>Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013, 8:43
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>
>
>Sorry typo, meant to read 100GB not MB. Allowing for anything FAT coming
>along.
>
>Andrew Brown
>
>On 07/08/2013 10:18 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
>> Hi :)
>> I te
heir work though!
Regards from
Tom :)
>
> From: Andrew Brown
>To:
>Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org
>Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013, 10:30
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>
>
>This is to what I have noticed by many who become a
This is to what I have noticed by many who become anal retentive in this
matter, and obsessive compulsive, over their possessions for want of a
better word. I see it in the way they buy their worldly possessions from
cars, to HiFi, to mobile phones, to their homes and it's contents. All
of it m
*Subject:* Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
Ubuntu install is the same, if using the default install options it
creates the swap partition (at least equal to installed RAM
amount), and
then then one partition for all. I change this and like many here,
create the roo
t the installer tries to make
sure your system stays reasonably flexible for the future
Regards from
Tom :)
From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 12:45
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
Yes, there are a lot of people who can give others "proof" of what their
system can do. Either by an active demonstration or via benchmark
packages.
I love doing active presentations to non-believers.
I have taken and proved that LO can do things that I claim, by bringing
my laptop[s] to t
On 07/08/2013 15:18, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
My guess is thatUbuntu created an 11Gb Extended Partition purely to put the
11Gb Swap in. Not quite sure why it did that but the installer tries to make
sure your system stays reasonably flexible for the future
Swap is just about on all systems in a
; From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster
>To: users@global.libreoffice.org
>Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 12:45
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>
>
>
>Just to give you a "bloat alert". My Ubuntu 12.04 LTS system, after all
>of its updates and upgrades f
s a software and help to make it better.
>>
>>> I sure was running DeVeDe on 2 different laptops, both as XP/Vista and
>>> Ubuntu 10.04/ U. 10.04 systems.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sina Momken
>>>
>>> On 08/06/2013 06:44 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
&g
___
From: Andrew Brown
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 8:19
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
Ubuntu install is the same, if using the default install options it
creates the swap partition (at least equal to installed RAM amount), and
then th
ine them into 1 book at the end.
Master documents perhaps?
Regards from
Tom :)
From: Sina Momken
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Cc: Tom Davies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster
; users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 22:41
Subject: [libreoffic
s from
Tom :)
>
> From: Andrew Brown
>To: users@global.libreoffice.org
>Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 8:19
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>
>
>Ubuntu install is the same, if using the default install options it
>creates the swap partition (at least equal
Ubuntu install is the same, if using the default install options it
creates the swap partition (at least equal to installed RAM amount), and
then then one partition for all. I change this and like many here,
create the root / (100MB), and the balance of the drive capacity to
/home, keeping my d
On 08/07/2013 01:05 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
> Hi :)
> If you have your /home on a separate partition then it might be possible to
> install the 64bit version of Ubuntu without disturbing your 32 it version. I
> tend to use a 10-15Gb partition for / for Ubuntu. It doesn't really need all
> that m
t: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 2:44
>Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>
>
>On 08/07/2013 04:00 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
>> Hi :)
>> Even so that is not really all that low spec. It's actually qite
>> respectable compared to a lot of systems at my work
ffice.org
>Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org
>Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 3:09
>Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>
>
>On 08/07/2013 05:43 AM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
>>
>> I would expect that .doc would load slower in Writer and .odt would
t but the docs team write each chapter of the
>> guides separately and then combine them into 1 book at the end.
>> Master documents perhaps?
>> Regards from
>> Tom :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>&
Tom :)
Hello Davis,
Thank you for your suggestion. I also have my /home placed on a separate
partition than / partition. However it's not related to this issue :D
Best,
Sina ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>> ________________
>> From: Andrew Brown
>> To: Sina Momken
>&g
On 8/6/13 1:28 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:
Hi Ken
Interesting, I'll need to do some more intense reading of the web page,
a nice find. The chart is a bit congested, and they don't seem to cover
the freeware versions of the payware versions on the chart, and the ones
I mentioned below. It would be in
day, 6 August 2013, 22:41
Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
secs is not a huge win too!
I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow i
avies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster
>> ; users@global.libreoffice.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 22:41
>> Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up speed
>>
>>
>> I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
>> other programs is s
ack to the one that did
work.
Regards from
Tom :)
>
> From: Andrew Brown
>To: Sina Momken
>Cc: Tom Davies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster
>; users@global.libreoffice.org
>Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 23:30
>Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up
On 08/07/2013 03:00 AM, Andrew Brown wrote:
> Hi Sina
>
> You have supplied good info for LO, on your system, but I would like to
> point out a few issues I see why your system with LO could be slow. Your
> laptop was launched in May 2007 and discontinued a year later, so five
> to six year old te
documents
perhaps?
Regards from
Tom :)
>
> From: Sina Momken
>To: users@global.libreoffice.org
>Cc: Tom Davies ; Kracked_P_P---webmaster
>; users@global.libreoffice.org
>Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 22:41
>Subject: [libreoffice-user
Hi Sina
You have supplied good info for LO, on your system, but I would like to
point out a few issues I see why your system with LO could be slow. Your
laptop was launched in May 2007 and discontinued a year later, so five
to six year old technology, not completely fair to put the blame at a
I also think that start up time for LO Writer and MS Office and many
other programs is small enough. But opening an empty document in under 3
secs is not a huge win too!
I believe that LO Writer is catastrophically slow in opening heavy
documents. For proving my claim, I've done some experiments. A
Can you please put your conversation about Anti-Viruses and
Contraceptive Pills on another forum or at least another thread?
On 08/07/2013 12:07 AM, Andrew Brown wrote:
> Well said
>
> Andrew Brown
>
> On 06/08/2013 09:10 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
>> Hi :)
>> I've not had any problems with AVG so fa
Hi :)
+1
Looks like they get a lot of snow
Regards from
Tom :)
>
> From: Andrew Brown
>To: Ken Springer
>Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org
>Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 20:28
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: start up
Hi Ken
Interesting, I'll need to do some more intense reading of the web page,
a nice find. The chart is a bit congested, and they don't seem to cover
the freeware versions of the payware versions on the chart, and the ones
I mentioned below. It would be interesting to see where they fare
aga
Andrew,
Just interested in your comments/thoughts on this site:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml
On 8/6/13 12:05 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:
Hi Tom
You are on track, but one thing I will give in defence of freeware
malware protection, is MS Security Essentials. It along with the MS
fir
30 matches
Mail list logo
