Slashdot Mirror
OpenOffice Bloated?
cygnusx writes "ZDNet's George Ou has been writing a series of posts about Open Office bloat. Includes some interesting system usage comparisons" From the article: "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."
When attempting to replicate one of the biggest bloatware software packages out there, that they make a version even bigger and bloatier!
Thalasar
Consider that Intel owns a big chunk of CNET and then you see a possible conflict of interest brewing over an article possibly designed to sink Open Office. Now consider the author, George Ou, who has also posted such titles as, Is the Honeymoon with Firefox Over?
Seeing a bit of a pattern forming.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Could it be the GUI? Excel uses native widgets and I'm sure is heavily optimized towards MFC (after all, its their API!). I don't think OO has that luxury. I doubt thats the entire issue but it could partially explain it.
My personal experience is the opposite, Micro$oft Office loads and runs a lot quicker, however it also crashes a lot more often.
Excel also crashes faster than Calc! *ducks*
Perhaps the reason that OO uses more private memory than does MS Office is that MS Office links to all the MS dll files, while OO bundles its own internal libraries with it?
And from article/blog/whatever: "Now to be fair, OpenOffice.org is free and is cross platform, but does this really matter to the 90% of the users in the world who only use Windows?"
If it's legally free to use and does the same task, why wouldn't 90% of the users in the world who only use Windows *not* care? People always look for what's cheaper, sometimes even if it's not better (note how MS became the company it is today...)
Most of the bloat I see results from kludging together work from multiple sources that are not communicating well. Can't they solve this by switching to a faster parser? Or is the format itself flawed? So many questions, this doesn't bode well. Speaking of bloat, why do linux distros come on 5 CDs with multiple versions of every possible thing. Have options is nice, but the fragmentation is getting out of head.
I dont know how you got the opposite results.
I installed OO 2.0 on my machine to check the updates, and to see if its speed is up to snuff. Issues with compatibility are gone but it is more than twice as slow while opening files. (I'm not using quickstarters for OO or MSO).
Heck since I'm reporting these results, I MUST be a microsoft shill too I guess.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
It's interesting today to see the bloat and memory hog complaints leveled against the non-Microsoft product while showing MS' version as lean and mean.
I can't defend the numbers, they do look huge, but we're seeing about one or two articles a week in the trade rags about the latest memory, cpu, cache, etc. advances. Technological advances render all but the most dramatic processing demands almost moot.
In the numbers and benchmarks from this article, unfortunately, this is one of the more dramatic instances. I'm always willing to wait a little more for opening an application, or a file if other factors offset. In this case, free vs. whatever Office goes for now, typically is enough of an offset, but maybe not so for a large company where that extra "time" and computer resources add up big, and the pricing is likely to be more disounted for volume licensing.
Interesting numbers on the two different speeds on processing XML. Does anyone know or conjecture the difference in the true internal XML data for the comparison? I thought OpenOffice was the more pure in the sense that it is true human readable data in the XML while Microsoft's format is more of an envelope architecture for binary proprietary Office payloads. And, I wonder what the specifics in this test were around that.
Bottom line for me: I'm still going with OpenOffice, I've been a fan for years.
My company uses OpenOffice on literally hundreds of PCs. I use OpenOffice exclusively, save for the rare time we in IT use MSFT Office to open up a document for a user. (No, OpenOffice is not perfect at converting but that's OK with us).
OpenOffice is free (as in beer) and easy to use. The drawback? It's so friggin SLOW, SLOW, SLOW.
Real world use, real world PCs, real world users. OpenOffice is painfully slow. I have tested OpenOffice on dozens of PCs, users and my own, PCs and notebooks. Slow is as slow does, and OpenOffice does it slowly.
Kill the QuickStart process THEN try to open OpenOffice. UUGH! SLOW!!!!
Openoffice.org is a C++ app. It uses java for some scripting, but everything else is C++.
