5 minutes which certainly is slow.
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 16:29:47 -0600 akonstam@trinity.edu insightfully noted:
AE>On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 08:08:06AM -0600, Jeff Vian wrote: AE>> > AE>> AE>> Clock speeds and memory differences are not the only thing. AE>> I have a laptop with P-III 600 celeron and 192mb ram that loads OOo AE>in <> 20 seconds cold. AE>> AE>> Some people have had various problems with packages and the reported AE>fix> has often been erase the package and reinstall it. AE>Mine also loads in 20 seconds. Now the question is that slow or fast. AE>Certainly slow compared to Word in Windows. And I have 256MB ram and AE>1.4 Ghz processor. AE>So fast and slow are relative. The original poster noted 5 minutes AE>which certainly is slow. ============================================= Running FC3 on an AMD Athlon Thunderbird 750mhz; 256mb RAM. OOo 1.1.2 just opened for me (cold) in 11 seconds. I'm running stock Gnome at the moment, which I rarely use. I believe it opens more quickly use xfce4 and even quicker yet using ion or wmi. Mike
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:37:14 +0000, John Lagrue admin@moraystudio.com wrote:
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue; browsing, email etc.
This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
Any ideas?
JDL
As I noted that the system is used about 128M and excluded the cached memory... So it may not enough memory and CPU is also depended....
Ringo
Wong Kwok-hon wrote:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:37:14 +0000, John Lagrue admin@moraystudio.com wrote:
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
Nothing to do with swapping or CPU. The CPU load falls to zero, disc activity ceases.....but no window appears for absolutely ages. The system doesn't hang up, because all other activities can continue; browsing, email etc.
This is on an Celeron M320 with 256Mb, 20Gb and 490Mb swap space.
Any ideas?
JDL
As I noted that the system is used about 128M and excluded the cached memory... So it may not enough memory and CPU is also depended....
Ringo
If the problem was anything to do with either disk transfer rates or amount of memory then I would see my disk hammering away flat out. But as I said in my first email, disc activity stops! So does CPU activity. OO just sits there for 5 minutes without displaying any window.
Any other suggestions?
JDL
On Thursday 02 December 2004 17:28, John Lagrue wrote:
If the problem was anything to do with either disk transfer rates or amount of memory then I would see my disk hammering away flat out. But as I said in my first email, disc activity stops! So does CPU activity. OO just sits there for 5 minutes without displaying any window.
Any other suggestions?
JDL
I saw another post complaining of the same symptoms in past week (your's too?). I also am running a laptop (Sony VAIO, 750MHz) and as you can see below it took about 11 seconds to load to the blank page and exit again with the command shown.
16:54:11 $ date;ooffice;date Thu Dec 2 17:28:44 CST 2004 Thu Dec 2 17:28:55 CST 2004
This time reflects the second invocation, not the first (it was near 25 seconds). I have trimmed the spell checker file and I'm using the XFce desktop if that makes a difference.
Regards, Mike Klinke
Mike Klinke wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 17:28, John Lagrue wrote:
If the problem was anything to do with either disk transfer rates or amount of memory then I would see my disk hammering away flat out. But as I said in my first email, disc activity stops! So does CPU activity. OO just sits there for 5 minutes without displaying any window.
Any other suggestions?
JDL
I saw another post complaining of the same symptoms in past week (your's too?). I also am running a laptop (Sony VAIO, 750MHz) and as you can see below it took about 11 seconds to load to the blank page and exit again with the command shown.
No, that wasn't me.
16:54:11 $ date;ooffice;date Thu Dec 2 17:28:44 CST 2004 Thu Dec 2 17:28:55 CST 2004
This time reflects the second invocation, not the first (it was near 25 seconds). I have trimmed the spell checker file and I'm using the XFce desktop if that makes a difference.
That's the sort of speed I got with FC 2. Having done a clean install of FC3 the performance has fallen through the floor.
JDL
On Thursday 02 December 2004 18:47, JL wrote:
16:54:11 $ date;ooffice;date Thu Dec 2 17:28:44 CST 2004 Thu Dec 2 17:28:55 CST 2004
This time reflects the second invocation, not the first (it was near 25 seconds). I have trimmed the spell checker file and I'm using the XFce desktop if that makes a difference.
That's the sort of speed I got with FC 2. Having done a clean install of FC3 the performance has fallen through the floor.
This was also a clean FC3 install. This tells me that it's not a fundamental problem with OpenOffice but rather something associated with the environment. Perhaps running "strace ooffice" will allow you to see what's hanging up.
Regards, Mike Klinke
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:41:27 -0600, Mike Klinke lsomike@futzin.com wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 18:47, JL wrote:
16:54:11 $ date;ooffice;date Thu Dec 2 17:28:44 CST 2004 Thu Dec 2 17:28:55 CST 2004
This time reflects the second invocation, not the first (it was near 25 seconds). I have trimmed the spell checker file and I'm using the XFce desktop if that makes a difference.
That's the sort of speed I got with FC 2. Having done a clean install of FC3 the performance has fallen through the floor.
