OpenSourcing 5.2 - It was better than anything since IMHO

Hey gang,
I'm new hear but have been using StarOffice for a LOOONG time - way before SUN purchased it.
I was wondering why Sun chose to opensource 6.0 but not 5.2. Here's why I like 5.2...
a) I like the integrated suite
b) it was MUCH faster than anything that has been released since and uses fewer resources. I currently still use it and shake my head when I used 6.0, 7.0, and now 8.0 is ridiculously slow. B4 you flame me - go give it a shot.
I'd like to see some group take 5.2 and give it all the bells and whistles of 8.0 to see what would happen.
Anyhow, what would keep Sun from opensourcing 5.2?

DRAT!
What code in particular?
I thought a 5.2 integrated with Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird for those functions along with other opensource programs for the other functions.
I just think that would be AMAZING!
I wonder if SO5.2 could even take advantage of features of the GRE.

Similar Messages

  • IMovie capture quality better than anything FCP can offer for consumer DV?

    As a newbie to FCP, I have not found Capture, sequence, and export settings that is equal to or better than what iMovie 08 can create. Prior to this, I've been using iMovie 08 which is extremely user friendly. Just plug in the fire wire connections and it auto detects only one setting for DV. I am not sure what format it captures in but it does a good job. When I export out of iMovie 08 I use "using Quicktime" and choose the Uncompressed 8-bit NTSC method. The result is a decent, non-interlaced looking .mov file.
    The first time I tried to capture with FCP I chose the easy setup, where I would capture in the NTSC DV, sequence would be NTSC DV and export using the current settings in quicktime. The result was an interlaced and lowered quality vid.
    I have also tried the following combinations with no success with quality comparisons w/ iMovie 08:
    capt: NTSC dv, seq: NTSC DV, progressive exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
    capt: Uncompressed 8-bit, seq: Uncompressed 8-Bit exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
    This last one came close, but still iMovie 08 was better.
    My assumption is that FCP would contain the settings to duplicate or even out perform iMovie's export quality for consumer video dv. I viewed iMovie as little brother and FCP as big brother. Shouldn't FCP produce equal to or better quality than iMovie 08? And what are the settings for this?
    Thanks

    Thank you for clearing up my confusion. How is my export from iMovie 08, using "Uncompressed 8-bit" coming out progressive (I see no interlaced, odd/even scan lines)? Is this export dropping lines/information? If so, uncompressed is not an appropriate name for the export.
    I understand what you are saying about "getting quality back" on export. My initial question was comparing the quality of an iMovie 08 export vs. FCP export and having the problem of a lowered output from the FCP export.
    If anyone has the time, would they try a short experiment:
    1. From your DV source, camera or deck connect to your computer
    Capture a short clip via iMovie 08 a short clip in standard 4:3.
    Export using Quicktime, Uncompressed 8-bit setting
    2. From your DV source, camera or deck, connect to your computer.
    Capture the same short clip to FCP using Easy set up for NTSC DV. Export with current settings.
    3. Compare the two.

  • Old MP3 player firmware was better than new. W

    One questionWhy new Zen V Plus after restart dosn't remember previous time. Listening ?50 min audiobook mp3?file. Pause? on 0:30:00, Turn off player. After restart player again file from 0:00:00.So I need remember what minute?I stop... and after reverse. Not smart. I my old Creative Muvo2, after restart always remember?previous time.

    question was.Why in old type MP3 player have?"good timer memory" for not finished track? after restart player. New type Zen ... after restart player reset timer to "zero"

  • Does FCP perform better than adobe premiere elements on a MacBook Pro?

    does FCP perform better than adobe premiere elements on a MacBook Pro?
    Background:
    * just trying to decide what to go for re video editing app with more features than iMovie
    * last time I'd tried Adobe Premiere Elements on my MacBook (but it was before I had an SSD) the performance was not good - it was sluggish to the point I really didn't want to use it
    * so this question is just about whether in general FCP X performs better on a Mac (you'd think it would no, as it's made/optimized for a Mac)
    My MacBook:
    Processor  2.66 GHz Intel Core i7
    Memory  4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3