- vi is a bloated version of ex
- EMACS stands for Eight Megabytes and Continually Swapping
- Sometimes I just telnet to port 80 instead of using a browser
I have compiled OpenOffice from scratch... took a while!Hmm, you didn't provide any hardware/software specs OR timing/memory data (so others could confirm your work), but your results are nonetheless "informative". It must be because your results were in OO's favor.
I don't use Windows and haven't since '98. At one point, I ran Linux, but kept a dual boot system with Windows, just for opening complex Word documents. Then, I started using Crossover and that saved me a lot of time and I eventually wiped Windows off my box for good.
Now I got into OS X, and I run MS Office on it. I must say though, without bias, that MS Office has to be their greatest product. It just works and I haven't ever had any issues with it at all. It is fast, user friendly, stable and usable. Let's face it: when coders code a word processor they will always look at MS Office for implementation ideas. On the Powerbook, MS Office just flies.
A few weeks ago, I tried to run Openoffice on my Debian box, and there was a huge performance decrease, when compared to running MS Office. It was certainly noticeable. It took a while for a document to open up.
Though, Office has been around for a long time and Openoffice hasn't, so I'm sure there will be lots of features and performance gains in the coming years for the latter. I'm definitely going to keep an eye on Openoffice.
On its face MS Office does not handle OpenDocument format so theother claism are entirely suspect.. Do anly /. contribs actually read what they submit?
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
AFAIK, most of OO is NOT using Java - the only part of OO in Java is the database manager, and that's only for the JDBC connectivity.
InThane
I get the exact opposite results for Excel and OpenOffice Calc: Excel takes forever to load, doesn't share memory, etc, and Calc is a lot faster/leaner.
Then again, I'm running Excel in Crossover Office; all those Windows libraries aren't "preloaded" for me. Maybe that's why XP and Vista have such large system requirements?
He provided the test data here and here
><));>
Just go ahead and admit it, they both suck for different reasons. We need a third player.
This is total garbage. I have been using OO 2.0 at home since it was released and I have noticed no lag compared to Office which I have to use at work. I do not have quantitative numbers to present, but I can certainly attest anecdotally that this blogger is flat-out wrong. I notice no appreciable speed difference between the two suites while processing the same files. (The machines are roughly equivalent at home and office)
I recently purchased an iBook G4 which came with a trial edition of Office.Mac (or whatever it's called). I used it for the 45 days of the trial and then switched to "OpenOffice.org for the Mac," otherwise known as NeoOfficeJ. The only thing I've noticed thusfar is that Neo takes about 1.5 times longer to run initially, and it seems to take longer to save files. Other than that I really haven't noticed any other differences in performance.
Hmm. I've been running MS Office 2003 for over a year and have yet to experience a single crash with Word or Excel. I've had Outlook freeze up numerous times, but virtually all of those problems have their roots in our Exchange server (and the seriously mismanaged overload they've piled on it.)
John
These articles are complete garbage. No mention of methodology is made. What files were loaded, what conditions were they loaded under. Was it the same machine, or a very similar machine. What distro, what JVM, and on, and on, and on. Sounds like another MS shill to me.
He is already anti-Open Document http://government.zdnet.com/?p=1723 and heavly pro-Microsoft http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/ so this is not unexpected.
OpenOffice is *not* written in Java. It'd most likely work better if it were. ;-) It is written in C++. I wonder if there'd be much of a speedup compiling it with the Intel compiler....
It does have some Java functionality, which is why a JRE is required. IIRC, gcj is the JRE most often used, which might impact interpreted Java performance. Gcj has a slow interpreter, though I think the most recent version has an optional JITC.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I'm not sure. I know I rarely use anything except writer, so maybe having a writer lite edition as well as the whole suite.
"Persistence is annoying success." - ghee22 11:28:1999 - 10:53:PM
I wish I could retract my previous comment.
John
I'd chance my arm and say a fair bit.
