my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Mozilla vs. Opera and Open Office vs. MS Office (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Mozilla vs. Opera and Open Office vs. MS Office Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-06-2007 08:35 PM                        Hey, now! As for Firefox, I recommend it highly. Yes, it has some memory leak issues, but I trust that they will get sorted out with time. Openoffice is fine. It works. My objection to it is that it tries too hard to be a clone of MS Office, rather than actually trying to improve upon the sorry state of most of the MS Office applications. Personally, I think that Word is a total piece of crap, and Openoffice has not improved upon it. Excel is actually a decent product and Openoffice seems to do a decent implementation of most of its features.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 04-06-2007 10:27 PM                        Here is an interesting tip for that memory issue: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1327586/posts I haven't tried it yet though because I don't know how to undo that if this impacts the performance negatively.  |  IP: Logged Edwin Sheldon Film Handler Posts: 95 From: Mobile, AL, USA Registered: Sep 2006 posted 04-07-2007 12:27 AM                     Depending on which vi clone you use, it makes a much better HTML editor than WordPad. Vim, my favorite (and the default of most Linux distributions) has wonderful syntax highlighting.  |  IP: Logged Rick Raskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1100 From: Manassas Virginia Registered: Jan 2003 posted 04-07-2007 07:57 AM                     The guy who co-hosts the site with me built everything in HTML and I learned from him. I started by using Text Pad to build pages but began using Front Page when I discovered it was on the computer. Sometimes though, I have to revert to HTML to edit some of the arbitrary spacing Front Page puts in, and the included HTML editor works fine. Nvu however, is FREE, offers nearly the same GUI interfaces and HTML capabilities. For knocking out pages in short order I tend to prefer the GUI interface over HTML. I have worked with VI and ED in the UNIX environment but prefer to use something that requires less syntactical knowledge.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 04-10-2007 12:38 PM                        quote: Adam Martin I use Wordpad. Scott Norwood likes Vi. I've been meaning to ship him a keyboard with arrows on it and a copy of Vim for years now. In any case, Scott knows that the only way to edit a live kernel is with cat, echo and awk. If you can manage that you can probably write your web pages with anything.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 04-14-2007 03:36 PM                        I have tried Thunderbird for a while now, and it is a really nice program. Not too bloated with unnecessary functions, but it still has everything needed to work with several pop accounts. But one thing puzzles me: it is sloooooooooooow. When I have downloaded new messages and click on one to read or delete it, it sometimes takes 3 seconds or so for that action. No, I have not set it to "fetch only headers", so it isn't getting those messages from the server. They are already here. There are also some other, minor, but still sometimes annoying bugs. For instance, when I open the program or click on "receive all messages" (or whatever it is called there), it only checks the mian server, not my other accounts. But I have checked all the relevant settings for the other servers as well. Those little bugs and problems make it less than optimal for me to work with.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-14-2007 04:53 PM                     quote: Michael Schaffer When I have downloaded new messages and click on one to read or delete it, it sometimes takes 3 seconds or so for that action. I have not experienced this except on the rare email with a gigantic attachment. quote: it only checks the main server, not my other accounts For each account: Tools > Account Settings > Server Settings (Choose account) > "Advanced" Button > "Include this server when getting new mail"  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 04-14-2007 05:41 PM                        quote: Michael Schaffer When I have downloaded new messages and click on one to read or delete it, it sometimes takes 3 seconds or so for that action. Clicking the mouse on a message or hitting the delete key on the keyboard should be immediate (at least with 1.5.0.10 and before). Using the up and down arrows there will be a delay... which IIRC is configurable somewhere.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 04-14-2007 06:57 PM                        Thanks for the tips. There is something strange going on here. I have two accounts "GMX" and "UCS", private and work. I also have a GMAIL account, but I couldn't make that work with Thunderbird (I followed and triplechecked the instructions on the gmail webpage, enabling pop and all that, and it worked with Outlook, ). So for now, I installed the gmail notifier which runs in the background and pops up when there is new mail, then I can go to the website and look at it there. When I go to advanced account settings and check "global inbox", my work account simply disappears. When I check "inbox for this server's account", it reappears, but the "include" option is greyed out and not available anymore, and it doesn't check messages for that account. When I check "inbox for a different account", then I can check the "include" option, but obviously, I don't want to set it to put the mail in the other inbox. That's the whole point of having several separate accounts. So I check that and then go back to inbox for this servers account, the "include" option is greyed out again, but now it's still checked, and that seems to work now. I also checked "check for new meassages at startup", and that now seems to work for both accounts, too. The only thing that doesn't work still is that when I click on "get mail" on the top left, it only gets one account, I have to open the little dropdown menu there and select "get all". But that's not a big problem. The speed issue is like this: when I click through already read messages, it goes very quickly. But when I mark and read or delete new messages, it takes a looooong time (really 3 seconds or so which tends to get on your nerves when you quickly want to go through some new mails and discard the ones you don't want). It is version 1.5.0.10.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 04-14-2007 07:24 PM                        I only know of the slow down that occurs when you use the keyboard to go through messages. Clicking with the mouse has always been fast for me. I don't, nor do any of my users, use POP3 though... so if it's an issue with the way their local folder storage mechanism works with POP3 accounts I would never have seen it.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-14-2007 08:38 PM                     I am using POP3 accounts and do not experience the delay. Perhaps your antivirus software is intercepting the email when it is opened (or is scanning the email disk file when it is accessed) and the scan is causing the delay.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 04-15-2007 08:37 PM                        That must be it. I use avast! antivirus, and when I stop the email and a few other scanners running in the background, going through the mails suddenly goes very fast. Oddly, with the scanners running, it also takes a while to delete messages. But why would they want to scan messages which are already in the inbox and have been scanned, especially when they are moved into the trash. Maybe avast! ad Thunderbird simply don't harmonize well. I also always had it running in the background with Outlook, but it didn't affect the speed noticeably. Still, with the server settings now figured out, I like Thunderbird, and I think I will continue using it. Thanks for the tips!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.