I've found that if you put:
#(ly:set-option 'point-and-click #f)
at the top of the file, it will render OK in GSView, so I guess that
area is the first place to look for the offending postscript.
Dunstan
On 16/02/06, Eduardo Vieira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mats wrote:
> Unfortunately, that'
Mats wrote:
Unfortunately, that's not true on Windows, where it seems that GSView
is unable to handle Postscript files from LilyPond, no matter what
ghostscript version you use. See the mailing list archives for more
information.
I use GSView in Windows and it does display the ps from Lilypond, ye
Josiah,
You got to this response before I could. If the problem is swap
thrashing, then having 8x the memory to handle a score that is 3x the
pages should be plenty. I had already disabled point-and-click. It
helped. The idea of using the PS output for proofing and going to PDF
only when I hav
Citerar Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quoting Erik Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ...
> >> BTW, some watching of the process leads me to think that one of the
> >> biggest performance sinks is conversion to PDF.
> >
> > Sounds very strange. However, if ps->pdf conversion does take forev
I produce a 70 pages conductor's score in less than half an hour (and
this is a *very* conservative estimate) on a two years old PC. True, it
has 2GB of memory, but other than that, it is to be considered a fairly
old beast by today's standards.
...
And it takes forever on my 700Mhz PII! So,
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Quoting Erik Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
BTW, some watching of the process leads me to think that one of the
biggest performance sinks is conversion to PDF.
Sounds very strange. However, if ps->pdf conversion does take forever,
then
you can always use the --ps
Quoting Erik Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
BTW, some watching of the process leads me to think that one of the
biggest performance sinks is conversion to PDF.
Sounds very strange. However, if ps->pdf conversion does take forever, then
you can always use the --ps switch to lilypond (which s
Hello Richard,
As a different data point you can compare to to explain the kind of
performance (or lack thereof) you get:
I produce a 70 pages conductor's score in less than half an hour (and
this is a *very* conservative
estimate) on a two years old PC. True, it has 2GB of memory, but other
t
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 06.28, Richard Schoeller wrote:
> I'd like to weigh in on this one.
>
> My experience is totally contrary to the way this discussion has gone.
> The actual entry and correction of the music is a trivial small part of
> the time I spend working with Lilypond. I spend m
I'd like to weigh in on this one.
My experience is totally contrary to the way this discussion has gone.
The actual entry and correction of the music is a trivial small part of
the time I spend working with Lilypond. I spend much more time in
adjusting the tweaks, especially the choice of line br
Thanks for the suggestions.
Skipping corrected music looks like the most helpful option. It is a cool and useful idea to skip music. (altough the way to do seems a little awkward.)
-Ben
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://li
> Have you tried the technique in the docs at
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.7/Documentation/user/lilypond/Skipping-corrected-music.html
ah fantastic - that is almost what i had in mind with caching..
it doesn't create a whole document at the end, using the previous
data, but it's still good for qui
On 13-Feb-06, at 12:30 PM, Ben Fisher wrote:
Running lilypond seems to take a while on my machine. For a project
I'm working on it'd be nice to have much faster time to output. Maybe
some of this time is spent for lilypond to load all of its fonts and
set up.
I'm working on using lilypond to
Ramana Kumar wrote:
> what about caching the lilypond output in such a way that small
> changes to the ly code don't result in redoing all the parsing
> again... i mean say if someone only adds a bar to the end maybe some
> of the work wouldn't need to be redone?
> i understand lilypond does some w
what about caching the lilypond output in such a way that small
changes to the ly code don't result in redoing all the parsing
again... i mean say if someone only adds a bar to the end maybe some
of the work wouldn't need to be redone?
i understand lilypond does some work on the whole score which n
Citerar Ben Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Running lilypond seems to take a while on my machine. For a project I'm
> working on it'd be nice to have much faster time to output. Maybe some of
> this time is spent for lilypond to load all of its fonts and set up.
>
> Instead of running lilypond.exe
Running lilypond seems to take a while on my machine. For a project I'm working on it'd be nice to have much faster time to output. Maybe some of this time is spent for lilypond to load all of its fonts and set up.
Instead of running lilypond.exe several times, is there a way to start lilypond so
17 matches
Mail list logo