    Elements is essentially an amateur app and Premiere a professional one similar to the discontinued Final Cut Pro 7.
    FCP X is a radical new approach to editing which like Marmite, you either love or hate.
    It is probably between the 2 in capabitlity but much closer to Premiere.
    Some might say it was better than Premiere, whilst other long standing broadcast editors would disagree.
    It all depends on your standpoint and I am trying to give an unbiased appraisal.
    Some of the techniques it uses are way ahead of all other apps and this is what worries people who have an established way of working, though as I mentioned in another post, there are a few omissions which have upset those editors.
    Some might say (echoes of Jeremy Clarkson) that FCP X is the most advanced editing app on the planet albeit with a few teething troubles.

  • Battery gets low as soon as I use my incredible. Verizon worker said this is better than iphone

    my incredible's battery goes low as soon as I start using it. Verizon tech said this was better than an i phone.

    I may have corrected the problem. It took several starts of iTunes, each time navigating to my podcasts and right clicking on 2-3 and unsubscribing from them before it went to 25%, became unresponsive, and required shut down from the task manager.
    As soon as they were all unsub'd, iTunes went silent on CPU usage. The APSDaemon.exe shot up to 25%, but a reboot and a restart has everything quiet. I've accessed the store, played some songs, downloaded one. So far, so good.
    I'll be back here to report any change.

  • Okay, so WHY is intel's legacy driver way better than the new one?

    I bit the bullet and installed the intel-legacy video driver because I wanted to see if it was true that the old one was better than the new.
    Result: Compiz is REMARKABLY smoother. As in, I'd forgotten just how pretty a silky smooth Compiz setup really is. I've done no benchmarking, don't care to. The point is, for example, I can set the opacity to 85% in the Move Window plugin and it doesn't hose the framerate.
    My question is, why? What's going on in the new driver that made the performance totally tank? When there's a new driver and EVERYONE seems to have the same problem, I'm a little confused as to why they "improved" it.

    Not only KMS, but also DRI2 and GEM. The next Intel video driver release should support only UXA, getting rid of the legacy cruft and concentrating on supporting one option properly.
    http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/col … g_features
    http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/col … t_graphics
    Last edited by lucke (2009-06-06 14:08:13)

  • Test-to-speech program--anything better than  Voice Dream Reader? I have AMD and NEED the serviced.

    I have AMD and need a text-to-speech reader; anythiung better than Voice Dream Reader? HELP!!

    My son uses Touch Chat. It wworks great for him.  he is 14 years old and has been using it for 2 years.  You can set up several different pages to ease navigations.

  • FLV quality looks better than F4V, what am I doing wrong?

    Hi,
    I exported a small clip as a on2vp6 flv, a h.264 f4v, and a h.264 mp4 file with the adobe media encoder cs4. Each file is the same clip, exported with pretty much the same settings. Resolution: 640x480, 0.5mbps target bit rate, 29.97 fps.
    Everything I read says that for a given file and a given bitrate, h.264 should provide better video quality when compared to a h.263 flv file. I would like to know what I am doing wrong, because the h.264 files look worse than the flv file. I have provided download links for a short demo clip in each format.
    fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.f4v
    http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc7b/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_f4v
    fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.flv
    http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc7e/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_flv
    fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.mp4
    http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc71/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_mp4
    Why does the clip look better in h.263? It seems that everything I encode at low bitrates looks better in h.263 which leads me to believe I am doing something wrong.

