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:2007-02-17
{I'm trying to be open minded here and critical of OO where it needs to be done, so that it can improve. If you praise something that's bad, because you like it, it'll never get better. I want OO to get better.}
OKay, I'll take you at your word.
{OO isn't bad, don't get me wrong. But it is slow, it is a behemoth, and it does need a major re-writing, preferably from the ground up. It's majorly bloated code. The installer is, well, let's just say archaic. Slow. Excel compatibility is average to good from my experience, powerpoint is disgusting to poor on average, Access compatibility is non existent. On Word it is quite good, offering probably in the high 90 percent compatibility. I know that this isn't the OO developer's fault, it's those bastards at Microsoft obfuscating their code and making the open source developers life as much a hell as possible.}
I'm sorry, but all this makes it very hard to take you at your word. Are you sure you are talking about OpenOffice 2.2 (subject of this thread)? Most of this unwarranted rant sounds more like OpenOffice 1.0 or something.
Try this for a more neutral, and recent, view of someone who previously thought OpenOffice was slow:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=17798&comment_id=236043
It installs just like any other application on Windows.
I don't disagree with fair criticism when it is warranted, but I'm afraid your post just reads like an horrendously-out-of-date and misplaced rant at best, and pure FUD at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/loginMembersOnly/1,2894...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Base
Edited 2007-05-01 13:26
Member since:2006-01-06
I'm sorry, but all this makes it very hard to take you at your word. Are you sure you are talking about OpenOffice 2.2 (subject of this thread)? Most of this unwarranted rant sounds more like OpenOffice 1.0 or something.
2.2 is slow and bloated, as well. Why do you find that so hard to believe?
Member since:
2006-12-16
mmm you do forget to mention that a few seconds here, and there, all add up. I'm sure he's saving more than $950 per annum by what he gains in speed etc. One word:
productivity
OO isn't bad, don't get me wrong. But it is slow, it is a behemoth, and it does need a major re-writing, preferably from the ground up. It's majorly bloated code. The installer is, well, let's just say archaic. Slow. Excel compatibility is average to good from my experience, powerpoint is disgusting to poor on average, Access compatibility is non existent. On Word it is quite good, offering probably in the high 90 percent compatibility. I know that this isn't the OO developer's fault, it's those bastards at Microsoft obfuscating their code and making the open source developers life as much a hell as possible.
I'm trying to be open minded here and critical of OO where it needs to be done, so that it can improve. If you praise something that's bad, because you like it, it'll never get better. I want OO to get better.
Dave