 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / CAD / September 2007GhostScript/GhostView ??
Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? It's been awhile since I've used it. I can't remember the way to crop a PostScript image. I have a schematic that is like 5 transistors in the middle of the page and would like to crop off all the excess white-space and border markings before inserting in a Word document. Thanks! ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave > Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > page and would like to crop off all the excess white-space and border > markings before inserting in a Word document. Copy the image and paste it into 'Paint', then crop it, save it, then copy and paste the new image into your document. There are tiny 'buttons' on the right side and bottom of the 'Paint' screen that you click and drag to crop each edge. You can do the left side or top by flipping the image. It is part of Windows, and only takes a couple minutes to figure out for most people.  SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >> Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >side or top by flipping the image. It is part of Windows, and only >takes a couple minutes to figure out for most people. Paint won't open PostScript files. ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave >Paint won't open PostScript files. My linux box has a ps2pdf utility. I'll bet it runs on windows if you have the cigwin stuff. SignatureThese are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam. > >> Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Paint won't open PostScript files. I didn't say it would. I said to copy the image from the PostScript file. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >>> Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Paint won't open PostScript files. You could open up the ps in GV and then alt-print scr to capture the screen and paste into paint then crop there and then copy and paste into word. >Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson Tried Irfanview? It will open postscripts, crop, and save as, say, a gif or jpeg. John >>Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Tried Irfanview? It will open postscripts, crop, and save as, say, a > gif or jpeg. I've tried that a few days ago and it leaves a nasty black area where the cropped away stuff used to be. Jim, as Mark said you might as well import into Word as is and then crop there. Invoke the image toolbar. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com Hi, >>>I can't remember the way to crop a PostScript image. make a eps with GS/GV. There you are able to give the outline manual, if needed. You also may be able to convert the ps to ascii, if it is in binary now, then you should be able to do this via notepad, that's the way I prefer ;-) Other way is to convert the ps (with GS/GV to a editable vector format like AI or others. There I prefer emf that works well with M$Office Marte > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Marte Why all this trouble? You can crop nicely right in Word, no matter what format. As long as the imported graphic shows on your screen you can crop it right there. I am certainly not a Microsoft fan and IMHO they should not design operating systems anymore but their MS-Word is quite a good product. Very practical, useful, and it doesn't have the bloat or leave memory leaks like OpenOffice does. I have yet to find a better word processor than MS-Word, but I'm not looking for one because it works. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >format. As long as the imported graphic shows on your screen you can >crop it right there. Nicely? It crops each border, manually, in inches, and you can't see what will happen until you exit the format box. If you've resized the picture, it still crops in the original dimensions! Any modern program will let you drag a crop box just where you want it. The way Word handles images is a disgrace. Hell, the way it handles text is a disgrace! >I am certainly not a Microsoft fan and IMHO they should not design >operating systems anymore but their MS-Word is quite a good product. >Very practical, useful, and it doesn't have the bloat or leave memory >leaks like OpenOffice does. I have yet to find a better word processor >than MS-Word, but I'm not looking for one because it works. It's a ghastly mess. John >>>Hi, >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > picture, it still crops in the original dimensions! Any modern program > will let you drag a crop box just where you want it. Ok, it's not perfect. But better than with IrfanView where you have that nasty black border because it stores it back with the cropped-away sections just blackened but not deleted. > The way Word handles images is a disgrace. Hell, the way it handles > text is a disgrace! Can't say that. It does some weird things such as like micro-crashes but those are mostly recoverable. Except when it hangs up on that dreaded normal.dot file. This sometimes requires hitting the reset button but then again that's kind of normal in a Windows environment. >>I am certainly not a Microsoft fan and IMHO they should not design >>operating systems anymore but their MS-Word is quite a good product. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's a ghastly mess. I've done my docs and module specs with MS-Word since the first day of self-employment back in the late 80's. In fact, even with DOS-Word there wasn't much that I couldn't do compared to "modern" versions of it. I was always able to happily copy and paste schematic sections where it was needed to explains stuff, plus scope plots, analyzer pics etc. Heck, it even allowed a straight import of HPGL so you could include plots that came in over those garden hose cables. In the days of DOS! The only MS program that I believe is even higher in reliability is MS-Works. That rarely ever crashes and keep my biz databases all caught up. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >>>>Hi, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >nasty black border because it stores it back with the cropped-away >sections just blackened but not deleted. It does not! See abse. And if you make a donation, Irfan himself will send you a thank-you email. Bill Gates won't do that. John >>>>>Hi, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > And if you make a donation, Irfan himself will send you a thank-you > email. Bill Gates won't do that. Where on abse? SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >>>>>>Hi, >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Where on abse? Same thread. John >>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > John Hmm, went through all posts of this thread over there, didn't find any with attachments. Maybe my news server dropped a post. