| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kaaredyret
Moderator
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Posts: 1356
Location: Denmark
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:53 am Post subject: The 'what is good or bad about OpenOffice 2.1' thread |
 |
|
OpenOffice.org 2.1 is ready (currently uploaded to mirrors)
I think it would be nice if we gathered posts about whats new or improved, what is bad, is anything about broken in v2.1 (regressions), is 2.1 faster etc. etc. here, in ONE thread.
Your opinions, experiences?
Last edited by Kaaredyret on Wed May 02, 2007 1:41 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DaveD
Power User
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| - The Automatic Update check is excellent how it is now displayed during installation. It basically lets the end user know that the software does have the ability to check for updates on it's own, and also gives the user the choice of whether to enable it or not during installation. It is enabled by default and the user has the choice to disable it if they want. Excellent! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kaaredyret
Moderator
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Posts: 1356
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was happy to see that 2.0.4 was UPDATED properly to 2.1 when I install 2.1 on top of 2.0.4.
BTW, OpenOffice 2.1 can be downloaded from here: http://mirrors.isc.org/pub/openoffice/stable/2.1.0/
_________________
www.kaaredyret.dk - OpenOffice resources (templates, extensions, tutorials and more) !
Stay updated on software and OpenOffice.org news via Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gebeleizis
General User
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Man, it's fast. For me anyway! I love it!
The only bad that I observed is that sometimes when I close it , the processes does not end. It seems random and I can't reproduce it precisely. It might be my computer configuration or something.
Anywho, I just love it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noranthon
Super User
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 3318
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Against my better judgment, I'm going to try the Linux installer. I suppose that's what it is? 38Mb .sh file.
I'm going to install it, though, on a partition containing an older OS.
One immediate advantage is that 2.1 is easier to say and type than 2.0.x.
_________________
search forum by month |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveD
Power User
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| noranthon wrote: | | One immediate advantage is that 2.1 is easier to say and type than 2.0.x. |
Well technically, if you look at the file name of all binary packages available, it is 2.1.0.
In the About OpenOffice.org box is shows as just 2.1 though. I'm assuming some bugfix releases will continue as 2.1.1 and so on prior to the 2.5 release.
Either way, as long as it works well... that's all that matters to me.
I have always wished that they would add a drop-down for Page Zoom size on the actual toolbar the same way it is done in the Novell Edition. It is much more convenient that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveD
Power User
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kaaredyret,
I know this is off-topic, but what is with the "currently just evaluating OOo" in your signature? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curtz
Super User
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 554
Location: In vino veritas!
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I heard that the tabbed interface would find its way into 2.1, but it was just the API I can now see. I was really looking forward to it, so I am pretty disappointed to see that this is mostly a bugfix release.
_________________
BR Curtz
OOo 2.0.4 on rock solid Windows 2000 (English, SP4) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noranthon
Super User
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 3318
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't knock bug fixes. 
_________________
search forum by month |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enine
OOo Enthusiast
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 134
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well first off none of the downloads from the main site work, no matter what I choose it says not available. So I came here and found the mirror link above.
Then the download for linux is an rpm still so like usualy it installs but does nothing after that so I now have to hunt for it and manually set uo the script that opens it. I've tried so many different distros and still mess with some of them from time to time and I have never had an rpm based install actually work the first try. So many of them take all kinds or command line parameters to get them to install correcty and others I just end up compiling from source, what is the deal with using rpm's, did someone at redhat contribute some $ to the developement so we have to use their broken installer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
9point9
Moderator
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 3875
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enine wrote: | | did someone at redhat contribute some $ to the developement so we have to use their broken installer? |
Yes, RedHat does contribute to OOo but so do Novell, IBM, etc.
RPM no longer has anything to do with RedHat. It is a separate project run by a former RedHat employee (rumour is he was sacked) and it is released under the GPL. RPM is not solely a RedHat utility as many distros use RPM's and they far outweight RedHat and Fedora combined.
RPM is not inherently broken. I do wish people would stop immediately jumping to this conclusion. It works just as well as any other low level package management system but people chose to compare it to frontends like Synaptic saying it's not that good. Well of course it's not! It's a low level utility. If you want it to be any good you've got to use a frontend like urpmi which will then behave exactly like any of the other package management frontends. .deb has no advantages at all over RPM. The only reason why people think it has is because:
1. Easier commandline frontends to it are more common and standardised as they are all closer related to Debian, RPM frontends are more fragmented across different distros as they split off further back.
2. Less package providers so therefore less dependency breakages. This is a non-issue as if everyone was sticking together .deb packages in the same way they're doing RPM's they'd break just as much.
.deb, .rpm, no difference.
_________________
Arch Linux
OOo 3.2.0
OOoSVN, change control for OOo documents:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ooosvn/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
demarcoc
General User
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 38
Location: Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:47 am Post subject: Printing Issue: CPU Usage |
|
|
Downloaded OOo 2.1.0 from one of the mirrors this morning and installed it a couple of hours ago.
It does seem to me that documents open a bit faster than before, but the biggest change I've noticed is CPU usage when printing. Tried a few documents, and when spooling data to the printer, CPU usage is pretty much pegged at 100%.
First noticed this when my laptop fan came on when printing a couple of documents, which is unusual. Monitored the print process using Windows Task Manager, and found the above "issue" with CPU usage.
I'll be trying this with a different printer later today to see if I can replicate it.
_________________
Using OOo 3.0.1 on Windows XP Pro SP3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveD
Power User
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I created a blank ODB database and when I try to open it, nothing happens. No errors, no crash pop ups, nothing...
Then I realized that I had three soffice.exe running in memory and three soffice.bin running as well. Obviously Base is still useless at this point.
I am using the latest of the JRE 1.4 series (the 13th update to it). I don't know if upgrading to JRE 5 or the JRE 6 that was just released would help or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noranthon
Super User
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 3318
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you follow the users' list, it's good for a laugh right now. The masses are very excited and all trying to download at once.
| enine wrote: | | the download for linux is an rpm still |
Did you look at the link which Kaaredyret mentioned? There is a linux .sh file, 38Mb. I immediately jumped to the conclusion that it is an installer which downloads source material.
There is probably no explanation anywhere. I no longer bother looking; life is too short. Have you had a look at the unrpm script?
| 9point9 wrote: | | a frontend like urpmi which will then behave exactly like any of the other package management frontends |
I'm guessing you haven't tried to get urpmi to target a specific package lately?
_________________
search forum by month |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
9point9
Moderator
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 3875
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| noranthon wrote: | | I'm guessing you haven't tried to get urpmi to target a specific package lately? |
Yes I have but I'm no longer using Mandriva, I moved on to Sabayon a few months ago. I did get rather fed up with some of Mandriva's packaging but that was nothing inherent with RPM, it was simply normal for a periodically released distro. Sabayon is Gentoo based so you have the choice of being always up to date but that is generally a bad idea if you want an easy life. Much better just to update when you specifically want something instead.
urpmi is not required for installing a specifically targeted file as RPM will do the same. urpmi is useful as it keeps a database behind it and you can download a package from a source from the commandline that way, exactly the same as people would with any other high level package management tool.
_________________
Arch Linux
OOo 3.2.0
OOoSVN, change control for OOo documents:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ooosvn/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