I made the mistake of opting for x86-64 Gentoo for one of my desktop boxes ("upgrading" it to 32bit this weekend), meaning I have to use the 32bit precompiled OpenOffice binaries. But these need hooking into a 32bit JRE which x86-64 Gentoo doesn't have, since making 32bit apps available through Portage is seemingly something that Gentoo Won't Do Because You Should Be Happy With 64bit. So whenever you start OOo it spends about a minute looking for a JVM (and failing) before you can do anything. I could have manually installed Sun's 32bit JRE, but I can't be bothered.
Disable Java in the options and it starts in 1-2 seconds on the same machine.
By way of comparison, I tried the same trick on my 32bit box (similar spec but with slower HDD's) and OOo was as snappy as hell and opened like the proverbial soil off a shovel.
If there's any functionality I miss through disabling Java, I haven't encountered any yet. And please note I'm not saying that Java is slow to execute (it isn't), it's just appallingly slow to load.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Not to argue about whether or not OOo is more bloated than Office, but George Ou has always seemed to be ranting pro-MS and putting forth statements like this just to get the reaction.
Here's his webpage
And his other ZDNet entries
Also, you might want to check out the comments already posted to his review of OOo beta2
... open office being slow:
... 500$ vs lackluster speed, good compatability, and 90% features of office.
Java, now I'm no language bigot, but Java is slower than C (but more portable without changes in code).
It's a replacement for the most bloated piece of windows software and has most of the same features.
I use OO presently, it's not a speed demon thats for sure. However, A) It's free, B) Keeps me from having to run a windows emulator for word docs and scuh. So it's a win win. The equation would be
Shadus
Even then , would you rather spend $500 on Microsoft Office or extra memory and a CPU to get a better machine to speed up all the applications. Paying for one piece of software usually does not pay.
With the exception of Outlook, Office 2003 has never crashed on me, even when handling huge files. On the other hand, when we evaluated Open Office, we couldn't get it to stay up for more than 1/2 hour, and when it did work it was unacceptably slow.
Honestly, I want to love Openoffice and to advocate it... I have worked in finance on excel, dealing with huge huge spreadsheets and many graphs... Have you tried to plot a 10 000 points graph in OOo Calc vs excel... in excel it is done in less than a second... In OOo the application will freeze for half and hour before slowly starting to display the graph. Cherry on the cake it will conviniently try to write "ROW" under each point in a huge ugly font. After that, changing the data means of course waiting half an hour again because the chart is updating. OOo calc simply doesn't do the job, how hard I wish it would.
\u262D = \u5350
The Mac port of OpenOffice (NeoOfficeJ) is so bloated that by default it starts up in the background when you log in! That's a crappy solution because it sits there hogging swap space until you want it.
I can start Mac Pages, Inkscape, Keynote and even the Gimp before NeoOfficeJ is finished loading. Now that's slow.
The article author provides a download of the documents he used, and invites everybody to download it and try it out. You are referring to private data that you claim show the opposite. I know who I'm more inclined to belive.
But I'll admit to beeing too lazy to actually find out for myself.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Well, according to the Misco catalogue I received this morning MS Office standard costs £300.
At my local computer shop, RAM costs £75/GB, so I could have 4GB of RAM for my machine.
On a price performance comparison MS Office uses 7MB and OO.org uses -3960MB.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
I think it was Corel Draw that was released as a Java port a bunch of years ago.
You've got it partly right, it was Corel but the application was WordPerfect.
Just to attempt to forestall all the Java posts - Openoffice.org is written almost entirely in C++, not Java.
I've tried to use Open Office on my machine at home (dual-P3 800 MHz, 1 Gb RAM) and have always gone back to KOffice. OO has always felt "bloated" to me. It takes much too long to start up, and everything seems to slow down a little on my machine.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Abiword and Gnumeric load very fast and seem to fly during use. KOffice is a touch slower than Abiword/Gnumeric but still light years ahead of Open Office. It also has a very snappy feel to it. Abiword works on Windows, Mac and Linux. Yes, I know, this doesn't address databases or presentation software.