    Okay, that is true, they are different codecs. But even adobe says:
    Q: How does H.264 compare with the current video formats supported in Flash Player?
    A: Flash Player supports the Sorenson Spark video codec (based on H.263) and On2 VP6. H.263 is the predecessor of H.264 and was designed for teleconferencing applications, at 64k rates. H.264 delivers even higher quality at lower bitrates. H.264 will deliver the same or better quality when to compared to the same encoding profile in On2. Factors you should consider when choosing a format include the complexity of the content, the desired reach, ability to archive, and licensing considerations.
    at
    http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flash_Player:9:Update:H.264#Q:_What_is_H.264.3F
    Are there any tricks to getting the h.264 to look "better" than the h.263? Like, the h.264 version of the video doesn't even look close to as good, and I think that the f4v version looks worse than the mp4, which I don't really understand since they are both h.264 files. The footage is from a canon XL2 and the original source is ntsc 720x480. Is there anything special I should be doing for encoding in h.264 instead of h.263. The video is going to be only for the web.

  • Hardware setup advice needed for 2 track 'better than demo' sound recording

    I've enjoyed browsing the forums and seeing of the good help that people get here. Hopefully, I'll be next.
    I have an accoustic guitar (Taylor 314-CE, Expression System) with onboard pre-amp, cable is 1/4 from guitar to XLR
    I have a dynamic mic, with XLR to 1/4 cable
    Key issues so far:
    (1) lack of a mic pre-amp
    Right now I've got a unidirectional dynamic mic from RadioShack that was a gift. I think it cost $50, so I know it wasn't the cheapest one in the store. Of course using it with GB and line in, you have to practically swallow the mic and turn the levels up to get anything. So I don't really know enough about it's quality yet.
    (2) difficulty recording guitar
    It seems like I either get clipping or not enough input, so I end up with lots of noise relative to a quiet guitar track. To avoid clipping, I have the pre-amp on the guitar set way down, and the track volume way down too. Just doesn't seem that great.
    (3) one track a time
    So I need a system that will allow me to record two tracks at the same time, mic and guitar (not mic'd), and I am looking for 'better than demo' sound.
    Have I got this right:
    Behringer UB502 ($30) would work? - since my mic is dynamic, I don't need phantom power (available on UB802 ($40)). Will I need a new mic cable, XLR to XLR, or can I use the XLR to 1/4 cable? Would an XLR to XLR be better?
    How is the Behringer connected to iMac? USB? Firewire? I didn't see anything included - Do I need to purchase cabling separately?
    Is the sound quality going to be good enough for Home CD quality recording? If not, to what do I have to step up to? Firepod at $600? Its track count is overkill for me, but I need good sound, too, so maybe... Or is there something in between that offers great sound and just a few inputs?
    How much of a difference would a condenser mic be? Am I right that with that type of mic, I need phantom power on the (mixer / interface - which is it?) Have seen recommendations for MXL 990 ($60) and Rode NT1000 ($300).
    That's about it. Hope you can help.

    Nice guitar. Radio Shack mic were made by Shure not sure if they still are. A cheap mixer will just plug into the line in jack just a matter of getting the right plugs an cables. I would use a xlr cable pretty cheap from online music stores. You may want to consider a usb interface they tend to be a little cheaper then firewire check M-Audio. Condenser mic are great but they pick up everything and you should be fine with you mic you have and the fine onboard system taylor uses.

  • Meego is better than Windows Phone

    I think Meego is better than Windows Phone from certain point of view,  at least the Name of Meego is nice than the Name of Windows Phone!

    @Avenger_Osiris: As I have got the N9, I can already comment on that. I love the device. The buildquality is excellent, the screen is a pearl with vivid colours. The OS and UI is a new experience to me, but has so far been nothing but great. You adapt easily to how to navigate and the whole thing is so smooth.
    There are of course lots of improvement needed, but I had no issues using it as my main device straight out of box. There are at least 2 updates coming as I know, and you also have the support from the community. It's a geeks device, but still easy enough for everyone to use.
    Symbian is dying yes, but not as fast as we first thought. Even though the mess with Anna was a crazy mans circus, I still haven't heard anything saying that Nokia will stop the process with belle. Hopefully they will manage to get it out a bit quicker than with Anna.
    I will comment on the lumia when I get it. That will also be a new experience to me - though I had a windows phone many years ago - motorola clam shell

