MGreen wrote:
> I seem to recall that Linux cannot use swap over 128MB. Anything over
> this is a waste. Can someone back me up?
This was true prior to 2.2.x (and even with 2.0.x and older you could
have multiple swap files to give more than 128mb swap). Nowadays you can
have much larger swap
Dakota Surmonde wrote:
> I use it on a k5-133 with 32MB -- it's dog slow and swaps something fierce
> (127 MB swap partition, yes, I believe in over doing it :) ) but it works
127mb is anything but overdoing it. I have 240mb swap and sometimes it's
been getting a bit close for comfort (machine h
Caitlyn Martin wrote:
> > Are you just teasing me or are you really using Netscape and
> > StarOffice on your P90 with 40 MB simultaneously?
>
> Really and truly, as in cutting and pasting between them. The machine in
> question is a Toshiba Portégé 610CT running Red Hat Linux 6.0 and KDE 1.1.1
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote:
> I didn't think it's possible to use StarOffice with 40 MB of RAM.
I use it on a k5-133 with 32MB -- it's dog slow and swaps something fierce
(127 MB swap partition, yes, I believe in over doing it :) ) but it works
(or at least did, before I hosed
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, MGreen wrote:
> I seem to recall that Linux cannot use swap over 128MB. Anything over
> this is a waste. Can someone back me up?
With old kernels (<= 2.0.x), one swap partition couldn't be greater than
128MB, but with newer ones this limitation has vanished (I don't know
Hi, Karl-Heinz,
>
> Congratulations!
> I didn't think it's possible to use StarOffice with 40 MB of RAM.
Everyone at our last installfest that wasn't cancelled, back in August, saw
it. As I said, loading the program is painfully slow, but actual operation
within the program is tolerable.
I shou
> > My PC here at home has got no more than 104MB RAM and
> > StarOffice runs very fine from under Windowmaker or KDE resp..
> It runs on my old laptop, a P90 with 40 MB of RAM, with KDE/kwm.
> It is quite slow loading or starting an app, but otherwise runs
> fine.
Congratulations!
I didn't thin
I seem to recall that Linux cannot use swap over 128MB. Anything over
this is a waste. Can someone back me up?
Cathy James wrote:
> Perhaps I'm simply running out of memory
> during the install. I'll have to create a 256M swap partition
> and try it again.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, Karl-Heinz,
>
> My PC here at home has got no more than 104MB RAM and StarOffice runs
> very fine from under Windowmaker or KDE resp..
It runs on my old laptop, a P90 with 40 MB of RAM, with KDE/kwm. It is
quite slow loading or starting an app, but otherwise runs fine.
>
> I do not believe t
On 11/15/99, 1:36:10 PM, Cathy wrote:
> Hmm. I have 128M, but I have not gotten around
> to setting up any swap partitions. With 128M,
> the need was not pressing. :-) Perhaps I'm simply
> running out of memory during the install. I'll
> have to create a 256M swap partition and try it again.
Hi, Karl-Heinz and others,
I take this as an invitation to nitpicking :-)
On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote:
> On 11/13/99, 12:37:15 PM, Nils Philippsen erroneously:
>
> > StarOffice is a real memory hog
>
> Unfortunately this is true. :-(
> We managed it to spend less memory that
>How much memory do you have? StarOffice is a real memory hog (I call it
>bloatware and you may quote me on that), a quick test gave this:
>It eats additional 2MB in the X-Server and forks off 6 copies
>of itself,
>giving 7 instances running. If Linux didn't do such a good job
>in memory
>mana
On 11/13/99, 12:37:15 PM, Nils Philippsen erroneously:
> StarOffice is a real memory hog
Unfortunately this is true. :-(
We managed it to spend less memory that StarOffice 5.0 but
it still needs quite a lot.
> a quick test gave this:
The filowing (fortunately!) is *not* correct:
> It eats ad
On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, LeeAnn Bevell wrote:
> My problem is somewhat different from yours. My installation
> apparently works, but when I run it, the windows update so
> slowly that it is unusable. (The windows in the installation
> program also updated slowly - at one point I got a black screen
On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, Cathy James wrote:
> Has anyone else had problems installing StarOffice?
> I'm wondering if it is due to a glibc2.0 vs glibc2.1
> conflict. My machine has glic2.1 installed.
I recall SO 5.0 having this problem, but 5.1 wors well here (RHL 6.0&6.1).
Which version do yo
Cathy said:
>I installed StarOffice on my Sun box at work
>(successfully) and attempted to install it on my Caldera 2.2
>box at home (unsuccessfully).
>
>Has anyone else had problems installing StarOffice?
>I'm wondering if it is due to a glibc2.0 vs glibc2.1
>conflict. My machin
I installed StarOffice on my Sun box at work
(successfully) and attempted to install it on my Caldera 2.2
box at home (unsuccessfully).
Has anyone else had problems installing StarOffice?
I'm wondering if it is due to a glibc2.0 vs glibc2.1
conflict. My machine has glic2.1 insta
17 matches
Mail list logo