IMHO, there should be no question mark, but more of an exclamation point.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The responses on ./ and the response from the F/OSS people will demonstrate whether Open Source is superior to Microsoft (or any closed-source company). If people just justify the results and claim that OO is still better just because it's Open Source, then in reality Open Source will lose. I think this is a time for the community to notice the problem, admit the problem, and then try to fix it. If the problem can be solved to the point where load times/memory usage is on par with Microsoft, then the Open Source community will prove that it is competent and able to produce a superior (or even equal) product that has the other advantages (freedom, lack of restrictive licenses, etc) that Open Source brings to the table.
Or... people can just whine and show the world that they're a bunch of babies who accuse people of being shills and just ignore the problem.
I, for one, hope the former occurs. I'll admit I'm not a good enough programmer (yet) to do anything about the problem now, but I hope the Open Source programmers who are capable will tackle this problem and fix it w/o making petty excuses.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
I've found the OOo runs much quicker on my Linux box than it does on Windows running on the same box. As for how much memory it consumes, well, the thing about that is that while Calc uses much more memory than Excel, when you load 'Calc', despite appearances, you are in fact loading almost the ENTIRE office suite into memory, including the word processor, database front end and presentation graphics application. There is not much different architecurally between OOo and the older StarOffice 5.x -- they've just gotten better at hiding the fact that you need to load the entire office suite to load one application.
So a truer comparison would involve starting Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access, watching how much this entire toolset takes up in memory, and then load the Excel and Calc files and see the difference.
My blog
if i remember correctly, after compiling oo2, it ran very well and fast. the precompiled bins were def slower. my guess is that these tests were run on a windows machine. so just switch to nix and compile, its that easy.
... an article possibly designed to sink Open Office
Maybe, maybe not, who knows. But what I find odd is that a simple, easily-measureable property like speed is treated as a religious issue and/or examined for conflicts of interest at all. Why not just measure it in a series of comparative tests as scientifically as possible?
And then, if Open Office is found to be lacking in speed, fine, no problem! The result simply becomes very valuable input to OO's design and development team, and in all probability will get dealt with very seriously and rapidly and to the benefit of its users.
There really shouldn't be an issue of contention here, if we're truly techies.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Strange, I'm running 64-bit Gentoo and I have not experienced any issues with oo.org. When I first installed I did `emerge openoffice-bin` and it has been working perfectly ever since. Yes, it's 32-bit, but the integration is seamless.
Disable Java in the options and it starts in 1-2 seconds on the same machine.
Somewhat off topic but pertinent ENOUGH... Good God man! Thank you! The Java tab in the options dialog was incredibly easy to find but for some reason I just breezed right over it. Unclicking that little devil's box just dropped my start time from 15-20 seconds to 1. I know it likely has nothing to do with the working data that this "benchmark" tested, but it sure shows how good an idea it would be to transition the Java dependency on over to native code.
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
Just because the design of OO.o is completely braindead, that's no reason to handicap the competition to make it look better. If Excel is smaller than Calc, say so. If Word is smaller than Writer, say so. If Word+Excel+Powerpoint combined are about the same as the OO equivalents combined, then say that, but most of the time people want just Word, or just Excel, or just Powerpoint.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Go to the Options and uncheck the Java option (Use a java runtime environment). After this, OpenOffice.org start like a breeze...
There are a remarkable number of OO.o/FOSS appologists here. The answer to this surprising result seems clear to me:
Microsoft makes good software!
Okay, call me a troll, but I've tried a lot of free software over the years and I almost always find it lacking. Microsoft's stuff, on the other hand -- most particularly Office and Windows -- is remarkable when you consider how much they do and how efficiently.
One of the biggest areas in which FOSS is lacking is the boring optimization and debugging that's vital for world class software. The truth is that Microsoft is huge and has lots of money, so they can afford to spend time on that important finishing polish. There's an old saying in computer science: The first 90 percent of the work is easy, the second 90 percent wears you down, and the last 90 percent - the attention to detail - makes a good product.