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >>>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >Hmm, went through all posts of this thread over there, didn't find any >with attachments. Maybe my news server dropped a post. This is the ID, I think: <j7pae3lqk2rdhhobbmglpm0ej1ckondogo@4ax.com> John >>>>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > <j7pae3lqk2rdhhobbmglpm0ej1ckondogo@4ax.com> This kind of link doesn't work on my PCs, just opens an email window. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >>>Hmm, went through all posts of this thread over there, didn't find any >>>with attachments. Maybe my news server dropped a post. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >This kind of link doesn't work on my PCs, just opens an email window. OK, I give up. John >>>>Hmm, went through all posts of this thread over there, didn't find any >>>>with attachments. Maybe my news server dropped a post. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > OK, I give up. Sigh. Then I'll end up in a nursing home some day, having never known how to properly crop with Irfanview. But currently I use Word for that anyway. For really fine stuff a program from Kodak that came with the PC. Seems like the SBC server is a bit rocky today. It choked for a few minutes a couple of times. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >> This is the ID, I think: >> >> <j7pae3lqk2rdhhobbmglpm0ej1ckondogo@4ax.com> > > This kind of link doesn't work on my PCs, just opens an email window. Try putting news: before the text above. news:j7pae3lqk2rdhhobbmglpm0ej1ckondogo@4ax.com SignatureReply in group, but if emailing add another zero, and remove the last word. >>>This is the ID, I think: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > news:j7pae3lqk2rdhhobbmglpm0ej1ckondogo@4ax.com Then the link does nothing at all on Mozilla :-( SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >> Try putting news: before the text above. >> >> news:j7pae3lqk2rdhhobbmglpm0ej1ckondogo@4ax.com > > Then the link does nothing at all on Mozilla :-( What happens with slashes? news://j7pae3lqk2rdhhobbmglpm0ej1ckondogo@4ax.com SignatureReply in group, but if emailing add another zero, and remove the last word. >>>Try putting news: before the text above. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > news://j7pae3lqk2rdhhobbmglpm0ej1ckondogo@4ax.com Nada, zilch, no reaction when clicking it :-( Mozilla is a mixed bag. More reliable but some stuff doesn't work. Thunderbird is supposedly even more stable (not in my experience though) but lacks more features, for example the "next message" box. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com > >> Try putting news: before the text above. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > news://j7pae3lqk2rdhhobbmglpm0ej1ckondogo@4ax.com That tries to connect me to their news server, where I don't have an account, with Netscape 4.78. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida > >> This is the ID, I think: > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > news:j7pae3lqk2rdhhobbmglpm0ej1ckondogo@4ax.com Works in Netscape 4.78. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >>>>This is the ID, I think: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Works in Netscape 4.78. Older software is often better than all this new stuff. The most stable browser I ever had was also my first one: Mosaic. That together with the CompuServe email client was the most rock solid web interface mankind could wish for. Not one lone crash or hickup in many years. <sigh> SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com Hi Jörg, >>>>>>>I can't remember the way to crop a PostScript image. >>>Why all this trouble? You can crop nicely right in Word, no matter what >>>format. As long as the imported graphic shows on your screen you can crop >>>it right there. Postscript and Word are two separate worlds. > Ok, it's not perfect. But better than with IrfanView where you have that > nasty black border because it stores it back with the cropped-away > sections just blackened but not deleted. Ctl. + Y dont add any border on my computers. But remember the OP wants to crop postscripts, not bitmaps. Marte >Hi Jörg, >>>>>>>>I can't remember the way to crop a PostScript image. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Marte Irfanview lists postscript as an acceptable input format, although I've never tried it. It may need a plugin. John > Irfanview lists postscript as an acceptable input format, although > I've never tried it. It may need a plugin. It needs a plugin. It works okay for single pages, but if you make the mistake of opening a 200-page document with it, it will try to render the whole thing in one go and you'll end up terminating it. IOW, remember to set the file association for .ps files back to GSView (etc) after installing the plugin. >>Hi Jörg, >>>>>>>>>I can't remember the way to crop a PostScript image. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >John It uses Ghostscript. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >>Ctl. + Y dont add any border on my computers. >>But remember the OP wants to crop postscripts, not bitmaps. > Irfanview lists postscript as an acceptable input format, although > I've never tried it. It may need a plugin. Irfanview uses GS for PS. But then it is much better to use GV instead. There you can convert the PS in a editable format of your joyce. In case of vector graphics I prefer vector graphics too, like emf or wmf or dxf or simply ai if you have a DTP that accepts this format. Marte >> Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John I find that .png format is way better for line drawings. les... >>> Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I find that .png format is way better for line drawings. Yes! Remarkably small file sizes and surprising clarity at the other end. I use that 90% of the time and it renders nicely on almost any PC. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com Hi, >> I find that .png format is way better for line drawings. > Yes! Remarkably small file sizes and surprising clarity at the other end. > I use that 90% of the time and it renders nicely on almost any PC. png is a bitmap format, and never as good as a vector format if you have a vector grafic. The pitty is that word isn't able to handle vector graphics in a useful way :-( Even Powerpoint can't do this in a clean way. Marte > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > vector grafic. The pitty is that word isn't able to handle vector graphics > in a useful way :-( Even Powerpoint can't do this in a clean way. Ok, but PNG can be read by pretty much any PC and that's what really matters to my clients. Also, PNG produces schematics and stuff in small file sizes and stunning clarity. I used to import lots of HPGL files into DOS-Word in the 90's. Never a problem. I don't know whether Win-Word does it as good, somehow HPGL has fizzled away a bit. