reidar
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3db3d/3db3d59337ccc8bc3ec15645b7ab368bce77b85a" alt="Offline"
Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2004 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cd3a8/cd3a84c67c9ea531b591a3a8b33552269a04250f" alt="" |
Posted: Sep. 13 2004,12:09 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d6c44/d6c44952b272c7945ab6f79c02e4aece27e637ca" alt="QUOTE" |
OO.dsl needs a lot of RAM if you use run it from live-cd, but is it really so if you install OO.dsl on a hd-install? My impression is that OO.dsl is faster on my machine than if I install openoffice using apt-get for instance. I haven't really tested this thoroughly, but I have done hd-install of dsl and installed OO.dsl, and another time done a hd-install of dsl on the same computer but then installing openoffice via apt-get. My impression (which is not more than an impression of course) is that OO.dsl is faster.
I run dsl hd-installed on a computer with 56MB ram, and running OO is of course slow, but perfectly doable. I prefer lighter apps like abiword and especially ted though, for that computer at least.
-r
|