This was also a clean FC3 install. This tells me that it's not a fundamental problem with OpenOffice but rather something associated with the environment. Perhaps running "strace ooffice" will allow you to see what's hanging up.
I had the problem too in my FC2 installation with latest OO, strace oowrite gave me, waiting for cups response so if I restart cups services, OO opening... nope for the fresh FC3
On Friday 03 Dec 2004 03:21, Lewi Kristianto wrote:
I had the problem too in my FC2 installation with latest OO, strace oowrite gave me, waiting for cups response so if I restart cups services, OO opening... nope for the fresh FC3
It maybe worth you guys trying this out:
http://segfaultskde.berlios.de/index.php?content=oooqs
OO loads in about 5-7 secs now for me (First Opening) 2 secs from then on.. And as I have mentioned before use Checkinstall to build the RPM, you really *don't* want to install source apps on an RPM based system IMHO.
Colin
Colin J Thomson wrote:
On Friday 03 Dec 2004 03:21, Lewi Kristianto wrote:
I had the problem too in my FC2 installation with latest OO, strace oowrite gave me, waiting for cups response so if I restart cups services, OO opening... nope for the fresh FC3
It maybe worth you guys trying this out:
http://segfaultskde.berlios.de/index.php?content=oooqs
OO loads in about 5-7 secs now for me (First Opening) 2 secs from then on..
Now that you mention it, I'm amazed this isn't part of the Linux version. I used OOo on Windows for a while and the windows version comes with quickstarter. It made a difference, for sure (as does the MS office fast start).
Mike Klinke wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 18:47, JL wrote:
16:54:11 $ date;ooffice;date Thu Dec 2 17:28:44 CST 2004 Thu Dec 2 17:28:55 CST 2004
This time reflects the second invocation, not the first (it was near 25 seconds). I have trimmed the spell checker file and I'm using the XFce desktop if that makes a difference.
That's the sort of speed I got with FC 2. Having done a clean install of FC3 the performance has fallen through the floor.
This was also a clean FC3 install. This tells me that it's not a fundamental problem with OpenOffice but rather something associated with the environment. Perhaps running "strace ooffice" will allow you to see what's hanging up.
Regards, Mike Klinke
I tried running strace oowriter......here's the end of the output where it is hanging up.
time(NULL) = 1102119632 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 27 fcntl64(27, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) = 0 setsockopt(27, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 setsockopt(27, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [1], 4) = 0 connect(27, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(631), sin_addr=inet_addr("64.15.205.241")}, 16) = -1 ECONNREFUSED (Connection refused) close(27) = 0
which then repeats with ther addresses 64.15.205.155, 64.15.205.180, 64.15.205.202, and several others. The delay in starting is caused by the timeout on all the connections. Can anybody explain what on earth is happening?
JDL
I tried running strace oowriter......here's the end of the output where it is hanging up.
time(NULL) = 1102119632 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 27 fcntl64(27, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) = 0 setsockopt(27, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 setsockopt(27, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [1], 4) = 0 connect(27, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(631), sin_addr=inet_addr("64.15.205.241")}, 16) = -1 ECONNREFUSED (Connection refused) close(27) = 0
which then repeats with ther addresses 64.15.205.155, 64.15.205.180, 64.15.205.202, and several others. The delay in starting is caused by the timeout on all the connections. Can anybody explain what on earth is happening?
see if those addresses (or the equivalent host names) are in the file ~/.recently-used
On Friday 03 December 2004 18:32, JL wrote:
I tried running strace oowriter......here's the end of the output where it is hanging up.
time(NULL) = 1102119632 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 27 fcntl64(27, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) = 0 setsockopt(27, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 setsockopt(27, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [1], 4) = 0 connect(27, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(631), sin_addr=inet_addr("64.15.205.241")}, 16) = -1 ECONNREFUSED (Connection refused) close(27) = 0
which then repeats with ther addresses 64.15.205.155, 64.15.205.180, 64.15.205.202, and several others. The delay in starting is caused by the timeout on all the connections. Can anybody explain what on earth is happening?
That block of addresses belongs to an outfit that seems to be associated with "all things spammy" if you look them up via Google. I can't imagine why opening ooffice would try to contact that net block, or any other for that matter. Ooffice doesn't do that here.
If you don't get any other concrete ideas on this I'd be tempted to remove and re-install OpenOffice to see if that makes a difference. If you were running a Windows box I'd suggest a diagnostic program program like "spybot" but .....