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com alt.binaries.schematics.electronic removed from To line Les Matthew wrote: >>I find that .png format is way better for line drawings. >> >Yes! Remarkably small file sizes and surprising clarity at the other >end. I use that 90% of the time and it renders nicely on almost any PC. Until Micros~1 touches it. At that point .PNG turns to .sh.t. http://www.google.com/search?q=Internet.Explorer+png+not.supported&num=100 >Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson Jim, You can crop in Word. There is a crop tool in the Picture toolbar. To bring up the picture tool bar, View|Toolbars|Picture. The toolbar is visible if it is checked in the menu. Select the image, click on the crop button and move the handles to crop your image. Mark >>Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Mark Yep, Just tried it. Works great! ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave > Anyone using GhostScript/GhostView? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > page and would like to crop off all the excess white-space and border > markings before inserting in a Word document. I use a capture thing called MWSnap for this - you can pick an area to capture and save it as a jpg, bmp, gif, tiff, or png. I think it's free. alt.binaries.schematics.electronic removed from To line Jim Thompson wrote: >>I can't remember the way to crop a PostScript image. jtayNOSPAMlor@ hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com wrote: >I use a capture thing called MWSnap for this Yup. A screen capture utility is by far the easiest way to do this. >- you can pick an area to capture >and save it as a jpg, bmp, gif, tiff, or png. I think it's free. Correct on every point. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:8qzlxf3GEroJ:www.mirekw.com/winfreeware/mws nap.html+Mirek.Wojtowicz+freeware+does.not.need.any.special.dlls.drivers.or.syst em.files+does.not.require.installation >alt.binaries.schematics.electronic removed from To line > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Correct on every point. >http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:8qzlxf3GEroJ:www.mirekw.com/winfreeware/mws nap.html+Mirek.Wojtowicz+freeware+does.not.need.any.special.dlls.drivers.or.syst em.files+does.not.require.installation Yes, indeedy, doo... such marvelous presentation grade resolution :-( ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave >>>>I can't remember the way to crop a PostScript image. jtayNOSPAMlor@ hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com wrote: >>>I use a capture thing called MWSnap for this JeffM wrote: >>Yup. A screen capture utility is by far the easiest way to do this. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >Yes, indeedy, doo... such marvelous presentation grade resolution :-( Are you saying that when you take yours back out of M$Word it's still PostScript? If not, its resolution is no different than the bitmap that a screen capture utility snags from the video buffer. >>>>>I can't remember the way to crop a PostScript image. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >than the bitmap that a screen capture utility snags from the video >buffer. I'm pasting "from file". ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave JeffM wrote: >>>>[...]screen capture[...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I'm pasting "from file". Is that a "Yes"? > >>>>I can't remember the way to crop a PostScript image. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > than the bitmap that a screen capture utility snags from the video > buffer. I can't comment on Word but I do know the if you use Open Office and have GhostScript, PDFCreator and a postscipt printer driver installed then it is possible to...... Use the postscript printer driver to print an .eps to file from most other applications. Use Open Office and insert the .eps file in the document as a picture and crop/resize or otherwise play with it. Use PDFCreator to print the file from Open Office as a PDF. The end result, assuming other things, is the presentation quality Jim is looking for. Here's an example.... http://www.genomerics.talktalk.net/test.pdf There are a mix of pasted gif images in that along with the picture of the transformer which was robbed from a Philips PDF. Zoom in on various ones and you'll see the difference. So, the answer in this case is Yes. DNA > > >>>>I can't remember the way to crop a PostScript image. > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > DNA Here's a couple more... http://www.genomerics.talktalk.net/filter.pdf Top is a schematic from an old version of Protel. Bottom is an initial PCB layout from the same version of Protel. Both were printed through the postscript printer driver to .eps files then dropped into Open Office and then 'printed' back out to .pdf using PDFCreator. http://www.genomerics.talktalk.net/vac.pdf Robbed from the manufacturers data sheet. Printed from Acrobat to .eps files using the postscript printer driver, dropped into Open Office and then 'printed' back out to .pdf using PDFCreator. It does involve a bit/lot of fiddling about and depends on the source material an software but the results are well worth it when it works. DNA >>>>>> I can't remember the way to crop a PostScript image. >> jtayNOSPAMlor@ hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > DNA While PDFCreator is an excellent program (we use it throughout my company), I can't see why you'd use it for output from OpenOffice. One of the many advantages of OpenOffice over MS Office is that it can generate pdf's directly - it is much faster than using PDFCreator (especially if your PC is memory-challenged, such as by running Vista with under 2 exabytes ram), and gives you access to things like PDF bookmarks and live links and references. On Sep 11, 8:54 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > > So, the answer in this case is Yes. