It is rumored that on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:16:45 -0400 rh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:23:18 +0000 > H�vard Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > rh wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:21:47 +0300 > > > Theofilos Intzoglou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Hi rh! > > >> > > >>I remember that if I try to start ooffice when my [EMAIL PROTECTED] program > > >>is already running with nice 19 using all available cpu, ooffice took > > >>about a minute to start giving me an empty window! Switching between > > >>open windows would make the window of ooffice appear transparent/empty > > >>and it was like it had frozen. However when I am not running > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ooffice starts within 10secs and all is running quite fast > > >>on my Athlon XP 1700+. And yes I'm using the bin package as I don't have > > >>the patience to wait for 12hours+ for a program to emerge just to see > > >>that after 10 hours of compiling it stopped with an error(yes this > > >>happened to me) :-) So I 'd suggest you checked if a particular program > > >>that you run would cause ooffice to act weird. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, that was exactly the problem...I had setiathome running in the > > > background and as soon as I killed it , openoffice works fine. I wish I > > > had of discovered this before I un-emerged openoffice and emerged > > > openoffice-bin. Is there a particular setting I can have setiathome > > > running and still get good response from openoffice? > > > > Yes. You should run setiathome within nice. E.g: > > nice -19 setiathome > > > That's what i have it running at right now and it doesn't do any good. If you run the [EMAIL PROTECTED] init script, that already happens. The one big startup issue I noticed with OpenOffice was to add the fonts through the OO print config (spadmin). Especially when running xfs it makes a difference. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From here to there and there to here funny things are everywhere. Dr. Seuss (1904-1991) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
