Ah, I see. Guess I'm no help to you then.
FYI, you apparently have MailWasher or some program running that tags
possible spams with ***SPAM***. It's best to remove that from your
Subject line because it makes your post look like it was labeled as
spam.
Still, you really should start a new thread for this issue: "Hijacking"
means taking over someone else's thread to get answers to your own
issues for your own purposes, leaving the original poster high and dry.
Unless you have the EXACT SAME problem, and are contributing information
to verify the original poster or something like that, do not do it.
Most newsgroups, including this one, pretty much frown on doing
that. That may not be what you meant to do, but it is what it looks
like. Starting a new thread of your own completely avoids that problem.
You will also probably have trouble getting much of an answer to your
question if you aren't the one actually having hte problem because you
won't be able to accurately answer the questions from those trying to
help you out.
HTH
Twayne
> Hi!
> Its not a problem of document size!
> I tried to create a new master document with the same sub documents as
> yesterday. After creating the table of contents first it seemed to be
> OK, but if I added more documents and updated the table of contents,
> the problem was the same.
> Since years I work with the same pool of sub documents and create
> customized master documents from it. It worked fine with OO 2 and OO3
> RC, but I think we had a similar problem (which is fixed now) before -
> maybe with the first release of OO 2.
> Katharina
>
> Twayne schrieb:
>>> André,
>>>
>>> I might know of a Swedish user who is also having performance
>>> problems with OOo 3 in regards to large documents ( > 200 MB) Should
>>> also I put them in direct contact with you?
>>>
>>> -Lars
>>>
>>
>> 1. I suspect the answer is no because
>> 2. You have sort of tried to hijack this thread. Instead,
>> 3. Start a new thread with your/his fullest description of the
>> problem. Much more detail is needed. And
>> 4. Personal opinion only, I suspect it's an already recognized
>> problem. At least it was when I submitted it a long time ago and
>> nothng has been done for it yet. 3.0 still has the same identical
>> errors from my recent verification attemtps here.
>>
>> Twayne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