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Things may have changed since I beat my head against this one but when I last tried it I got the impression that....... Anyway, when I did it there was something about how you had to choose some option in Open Office other than its native PDF output to get it to print embedded .eps files and even when you did that the quality of output left a lot to be desired. Going via PDFcreator produced much higher quality outputs with less hassle. I don't doubt things might have changed but, at the time that was the solution that worked for me. DNA > On Sep 11, 8:54 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I don't doubt things might have changed but, at the time that was the > solution that worked for me. I haven't tried using eps images in Open Office - it's conceivable that that causes trouble, I suppose. Try it again sometime with a newer version - the pdf generation has improved with time. >> On Sep 11, 8:54 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > that causes trouble, I suppose. Try it again sometime with a newer > version - the pdf generation has improved with time. I wish they'd concentrate on the bloat stuff some more. I quit using OO because of memory leaks and inadequate termination. For example, it leaves soffice.bin running uselessly. Every time after I used OO it was the same drill, ctrl-alt-del, task manager, terminate by hand. On older gear with modest RAM that's a real hassle. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >>> On Sep 11, 8:54 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > the same drill, ctrl-alt-del, task manager, terminate by hand. On older > gear with modest RAM that's a real hassle. It would do OO no harm to be a bit smaller and lighter, but I don't believe it is much different from other large programs these days. It uses about 50-70 MB on my machine at the moment, which is about the same as Acrobat reader and less than Thunderbird or Firefox. I can't say I've ever noticed a memory leak or hang with OO, and I've been using it since its first inception (and Star Office before that). To be fair though, I try to avoid word processors and spreadsheets as much as possible (once you get used to LaTeX, word processors seem so amateurish). The point of the soffice.bin, incidentally, is to make it faster to start the other parts of OO - it's a pre-load of common parts. MS Office does the same thing, except it's hidden better so you can't see how much memory it is taking up. If you are looking for a smaller and lighter word processor, Abiword could be a good choice. Import/export of MS formats or of standard formats is not perfect, especially for complex documents, but it's okay for simpler things. On Sep 12, 9:24 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > It would do OO no harm to be a bit smaller and lighter, but I don't > believe it is much different from other large programs these days. It [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > formats is not perfect, especially for complex documents, but it's okay > for simpler things. If you want to try out Abiword, OpenOffice and Starwriter without the hassle of downloading and installing the full packages then you can 'stream' them from http://www.stream24-7.com Join up (minimal details) , install the application player and then stream them. Each one is a minimal, get you going, install and then it grabs the bits you need and throws them away as and when. Once you get bored you deactivate them and they are gone. Doesn't mess with your system or registry. It's really a proof of concept thing but it does the job. DNA >If you want to try out Abiword, OpenOffice and Starwriter >without the hassle of downloading and installing the full packages >then you can 'stream' them from >http://www.stream24-7.com > DNA NOT cross-platform (not even DOS-based Windoze). Only works on Internet Exploder (v6 or later). http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xRT3Fw5-0kEJ:www.stream24-7.com/live/showsc reen.php?site_id=28%26screentype=folder%26screenid=456+1Ghz.or.above+icio+Copyri ght+Windows.2000/XP+IE6.or.above+Register+Reserved+Bandwidth+del+Firefox.is.not. currently.supported > >If you want to try out Abiword, OpenOffice and Starwriter > >without the hassle of downloading and installing the full packages [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > NOT cross-platform (not even DOS-based Windoze). > Only works on Internet Exploder (v6 or later). http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xRT3Fw5-0kEJ:www.stream24-7.com/live/showsc reen.php?site_id=28%26screentype=folder%26screenid=456+1Ghz.or.above+icio+Copyri ght+Windows.2000/XP+IE6.or.above+Register+Reserved+Bandwidth+del+Firefox.is.not. currently.supported You only need Internet Expunger because the site uses Active X controls to install the software that downloads the software..... Oh, that's bad too....... :-( Can I have my JeffM Badge of Spam please DNA >>>[...]try out[...]OpenOffice[...]without[...]installing[...] >>>http://www.stream24-7.com JeffM wrote: >>NOT cross-platform (not even DOS-based Windoze). >>Only works on Internet Exploder (v6 or later). >>http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xRT3Fw5-0kEJ:www.stream24-7.com/live/showsc reen.php?site_id=28%26screentype=folder%26screenid=456+1Ghz.or.above+icio+Copyri ght+Windows.2000/XP+IE6.or.above+Register+Reserved+Bandwidth+del+Firefox.is.not. currently.supported >> >You only need Internet Expunger No. I don't *need* IE at all, thanks. I've had all the infections I can stand for one lifetime. >because the site uses Active X controls Goes without saying. Any modern browser can do anything IE can do--except that.[1] >to install the software that downloads the software. Idiots who use ActiveX controls should be castrated so their stupidity genes don't propagate. . . [1] There is actually an ActiveX plug-in for Gecko --but what bozo would purposely infect his box with that crap? >>>> On Sep 11, 8:54 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Office does the same thing, except it's hidden better so you can't see > how much memory it is taking up. Well, in the end task manager tells the truth. After closing Word there is much less clutter left in RAM than with OO. I hate it when programs leave a foot print. What good does it do to have soffice.bin running when nothing from OO is even open? IMHO that's stupid, unless the user is made aware of it _and_ has a choice to turn such nonsense off. IMHO MS-Word is clearly the technically more advanced product here. You won't hear me say that often but with Word, Works and Office in general Bill Gates' guys did a pretty good job. With operating system, different story. > If you are looking for a smaller and lighter word processor, Abiword > could be a good choice. Import/export of MS formats or of standard > formats is not perfect, especially for complex documents, but it's okay > for simpler things. Thanks. I am always looking for efficiency and in computing a smaller footprint for the same job equals efficiency. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com > Well, in the end task manager tells the truth. After closing Word there > is much less clutter left in RAM than with OO. I hate it when programs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hear me say that often but with Word, Works and Office in general Bill > Gates' guys did a pretty good job. With operating system, different story. It is my understanding that the footprint Word leaves is not visible from the task manager. It lives inside of Windows space in the form of undocumented functions. This was one of the reasons for the antitrust lawsuits. The playing field was unfairly tilted towards microsloth's applications. -Chuck >> Well, in the end task manager tells the truth. After closing Word >> there is much less clutter left in RAM than with OO. I hate it when [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > playing > field was unfairly tilted towards microsloth's applications. Ok, but for end users like me only the results count. The test I did: Fresh boot. Opened Word, did something in a document, closed it. No RAM usage increase from fresh boot left. Rebooted. Opened OO, did something in a document, closed it. Now I had several MB less RAM available. All I know is that an older PC here becomes really sluggish after having used OO. It doesn't after having used Word. So I am no longer using OO. It's not that OO is the only SW here with that bad habit. The SW that controls the multi-function LAN printer is the same. Use it once and it leaves a chunk in RAM, of what would have been called TSR in the DOS days. Needs ctrl-alt-del to get rid of. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >>> Well, in the end task manager tells the truth. After closing Word >>> there is much less clutter left in RAM than with OO. I hate it when [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Rebooted. Opened OO, did something in a document, closed it. Now I had > several MB less RAM available. OO is clean when run under linux, so it must be something about 'doze that's doing it. They run the same code base. -Chuck >>>> Well, in the end task manager tells the truth. After closing Word >>>> there is much less clutter left in RAM than with OO. I hate it when [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > OO is clean when run under linux, so it must be something about 'doze > that's doing it. They run the same code base. Could be. But I must use Windows because a lot of other stuff I need won't run under anything else. And it can be done since none of the other software I use leaves this much bloat floating about. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] > Rebooted. Opened OO, did something in a document, closed it. Now I had > several MB less RAM available. What could be happening here is that OO leaves an inactive chunk of itself loaded in order to quickly reactivate it on the next launch. Good OSes (and probably Windows, too) will eventually swap out the occupied memory to disk and reload it into RAM once activity is detected. I don't know if the task manager includes swapped-out memory in its statistics. Of course if that leftover piece of OO actually does stuff (but what would that be?), it would burn both CPU cycles and hog real RAM, which of course is stupid. I wouldn't put it past OO to do that though. BTW, all I use of OO is "Calc", and whenever I get really frustrated with some particularly braindead way of doing things I discover that it was in fact put in to mimick Excel behavior as closely as possible. > Use it once and it leaves a chunk in RAM It's bad if it is in fact real, semiconductor RAM (as opposed to swapped-out stuff in the attic). But the fact that your PC gets sluggish suggests that it is in fact so. And OO is a bad memory hog. robert >>>>> On Sep 11, 8:54 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Well, in the end task manager tells the truth. After closing Word there The task manager most certainly does *not* tell the truth - it tells you the truth, minus the fiddling Office does because it uses hidden parts of the OS. In particular, the pre-load part of MS Office (and of Internet Exploder) is hidden from you - at best you might get some idea by guessing from the free memory. > is much less clutter left in RAM than with OO. I hate it when programs > leave a foot print. What good does it do to have soffice.bin running > when nothing from OO is even open? IMHO that's stupid, unless the user The idea of the pre-load part is that next time you start OO, it will start faster - it's that simple. And I believe you *do* have the option to turn it off (you can certainly control whether or not it starts on boot up). You can also right-click on the icon in the taskbar and choose "exit quickstarter". > is made aware of it _and_ has a choice to turn such nonsense off. IMHO > MS-Word is clearly the technically more advanced product here. You won't > hear me say that often but with Word, Works and Office in general Bill > Gates' guys did a pretty good job. With operating system, different story. There are certainly some good things about MS Office, but IMHO they don't outweigh the bad things. I have had copies of MS Office bundled with PC's - they stay unopened because I don't want such unstable and insecure software on my computer. OO does a better job for everything I've needed in an office suite, and does not extend grubby little tentacles into every part of the operating system in order to work. >> If you are looking for a smaller and lighter word processor, Abiword >> could be a good choice. Import/export of MS formats or of standard [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks. I am always looking for efficiency and in computing a smaller > footprint for the same job equals efficiency. As long as you don't need compatibility with other word processors, then Abiword is a pretty good choice - it is thus perhaps more suitable for home machines than in a business environment. But it is certainly a lighter choice than OO or MSO. >>>>>> On Sep 11, 8:54 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> >>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > Internet Exploder) is hidden from you - at best you might get some idea > by guessing from the free memory. That's what brought me onto its trail, when I realized that I had less free memory after OO use compared to after MS-Word use. So no matter which program does what the fact is that OO effectively reduces available RAM while MS-Word doesn't. Having to do the ctrl-alt-del thing is a bit, well, unprofessional. >> is much less clutter left in RAM than with OO. I hate it when programs >> leave a foot print. What good does it do to have soffice.bin running >> when nothing from OO is even open? IMHO that's stupid, unless the user > > The idea of the pre-load part is that next time you start OO, it will > start faster - it's that simple. ... There are a lot of people who do not want a software writer to second-guess their future decisions. I am one of them ;-) > ... And I believe you *do* have the option > to turn it off (you can certainly control whether or not it starts on > boot up). You can also right-click on the icon in the taskbar and > choose "exit quickstarter". Nope, done that: Exited QuickStarter, fired up OO, shut it down again and soffice.bin promptly resideth in RAM gobbling a whopping 41.7MB! If that ain't bloat then I don't know what is. >> is made aware of it _and_ has a choice to turn such nonsense off. IMHO >> MS-Word is clearly the technically more advanced product here. You [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I've needed in an office suite, and does not extend grubby little > tentacles into every part of the operating system in order to work. My experience is quite the contrary. Not just the leaks and the bloat but OO is also slower on older systems. When it comes to computers I am not the most patient guy. Because I grew up in the days of DOS where stuff was blazingly fast and efficient. >>> If you are looking for a smaller and lighter word processor, Abiword >>> could be a good choice. Import/export of MS formats or of standard [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > home machines than in a business environment. But it is certainly a > lighter choice than OO or MSO. Yep, I've got to try that out. All I need is smooth graphics import, scaling, and reasonable TOC handling. In fact, DOS-Word was the perfect thing, did everything I wanted. I'd still use it but unfortunately that's where backwards compatibility becomes rocky, plus I couldn't read other folk's Word docs which I have to. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >>>>>>> On Sep 11, 8:54 am, David Brown >>>>>>> <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > available RAM while MS-Word doesn't. Having to do the ctrl-alt-del thing > is a bit, well, unprofessional. It could well be that overall OO uses more memory than MS Word, even when considering the hidden memory uses of MS Word. OO has better code sharing between the components, but that probably means that when you are just using one part (such as the word processor), it takes more memory than a stand-alone word processor. It could just be that OO is written in a more memory-hungry style (I know that startup speed and bloat are priorities for the OO developers). I still don't think that you should need to use task manager to stop it, but I haven't looked at how to stop the pre-loader from running. >>> is much less clutter left in RAM than with OO. I hate it when >>> programs leave a foot print. What good does it do to have soffice.bin [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There are a lot of people who do not want a software writer to > second-guess their future decisions. I am one of them ;-) That is *precisely* why I never use MS programs (other than windows - for pretty much the same pragmatic reasons that you use it). When choosing an application program, I want one the does what it says on the box, and nothing else. Thus I use Firefox (or Opera) for web browsing - they are stand-alone applications that don't interfere with the rest of the system, unlike IE (which is banned at my office for security and reliability reasons) which digs itself around the guts of the OS. I won't install MS Office, because it too digs in and installs or runs all sorts of rubbish (such as an updater that has been known to stall PC's for *hours* on startup). The OO pre-loader may be more annoying than helpful depending on your machine and your usage, but it can be disabled and it does not hide invisibly in the background. >> ... And I believe you *do* have the option to turn it off >> (you can certainly control whether or not it starts on boot up). You [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and soffice.bin promptly resideth in RAM gobbling a whopping 41.7MB! If > that ain't bloat then I don't know what is. Exit QuickStarter again - at least you don't need to use the task manager :-) But yes, it is bloated. >>> is made aware of it _and_ has a choice to turn such nonsense off. >>> IMHO MS-Word is clearly the technically more advanced product here. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > not the most patient guy. Because I grew up in the days of DOS where > stuff was blazingly fast and efficient. I've also seen Word running faster than OO on older PC's. But I'd rather spend $300 on a new PC and run OO than spend $300 on MS Office for the older PC. >>>> If you are looking for a smaller and lighter word processor, Abiword >>>> could be a good choice. Import/export of MS formats or of standard [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that's where backwards compatibility becomes rocky, plus I couldn't read > other folk's Word docs which I have to. I found MS Word's TOC handling to be very poor (on word for windows 2, the last version I used for anything serious). Of course, as a LaTeX user I am a bit spoiled! When you use OO and generate pdfs, the TOC turn into proper bookmarks which looks good in distributed documentation. >>> The task manager most certainly does *not* tell the truth - it tells >>> you the truth, minus the fiddling Office does because it uses hidden [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > you should need to use task manager to stop it, but I haven't looked at > how to stop the pre-loader from running. Hmm, I can't see them work on those priorities since it got worse since the first time I tried OO. But it's freeware, so I won't complain. Just won't use it anymore. >>>> is much less clutter left in RAM than with OO. I hate it when >>>> programs leave a foot print. What good does it do to have [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > helpful depending on your machine and your usage, but it can be disabled > and it does not hide invisibly in the background. Well, it seems that it cannot be disabled and it hid quite well in the background. Until my suspicion caught up with it via task manager. I'd call that hiding. >>> ... And I believe you *do* have the option to turn it off >>> (you can certainly control whether or not it starts on boot up). You [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Exit QuickStarter again - at least you don't need to use the task > manager :-) Nope, still 41.7MB bloat sloshing around. > But yes, it is bloated. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > rather spend $300 on a new PC and run OO than spend $300 on MS Office > for the older PC. That goes against my environmental grain. I won't toss another PC into the garbage pail just because some programmers can't get their bloat reigned in. For me, there are solutions, in this case not using OO. >>>>> If you are looking for a smaller and lighter word processor, >>>>> Abiword could be a good choice. Import/export of MS formats or of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > user I am a bit spoiled! When you use OO and generate pdfs, the TOC > turn into proper bookmarks which looks good in distributed documentation. Ok, I only need a nice TOC at the beginning that can quikcly be updated when I add stuff to a chapter. Word does that. Good enough ;-) SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >>>> The task manager most certainly does *not* tell the truth - it tells >>>> you the truth, minus the fiddling Office does because it uses hidden [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the first time I tried OO. But it's freeware, so I won't complain. Just > won't use it anymore. I guess any success in reducing the memory requirements is balanced with more features (some of which are occasionally useful!). As for complaining - it is perfectly acceptable to criticise free software, as long as it's in the right tone of voice ("the software would be so much better if ..." rather than "you *have* to fix this"). Feedback is important, although in this case the developers have probably heard it before. >>>>> is much less clutter left in RAM than with OO. I hate it when >>>>> programs leave a foot print. What good does it do to have [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > background. Until my suspicion caught up with it via task manager. I'd > call that hiding. No, hiding is when you *can't* see it with task manager, or when it is just another of these "svchost.exe" processes. If you want to know what's running on your machine, task manager is the basic interface. As for disabling it - I haven't found a way, but I only had a quick look on the options page. >>>> ... And I believe you *do* have the option to turn it off >>>> (you can certainly control whether or not it starts on boot up). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Nope, still 41.7MB bloat sloshing around. That's different from on my system. Maybe we have different versions, or different OS's or something. When I close the QuickStarter, soffice.bin is gone. >> But yes, it is bloated. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the garbage pail just because some programmers can't get their bloat > reigned in. For me, there are solutions, in this case not using OO. I am not a fan of wasting good PC's either (my work PC is about six years old, and I recently set up a Pentium 60 machine as a server). But using Word goes against my requirements for secure and reliable software, and I as I disapprove of MS as a business, I dislike giving them money (sometimes the practical solution involves things I dislike, but when I have a choice, I'll avoid MS). If Abiword (or an alternative solution such as OO on a terminal server) does the job without changing the PC, then that is obviously better still. >>>>>> If you are looking for a smaller and lighter word processor, >>>>>> Abiword could be a good choice. Import/export of MS formats or of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Ok, I only need a nice TOC at the beginning that can quikcly be updated > when I add stuff to a chapter. Word does that. Good enough ;-) > I guess any success in reducing the memory requirements is balanced with > more features (some of which are occasionally useful!). Yes and no. If you're actually using all those features, yes, but in general I imagine only a single-digit percentage of all the code that makes up OO or MSO is actually being executed during a typical editing session, and thus the rest can be swapped out to the page file is "real" memory is needed for other tasks. I'm not sure of the granularity of swapping in Windows vs. Linux though -- whether it's page by page (4kB on a x86 CPU) or more like DLL by DLL (or whatever the Linux equivalent is). >>I guess any success in reducing the memory requirements is balanced with >>more features (some of which are occasionally useful!). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > though -- whether it's page by page (4kB on a x86 CPU) or more like DLL by DLL > (or whatever the Linux equivalent is). My question is why doesn't an application load those seldom used features at the time they are actually called instead of on start-up? SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com > My question is why doesn't an application load those seldom used features at > the time they are actually called instead of on start-up? I suspect the "official" answer is that it would be (significant, for something the size of MSO/OO) extra work for the programmer, with the only significant benefit that program start-up would be faster (since "swapping out when not needed" is effectively the same thing as "loading only when needed," and I believe the OS does the "swapping out" at a much finer level of granularity than programmers would typically tend to "load in"). This isn't the "productivity" thread, but when judging programmer productivitiy things like "memory usage" and "start-up time" seem to fall pretty far down the list relative to "able to ship on schedule" and "reasonably bug-free." >>My question is why doesn't an application load those seldom used features at >>the time they are actually called instead of on start-up? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > pretty far down the list relative to "able to ship on schedule" and > "reasonably bug-free." Yeah, I know. <sigh> I wish universities would breed more embedded guys. They've got their priorities right, usually. But of course that's much harder than minting programmers. Just like it seems too hard to produce enough board level analog folks, or any at all. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com >> I guess any success in reducing the memory requirements is balanced with >> more features (some of which are occasionally useful!). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > though -- whether it's page by page (4kB on a x86 CPU) or more like DLL by DLL > (or whatever the Linux equivalent is). Binaries (executables and DLLs/DSOs) are cached at page granularity. Code is mapped read-only, so it doesn't actually get "swapped" as such (similarly for read-only data, e.g. string literals). Rather, the OS simply releases the page for re-use, and reloads the code from the binary if it is subsequently required. IOW, binaries act as their own "swap" files. Actual swap files/partitions are used for mutable data which wouldn't otherwise exist in any file, i.e. the stack, the heap, and any pages from the data and BSS segments which have been modified (unmodified pages will be discarded, and reloaded from the binary if needed). >> I guess any success in reducing the memory requirements is balanced with >> more features (some of which are occasionally useful!). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > though -- whether it's page by page (4kB on a x86 CPU) or more like DLL by DLL > (or whatever the Linux equivalent is). The granularity of swapping is a 4K page on both Windows and Linux, I believe. How well an application works with swapping will vary - if features are well separated in code then parts can be successfully swapped out without affecting the real running speed of the application. Joerg inscribed thus: > Nope, still 41.7MB bloat sloshing around. I assume that you waited for the "Hold" time to expire ! > -- > Regards, Joerg > > http://www.analogconsultants.com SignatureBest Regards: Baron. > Joerg inscribed thus: > > >>Nope, still 41.7MB bloat sloshing around. > > I assume that you waited for the "Hold" time to expire ! A hold time? Nah, I'm done with OO. When I use MS-Word the problem simply goes away. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com Joerg, > That goes against my environmental grain. I won't toss another PC into the > garbage pail just because some programmers can't get their bloat reigned in. > For me, there are solutions, in this case not using OO. Should we start taking bets on which of you, John or Jim will be the first to end up using the bloatware tour de force that is Windows Vista? :-) Yes, I know all of you have sworn it off, I'm just betting that sooner or later you'll be using it anyway. (Not that I'm looking to use it either at this point, but pragmatically I fully expect that probably sometime before this decade is out, I will be anyway.) ---Joel >Joerg, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >---Joel Not me. I just bought 6 copies of XP Pro ;-) ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave >>Joerg, >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Not me. I just bought 6 copies of XP Pro ;-) Is there a good deal out there right now? I bought older versions of stuff at Purplus, like a mechanical engineering CAD system where I really don't need the latest and greatest. I guess it's liquidation stock. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com > Joerg, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > :-) Lots of water will flow down the Klondike until then ;-) > Yes, I know all of you have sworn it off, I'm just betting that sooner or > later you'll be using it anyway. (Not that I'm looking to use it either at > this point, but pragmatically I fully expect that probably sometime before > this decade is out, I will be anyway.) Eventually there will be HW that won't run with anything but Vista. I hope that it's stable enough by then. For example, this PC right here made some evil hisses lately so it might have to be replaced. I will try my darndest to find an XP box but it might not be a successful search. Since it's just the "Gerber check and usenet PC" I don't want to spend much. Well, there are always yard sales :-))) SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] > Yep, I've got to try that out. All I need is smooth graphics import, > scaling, and reasonable TOC handling. Dare I try to sell you on LaTeX? Ah, better not. robert Joerg, > I hate it when programs leave a foot print. What good does it do to have > soffice.bin running when nothing from OO is even open? So that if you start an OO program again the start-up is faster. You're not losing memory here either -- if you PC starts running low on memory, soffice.bin will just get swapped out to the hard disk (although obviously at that point you won't get the faster start-up time) > IMHO that's stupid, unless the user is made aware of it _and_ has a choice > to turn such nonsense off. You do have the choice to turn it off (and it's easier to do in OO than MSO), and while it's true that neither OO or MSO go out of there way to announce what's going on, I really think that's driven because having the default be off (don't pre-load parts of the program) would generate far more complaints from people about the long load time of the programs... because *very few* people would ever bother to read how to turn it *on*. ---Joel > Joerg, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > soffice.bin will just get swapped out to the hard disk (although obviously at > that point you won't get the faster start-up time) That's what happens, the PC starts incessantly grinding on the HD. But after closing other programs soffice.bin is still there. And it does get slower. A lot. Ok, I could run with the masses and buy a new one for that desk every couple of year because now you need 1GB for stuff that our forefathers were able to do in 256K. However, that goes against my grain, at least from an environmental point of view. >> IMHO that's stupid, unless the user is made aware of it _and_ has a choice >>to turn such nonsense off. > > You do have the choice to turn it off (and it's easier to do in OO than MSO), Well, how? > and while it's true that neither OO or MSO go out of there way to announce > what's going on, I really think that's driven because having the default be > off (don't pre-load parts of the program) would generate far more complaints > from people about the long load time of the programs... because *very few* > people would ever bother to read how to turn it *on*. Compared to MS-Office OO is like molasses with or without pre-loader, IMHO. Seems I am not alone with this opinion. I've heard several people say that they aren't using it because it's too sluggish. Quite sad, considering all the work that has gone into this wonderful idea. SignatureRegards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] > Compared to MS-Office OO is like molasses with or without pre-loader, > IMHO. Seems I am not alone with this opinion. I've heard several people > say that they aren't using it because it's too sluggish. After it's loaded it has a good look and feel and doesn't feel sluggish. > Quite sad, > considering all the work that has gone into this wonderful idea. OO is far from unusable, especially on what is considered a failrly modern PC nowadays. Mine is four years old, and OO takes 7 seconds to start up (on Linux). Too long for my taste, but heck, I got it for free. robert Hi Joerg, > Ok, I could run with the masses and buy a new one for that desk every > couple of year because now you need 1GB for stuff that our forefathers > were able to do in 256K. However, that goes against my grain, at least > from an environmental point of view. Think of it as making jobs for your fellow man rather than ruining the environment. :-) Just kidding. >> You do have the choice to turn it off (and it's easier to do in OO than >> MSO), > > Well, how? It has a little icon in the system tray (lower right-hand set of icons). If you right-click it, the pop-up menu that appears has an option for "Load OpenOffice.org during system start-up" that you can check or uncheck." > Compared to MS-Office OO is like molasses with or without pre-loader, > IMHO. Seems I am not alone with this opinion. I've heard several people > say that t |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message