Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Apr 2007 21:58 UTC, submitted by andrewg
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y George Ou compares Microsoft Office 2007 to OpenOffice 2.2 in memory and CPU usage using the OOXML and ODF file formats. The conclusion according to Ou: "We can see that the OpenOffice.org ODF XML parser (while vastly improved) is still about 5 times slower than Microsoft's OOXML parser. OpenOffice.org also seems to consume nearly 4 times the amount of RAM to hold the same data. While OpenOffice.org continues to have fewer features than Microsoft Office, it continues to consume far more resources than Microsoft."
Thread beginning with comment 235422
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Reliability
by ma_d on Mon 30th Apr 2007 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Reliability"
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

If I wanted to dig through the expanding menus, sure I could probably eventually figure it out.

I'll prefer the program that's free, does what I need, and defaults to a behavior I can live with.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Reliability
by flanque on Mon 30th Apr 2007 00:44 in reply to "RE[4]: Reliability"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Digging? Probably? Eventually? Get a grip. I'll assume you're a "power user" if you visit this site. Maybe that's my mistake.

Even if Microsoft gave it away, and fixed these apparently problems with it, I'd bet you'd still find an excuse to complain about it.

It's one menu, one option box. Sheesh, how hard is it to please some people?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Reliability
by ma_d on Mon 30th Apr 2007 03:45 in reply to "RE[5]: Reliability"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

You're telling me you don't think Word has an overabundance of commands that has stretched beyond the ability of their interfacing?

I.E. Menu's weren't meant to house hundreds of commands.

The tabbed toolbar they have now seems much better btw. But I've not given it much real use so I can't say it's great.


You're right though. Regardless of what they do I'd complain. The question is whether or not my complaints are critical issues, or if they're just improvements I'd like to see. In Word they're critical issues.

I complain about OO.o a lot too (usually while using it). It just happens to be the only WYSIWYG word processor I can stand to use right now.

I wouldn't call myself a "power user." I'm really more of a "programmer." I'm actually quite horrible with graphical user interfaces, I have a tendency to just not notice options when they're presented that way. And no, I'm not all about text interfaces.

This is why things like expanding menus really drive me nuts. When I click the expand button all of the spatial knowledge I had about the menu is lost and I have to re-read it again to find my place. Big menus should just be avoided in the first place.

Toolbars with more than about 8 items bother me too. Once again, because I'm just not going to become good with that many items. And if I need really fast access I'll probably lookup the shortcut (which I can see from the menu, but for some reason it's not good enough to make tooltips on a toolbar in any toolkit).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Reliability
by archiesteel on Mon 30th Apr 2007 04:20 in reply to "RE[5]: Reliability"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Could it be possible that some people prefer the OO.o UI? Why is that so hard to believe?

Different strokes for different folks...that's still allowed, isn't it?

Reply Parent Score: 2