| 1 |
I've found OpenOffice (the binary) to be quite responsive once it's up. |
| 2 |
It just took me 39sec to load it, which is much faster than I've |
| 3 |
experienced before. (I'm on a PIII 450 w/ 196MB RAM.) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Zach |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Mikael Hallendal wrote: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> tis 2001-12-11 klockan 04.54 skrev Dan Nelson: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>>On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 01:48, Geert Bevin wrote: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>>>I can launch a compile later on today on a machine. But it's a PII 450 |
| 14 |
>>>so I really don't know how long it will build. |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>I just got done compiling build 641 on my RC6 box. It took about 25 |
| 18 |
>>hours on a PII 450 with 256m of ram. I didn't use the ebuild to compile |
| 19 |
>>it, but I looked through the existing one and it didn't do anything |
| 20 |
>>different from what I had done manually. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Haha, this is sick! |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
>>I'd have to say that I will have to see significant speed improvements |
| 27 |
>>to want to compile openoffice again. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Do you see any difference in speed on your own-build compared to the |
| 31 |
> binary release? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Regards, |
| 34 |
> Mikael Hallendal |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> |
Archives