Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:04:05 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 311 ************************************************** Wednesday 10 March 2004 Number 311 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 : T.Sikora" 2 Re: OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 : John Poltorak 3 Re: OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 : Neil Waldhauer" 4 Re: OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 : Steve Wendt" 5 Re: OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 : Alexander Newman 6 Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Stefan Neis **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:45:43 -0500 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 Anyone try InnoTek's OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 yet? Haven't heard anything about it. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:59:47 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:45:43AM -0500, T.Sikora wrote: > Anyone try InnoTek's OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 yet? Haven't heard > anything about it. There's a new Adobe Reader too - v5. This as well as a Firefox, a new XFree, and Zope and Plone too. Things are looking up! Unfortunately I can't ever get any of the Innotek stuff to install. I've tried every release of the previous Acro Reader *many* *times* and it installs but then deletes itself. I would expect the same to happen with Open Office, at least for me. I doubt whether the same thing happens for anyone else, so go ahead and give it a go, and let us know how you get on. > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 09:16:06 -0800 From: "Neil Waldhauer" Subject: Re: OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:45:43 -0500, "T.Sikora" wrote: > Anyone try InnoTek's OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 yet? Haven't heard > anything about it. I installed it, but most of my experience is with beta 2. I found that it can open some of the Word 2000 documents that I could not open with Lotus SmartSuite v1.72 or StarOffice v5.1a. It's still a bit slow to open huge docuements. I also found that it cannot open some really stupid Word for Windows v6 documents, but the failure mode is to open them as text, which is a nice way to fail. I then can cut out the binary formatting and still have the content. Printing works nicely on my unsupported Oki 5300 printer. I've got a group, staroffice at yahoogroups.com, for discussion of StarOffice and OpenOffice on OS/2. Neil -- Neil Waldhauer, neil at blondeguy.com Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed. **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:31:03 -0800 (PST) From: "Steve Wendt" Subject: Re: OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:59:47 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >I've tried every release of the previous Acro Reader *many* *times* and it >installs but then deletes itself. I would expect the same to happen with >Open Office, at least for me. > >I doubt whether the same thing happens for anyone else, Yes, I had the same problems with Acrobat. They have cleaned up most of those problems, and the final problem I had like that seemed to be due to lack of disk space (it actually needs more than it requests). I suggest you try 4.05 R4, and see if that still gives you trouble. The same problem is unlikely to happen with OpenOffice, since the problem was due to the interaction with the Acrobat installer (although this is primarily conjecture, since I have not yet tried installing OO myself). ----------- "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato (427-347 B.C.) **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 07:49:50 +1100 From: Alexander Newman Subject: Re: OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 Hi Ted, > T.Sikora wrote: > > Anyone try InnoTek's OpenOffice version 1.1.0 beta 3 yet? Haven't > heard > anything about it. I've been using it a bit over the last couple of days, and so long as the font view for the font selector is set to plain, OO and then the system don't hang after the 3rd access of the font dropdown. Otherwise, it seems pretty good: quite as fast as WordPro, and a bit easier to use in some respects. But early days for me, and a lot of people (on the Innotek list) are having trouble just installing the thing - the Innotek font thingy seems to be implicated, but not in all cases. But worth the attempt, anyway! Alex. **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 23:40:21 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Stefan Neis wrote: > > Is there an easier alternative than rewriting dllar.cmd to Unix shell > > language to work around that? Aside from not suffering from length limitations of cmd for argument passing, my dllar.sh also has the advantage of being able to handle OMF and OMF libraries - the extensions required are rather trivial. For the moment, I put it into wxWindows' CVS as DLL build of wxWindows relies on it, in the long run, it might be a good idea to put it into the gcc package, together with the .cmd version. Knut, are you reading? If yes, how do you feel about this idea? Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'.