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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
"OpenOffice seems to be a dead end. It's not a free software project, it's a proprietary application suite that happens to be free software. It doesn't have the DNA of the community baked into it, and that's why it doesn't operate like a free software application."
Would you have said the same about Mozilla in 1999/2000 ?
If so, you should give OO more time to fit into the community. And for anyone that replies with "it's had years already", give it more...
Edited 2007-04-30 13:05
Member since:2005-07-08
Would you have said the same about Mozilla in 1999/2000 ?
That's a good question. In previous posts I've described Firefox and OpenOffice as the two applications on the typical free software desktop that seem out of place, and it's because of their pedigree. Firefox has the same piggish tendencies that OpenOffice has. So, yes, I would say the same thing.
Mozilla was pared down into Phoenix in essentially a one-man project. Since then, this codebase has become Mozilla's primary focus. Although the barriers to entry for prospective Firefox developers are lower than those for OpenOffice, it's still a pretty intimidating codebase. Firefox is a 35MB tarball of source code. Epiphany is 4.4MB. Firefox admittedly has more features, but does that justify the difference? I tried to get similar data for Konqueror, but KDE is so highly integrated that it resists such naive methods. That's also why developing Konqueror/KHTML is most likely the easiest of all.
you should give OO more time to fit into the community. And for anyone that replies with "it's had years already", give it more...
I don't think that time is a solution. Given enough time, we will have a viable office suite from an independent codebase, and OpenOffice will still be a pig.
As an engineer, in various contexts, I've come across an underlying truth: simple is fast. There are many ways to achieve simplicity in software development, even in the development of seemingly complex applications. Free software excels at this, and proprietary software does not. That's why I've been a supporter of free software since before it was trendy. I figured that as requirements get more complex, free software would shine. And here we are today.
Edited 2007-04-30 14:32
Member since:2007-04-30
Member since:
2005-07-08
I think the developers maybe need to take a step back and do the hard and boring work of cleaning OO out and then looking into more features.
I wish them luck, and I acknowledge Sun's invaluable contribution to the free software community, but OpenOffice seems to be a dead end. It's not a free software project, it's a proprietary application suite that happens to be free software. It doesn't have the DNA of the community baked into it, and that's why it doesn't operate like a free software application.
I hear you on Abiword, but the GNOME project seems to have abandoned its GNOME Office efforts. This, too, seems like a dead end.
I recently re-evaluated KOffice at version 1.6, and I was very impressed. The roadmap for version 2.0 looks great as well. It's snappy, attractive, and it works well overall. The major sticking point is no attempt at MS format compatibility. But it was the first office suite to support ODF, and with a reliable ODF<=>OOXML converter, it could reshape the competitive landscape for free software office suites, especially if it's available on Windows. This one is free software through-and-through, and it shows.