  • New MBP's better than the old MBP's?

    i have a 2009 13" MBP and been none too impressed with it. i just had an issue with wake from shutdown and i am wondering if the new MBP's are any better than the old ones.
    i have been told i have issues because i am a "power" user (even though i don't really feel like i am and i don't do anything computationally intensive on the laptop) and i'm wondering if i have to get the 15" to get full power, if there is a machine anyone would recommend etc.
    i have been sort of hankering for the 12" that is rumored to come out in part for the form factor and portability but i am a bit scared that this will be a step down and mean i have additional problems.
    thanks for any advice.

    iyacyas wrote:
    I would have to totally agree with EWW...
    I also agree that the 12" not only has the best keyboard but is the best Mac ever, and I am not looking forward to the day that I have to put the ol' girl down.
    I still mourn mine. One tiny solder connection on the motherboard broke, and it is $800 to replace, but I sure loved that computer. Bought it the week it was introduced and it was wonderful.

  • Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

    Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
    I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
    I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
    Any thoughts or explanations?

    Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
    Eric
    ADK

  • Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

    I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

    Pier Rodelon wrote:
    Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
    1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
    than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
    Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
    screen specs.
    The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
    sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
    normal home lighting levels.
    The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
    the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
    casual observer.
    2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
    All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
    and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
    previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
    Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
    some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
    at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
    The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
    The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
    To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
    into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
    ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
    I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
    white (or the 20/24" ALU).
    IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
    If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
    I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
    was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
    Looby

  • Is the reception of iPhone 5c better than 5s.

    Was advised at a Telstra store that the reception of the iPhone 5s was worse than that of the 5c. Am thinking of upgrading from 4s.
    Has anyone experienced this?

    Not sure about the 5C but the 5S is hugely worse than the 4S for data. And tethering is a dead loss in poor signal areas where it would work reliably with the 4S.
    However it's not that simple - the 5S voice call performance seems BETTER than the 4S. I did a 45 minute call yesterday during a drive through several known blackspots where my 4S and indeed other non-Apple phones reliably drop the call, and not only did the 5S maintain the call but I didn't even have any dropped audio at all.
    But despite the audio being solid I couldn't get ANY data out of it at all - and yes it was on 3G so should have been able to do voice and data simultaneously.
    So my guess is a serious bug in the firmware or baseband around data handling rather than inherently poorer hardware in the 5S. Or at least that's what I hope as one wouldn't expect a newer phone to be worse than the previous model especially after the bizarre mess of the iPhone 4 and antennagate!

  • My palm calendar wont open after Lion download.  Palm is so much better than ical,  is it not going to work w/ Lion?

    Palm calendar won't open now that I've downloaded Lion. Palm is so much better than ical.  Is there a fix?

    I miss Palm Desktop for Mac. The integration of contacts, to-dos, notes, appointments, etc. was great. I stopped using it about a year ago when I finally sold my Palm Tungsten T and purchased and iPhone 4. iCal etc. work fine for me, but they're not as good as Palm Desktop was.
    I also miss Graffiti 1 handwriting recognition. I could write with it as fast and flawlessly as I can write longhand on paper, and nearly as fast as I can type. It was the best for meetings and interviews, since I could write without having to look at the screen. iOS has nothing that comes close; I've gotten used to the onscreen keyboard but it's slower, I make far more mistakes, and I have to keep my eye on the screen while typing.
    As others have pointed out, Palm Desktop was written for PPC processors. Lion does not include and cannot run Rosetta, which is the emulation environment which allowed Intel processors to run PPC code. So Palm Desktop will not run on a Mac running Lion.
    I was syncing to my Palm Tungsten T under Snow Leopard (and using Palm Desktop) with no troubles at all. There are third-party sync options available, but they're all kludgy and unreliable compared to Palm's own syncing. Again, though, the Palm software for syncing was written for PPC processors and so won't run on any Mac booting into Lion.

Maybe you are looking for