Regards, Mike Klinke
20:59:19 # whois -h whois.arin.net 64.15.205.241 [Querying whois.arin.net] [Redirected to rwhois.exodus.net:4321] [Querying rwhois.exodus.net] [rwhois.exodus.net] network:Class-Name:network network:Auth-Area:0.0.0.0/0 network:Network-Name:64.15.205.0 network:IP-Network:64.15.205.0/24 network:Organization;I:DBS Administration Pty Ltd network:Name;I:Billy Vanderent network:Email;I:b.vanderent@au.darkbluesea.com network:Street;I:GPO Box 278 network:City;I:Brisbane, QLD, Australia 4001
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Klinke"
On Friday 03 December 2004 18:32, JL wrote:
I tried running strace oowriter......here's the end of the output where it is hanging up.
time(NULL) = 1102119632 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 27 fcntl64(27, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) = 0 setsockopt(27, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 setsockopt(27, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [1], 4) = 0 connect(27, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(631), sin_addr=inet_addr("64.15.205.241")}, 16) = -1 ECONNREFUSED (Connection refused) close(27) = 0
which then repeats with ther addresses 64.15.205.155, 64.15.205.180, 64.15.205.202, and several others. The delay in starting is caused by the timeout on all the connections. Can anybody explain what on earth is happening?
That block of addresses belongs to an outfit that seems to be associated with "all things spammy" if you look them up via Google.
Do a "strings" command on all the OOo binaries and grep for ip patterns. I can't imagine why any ip address would be hard coded into the program. Some FQDN's sure, but not an ip address. Weird!
-eric wood
On Friday 03 December 2004 22:45, Eric Wood wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Klinke"
On Friday 03 December 2004 18:32, JL wrote:
I tried running strace oowriter......here's the end of the output where it is hanging up.
time(NULL) = 1102119632 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 27 fcntl64(27, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) = 0 setsockopt(27, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 setsockopt(27, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [1], 4) = 0 connect(27, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(631), sin_addr=inet_addr("64.15.205.241")}, 16) = -1 ECONNREFUSED (Connection refused) close(27) = 0
which then repeats with ther addresses 64.15.205.155, 64.15.205.180, 64.15.205.202, and several others. The delay in starting is caused by the timeout on all the connections. Can anybody explain what on earth is happening?
That block of addresses belongs to an outfit that seems to be associated with "all things spammy" if you look them up via Google.
Do a "strings" command on all the OOo binaries and grep for ip patterns. I can't imagine why any ip address would be hard coded into the program. Some FQDN's sure, but not an ip address. Weird!
If its there, tell the OO folks ASAP. I haven't let a 64.xx.xx.xx address past iptables in 5 years.
-eric wood
Eric Wood wrote:
Do a "strings" command on all the OOo binaries and grep for ip patterns. I can't imagine why any ip address would be hard coded into the program. Some FQDN's sure, but not an ip address.
It's not going to be in the OO binary or everyone would be seeing this. My guess is that the addresses are coming from ~/.recently-used which several gnome aps use to create a list of recently used file names. In OO these show up at the bottom of the File menu. If you end up with some remote URL's listed in the .recently-used file then many apps will try to visit them when they start up.
I don't know if there is a way to control what gets saved in the list, but you can always clean it out manually and see if that speeds up the OO startup.
Kevin Street wrote:
Eric Wood wrote:
Do a "strings" command on all the OOo binaries and grep for ip patterns. I can't imagine why any ip address would be hard coded into the program. Some FQDN's sure, but not an ip address.
It's not going to be in the OO binary or everyone would be seeing this. My guess is that the addresses are coming from ~/.recently-used which several gnome aps use to create a list of recently used file names. In OO these show up at the bottom of the File menu. If you end up with some remote URL's listed in the .recently-used file then many apps will try to visit them when they start up.
I don't know if there is a way to control what gets saved in the list, but you can always clean it out manually and see if that speeds up the OO startup.
Yes! I just removed the file and oowriter started up at its usual speed. I have no idea at all where those addresses came from because they were not listed in the file - but removing it has fixed things.
Thanks everyone for your advice.
JDL
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2004 22:37 schrieb John Lagrue:
This has been raised before but I have a bad problem with OO on FC3. I start it...the banner appears and the blue progress bar quickly goes across to 100% - and then nothing happens for at least 5 minutes.
I had the same problem, 5-10 minutes, sometimes never.... Somebody mentioned that it might be a network thing, that OO is waiting for a network connection. I found the following suggestions: - under options-Internet set the proxy to None - do you have a network printer installed? If so, make a dummy local printer and set that as default.
As somebody else mentioned: - comment out all dictionaries that you don't need in in /usr/lib/ooo-1.1/share/dict/ooo/dictionary.lst
Unfortunately, all these suggestions didn't improve anything. It did get a bit better after I removed and reinstalled the rpms, but it's still terribly slow.
Hopefully the next release will be much faster. There are snapshot rpms for the development version on the openoffice webpage (http://download.openoffice.org/index.html). They don't conflict with the existing OO1.1. but install a separate copy of OO 1.9. This version is really much faster (and uses less memory), but of course it's development and more risky.
Hope that helps Stephan
-
akonstam＠trinity.edu -
Andrew Choens -
Colin J Thomson -
Eric Wood -
Gene Heskett -
Jeff Vian -
John Lagrue -
Kevin Street -
Lewi Kristianto -
Matthew Miller -
Michael Scottaline -
Mike Klinke -
Peter Teuben -
Scott -
Stephan Matthiesen -
Tim -
Wong Kwok-hon