2009/3/4 Richard <[email protected]>

> Graham Bowden wrote:
>
>> In the spirit of co operation that will make OOo the strongest software -
>> please enlighten us on the registry changes you made and their effect so
>> that all using this forum may benefit.
>>
>> Many thanks
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "M Henri Day" <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [users] Solved
>>
>>
>> 2009/3/3 Richard <[email protected]>
>>
>>  Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>  OOo3 is the worst version ever and like Netscape ver 4 a complete
>>>> disaster
>>>>
>>>>> that will loose countless users and loyal supporters.
>>>>>> I am officially removing OOo 3 from my office 7 machines, I have used
>>>>>> OOo since ver 1 but can no longer support its very slow operation, my
>>>>>> staff
>>>>>> are complaining bitterly and this is despite upgrades in PC's etc., It
>>>>>> appears no one is capable of answering the reasons for the slow and
>>>>>> unacceptable speeds of opening and closing a file from a file server.
>>>>>> Let all be warned, this ver 3 is a step backwards and mso is becoming
>>>>>> more and more attractive despite its cost as time saved relates to
>>>>>> money
>>>>>> saved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  The issues I raise are genuine, and frankly this news room has never
>>>>> solved any major issues I have ever had, you don't provide answers,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Remember the parable of the college student who had one horrible
>>>> room-mate after another,  she couldn't get along with any of them.  In
>>>> every situation what [or who] was the common denominator?
>>>>
>>>>  because there is no solution or you simply do not know, you are the
>>>> AH's
>>>>
>>>>> for not accepting there is a problem and burying your heads in the
>>>>> sand.
>>>>> Frustration certainly, and I wonder how many of you have used OOo as
>>>>> long
>>>>> as I have and how many of you use it in an environment such as mine
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I've used it long enough that I paid a German company for my first copy.
>>>>
>>>>  and not just on a single machine?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I've got quite a few users who use it, and not just on a LAN, but over a
>>>> WAN that spans three states.
>>>>
>>>>  I have been a champion of OOo for more years than most of you have even
>>>>> used the programme.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> (a) You have no idea how long anyone here has been using OOo.  I've been
>>>> using StarOffice for years before there was an OpenOffice.  In 2007 your
>>>> first post stated you'd been using OOo for 4 - 5 years.  That means you
>>>> started in late 2001 at the earliest;  I assure you there are *many*
>>>> people here who have been using SO/OOo for much longer [like a decade!]
>>>> than you.  It is interesting that your post then was about exactly the
>>>> issue you are complaining about now.
>>>> (b) Claiming to be a champion is always in poor taste.   A simple Google
>>>> search of your e-mail address provides no evidence of such.  And nearly
>>>> every single one of your messages is unequivocally negative.  Your
>>>> frequent use of profanity doesn't help the case.
>>>>
>>>>  There are serious issues with OOo 3 and that's a fact and NOT ONE OF
>>>> THE
>>>>
>>>>> AH's REPLYING HERE CAN GIVE ME AN ANSWER AS TO WHY IT SAVES SLOW ONTO A
>>>>> FILE
>>>>> SERVER and OPENS SLOW FROM A FILE SERVER.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> (a) Why would I even try? Your coming across as an angry jerk.  Pay me
>>>> and I might consider putting up with that.  For free? No way.
>>>>
>>>> <constructive and technical>
>>>> (b) what diagnostics have you tried?  Did you analyze the traffic to see
>>>> what was going on?  Listing the files open on a fileserver is very
>>>> trivial admin stuff, and a good place to start.  You've provided nothing
>>>> concrete enough to make even the wildest guess.  If it is a Samba server
>>>> just do an "smbstatus" and it will list open files.  Also wireshark, or
>>>> even etherape, will provide a nice picture of what is going on on the
>>>> wire.  I'd suspect this is much more likely to be a network
>>>> configuration issue than an application issue.  Different applications
>>>> can respond quite differently to subtle network configuration issues -
>>>> the fact that you perceive MSO as faster doesn't help [it might just be
>>>> shuttling some task into a background thread and generating even more
>>>> network I/O than OOo for all we know - unless you check].
>>>> </constructive and technical>
>>>>
>>>> (c) Obviously not everyone is having your problem which means the issue
>>>> is probably local to your configuration.  See (b) that anyone would need
>>>> real information in order to help you.
>>>>
>>>>  MSO on the other hand is fast, same size and type of files, same file
>>>>
>>>>> server and same workstations!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>  "Pay me and I might consider putting up with that" you have no idea
>>> what
>>> the problem is hot shot, cause if you did, you would show off about it
>>> here.
>>> I am very computer literate and as clearly, only a lot of wind was being
>>> blown here I have in fact, discovered a fix, the file server has remained
>>> unchanged for years and it is OOo specific as word does not behave in the
>>> same manner and after a few changes to the registry I have changed the
>>> open,
>>> auto saving, saving and closing of the OOo files to "instant" over the
>>> network, the reg changes though, should not have needed to have been made
>>> and are certainly not at user level.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This thread may possibly have been amusing initially, but didn't it lose
>> its
>> fraîcheur quite some time ago ? Perhaps we can let it die a natural death
>> ?...
>>
>> Henri
>>
>
> Nobody else is having the problem remember, so this must be specific to me?

Hard to say in my case. You mentioned changing thins in ”the registry”. I
don't know of any registry, so maybe this is only a problem for Windows
users (but of course I don't have a clue).
J.R.


>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>

Reply via email to