Page 2 of 2
Posted: 2005-10-28 10:09pm
by Admiral Valdemar
Under Linux OpenOffice is actually faster and less memory intensive than MS Office would be in Windows. That can't be said when using it with XP, but it was optimised for Unix systems I believe.
Posted: 2005-10-29 12:58am
by Xon
Pu-239 wrote:ggs wrote:OpenOffice also requires vastly more CPU & memory todo the equivalent thing in MS Office.
We are talking about the difference of a few seconds for MS office and minutes for OpenOffice on the same hardware for some operations
Hm? Which ones?
linky
Here is a comparison with the standard 16-sheet
SXC and
XML sample file I've been using. The sample is in compressed XML format because it is smaller and easier for you to download. You'll have to convert the XML file to XLS and the SXC file to ODS to run the following test yourself.
Even when dealing with what is essentially the same data, OpenOffice Calc uses up 211 MBs of private unsharable memory while Excel uses up 34 MBs of private unsharable memory. The fact that OpenOffice.org Calc takes about 100 times the CPU time explains the kind of drastic results we were getting where Excel could open a file in 2 seconds while Calc would take almost 3 minutes. Most of that massive speed difference is due to XML being very processor intensive, but Microsoft still handles its own XML files about 7 times faster than OpenOffice.org handles OpenDocument ODS format and uses far less memory than OpenOffice.org.
Posted: 2005-10-29 11:33am
by Yogi
In addition, Open Office Calc cannot import Excel macros.
Posted: 2005-10-29 02:14pm
by Pu-239
Hm, yeah, OO2 does take many minutes to open the sxw file on Linux. Don't have Office2k3 for comparison though.
Posted: 2005-10-29 04:00pm
by Admiral Valdemar
Anyone use KOffice? What's that like?
Posted: 2005-10-29 04:06pm
by The Grim Squeaker
And is Abiword any better?
I understand that it's built in dictionary is the best of the open source bunch.?
Posted: 2005-10-29 04:21pm
by Edi
Compared to Open Office 2.0 (which is out of beta and into the stable versions now), the 1.x series sucked. And it was still better than MS Office 2000 and earlier. I've been using OO for two years now, and no problems at all. Haven't used much more than just the basic features, but it's been good.
Macros and such don't transfer over from MS Office, though, they get all fucked up, so if you have a macro intensive and complex thing like the Tome for Dominions 2 (a user made reference document to for that strat game), the guys who made it basically had to do it all over for an Open Office version.
Edi
Posted: 2005-10-29 04:56pm
by BloodAngel
Is there any difference between the 1.x and 2.0 formats of OO that warrant a change? Because OO 1.1.5 is doing quite nicely for me at the moment...
Posted: 2005-10-29 05:05pm
by General Zod
Edi wrote:Compared to Open Office 2.0 (which is out of beta and into the stable versions now), the 1.x series sucked. And it was still better than MS Office 2000 and earlier. I've been using OO for two years now, and no problems at all. Haven't used much more than just the basic features, but it's been good.
Macros and such don't transfer over from MS Office, though, they get all fucked up, so if you have a macro intensive and complex thing like the Tome for Dominions 2 (a user made reference document to for that strat game), the guys who made it basically had to do it all over for an Open Office version.
Edi
Doesn't Open Office disable macros from the outright due to security issues anyway?
Posted: 2005-10-29 05:19pm
by Pu-239
BloodAngel wrote:Is there any difference between the 1.x and 2.0 formats of OO that warrant a change? Because OO 1.1.5 is doing quite nicely for me at the moment...
For one thing, better document recovery.
The Windows version looks awful though (I hate that Office2k3 look- hideous curvy look). Of course, aesthetics aren't really that important, but eh.
Hm, disabling OO Java drastically improves startup time.