I have an old P3-500, on that machine oo's spreadsheet app takes forever to render a simple chart, no such problem with xls. Other than that I use oo often enough (I don't have ms office installed anymore)
1. It is not fair to compare based on file size. Not only are OOo files compressed, but different data that is the same size uncompressed can have drastically different processing times. Think of the difference of one page full of vector graphics, tables and a little text compared with 3 or 4 pages of text.
.csv, .xls, .doc, and of course .odt and .ods files.
2. It is a known problem that OOo takes a while to start. Staroffice (at the point when Sun bought it) was made by a German company. Most of the internal functions are named in german, and use abbreviations that are not obvious. The fact is that each version of OOo has been getting smaller and faster. OOo 2.0 is the same. If you run OOo 1.1.4 and OOo 2.0 side by side on windows, the 2.0 version uses about 10MB less memory when both have nothing open.
3. Since it uses more memory, it has a higher chance of being swapped out when you switch to another program for a while. A good way to see this in a short period of time is to run a torrent in the background (seeding or just downloading). Leave an OOo window open and use another program for 20 or more minutes. When you switch back to OOo it can take 10-40 seconds (depending mostly on the speed of your hard drive and amount of memory available) for the window to redraw.
If you are using OOo often enough to keep it in memory it is very snappy. But if it gets swapped out, then you will notice a speed degredation.
4. In my experience with small files (less than 200 records in a spreadsheet and 1 - 4 page documents) OOo takes longer to open and save files. I usually work with
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
As far as I can tell...
1) OOO IS slow - under Windows and Linux, enough so that competing "offices" like KOffice are kept alive despite reduced feature sets.
2) Office runs faster, but for that matter, so does IE - is it any suprise that MS can write software for its own OS which takes every possible advantage of its native environment to run with speed?
3) I use OOO whenever I can, because open standards means I know I'll be able to access my data in 10 years, unlike the struggle I've had with old Office/Wordperfect/XyWrite documents I've had to try to convert.
4) OOO is "bloated" in the same way my big multitool is bloated - you can't be small, fast, and everything to everyone on every OS
Using plain ol' text since 1968
I didn't realize how much I hated OpenOffice until I used Word for a while last night. OpenOffice takes about 20 seconds to start on my Linux machine. The latest version of word takes about 3, on a Windows computer with half the RAM and a slower CPU. I've not managed to crash Word in quite a while, while OpenOffice crashes reliably if you paste a figure from, say, Matlab and drag it the wrong way (I have about 20 of those Sun "thank you for your crash report" emails in my inbox right now). And god help you if you want to add captions to your figures, or use "styles", or insert an equation, or do just about anything a good word processor should let you do. As it is right now, I'd rather use Word under VMWare than a native version of OpenOffice. For now, my favorite by far is LaTeX -- even with its arcane syntax, it is a hell of a lot better than anything else out there.
Read this comment for a nice description of why that is not ad hominem.
Your slur on his 2 digit ID, however, is completely off topic. Google for "petard, hoist upon".
Infuriate left and right
One common cause for this discrepency is that Windows does pre-caching and pre-binding for commonly used applications. When you first install Firefox or OO, it will be slower, but if you don't use IE or Office for 6 months, while you use the alternatives regularly, the Microsoft apps will be slower after a while. IE takes *forever* to load on my laptop on the rare (once or twice a year) occasions I fire it up.
Is it time yet to admit that Excel is an excellent piece of software? It has managed to stay true to its core competencies (calculations) while gaining many new audiences. I have used it in the past year for stock analysis, dynamic web queries (a simple Crystal Reports), and site wireframing. While many look at the insecurity of macros, they are enormously useful for the financial community and advanced data analysis.
The great thing about open source though, I bet there is someone *right now* using the test files provided by this author to improve the Open Office parsing routines. Gotta love it.
but even I can see that OO.org runs laps around any MS product for my uses
You've got to be kidding me. OO has never been faster than any version of MS Office I have ever tried. Without that "booster" application sitting in your system tray the individual applications take usually about 2x as long to load and be in a usable state as the equivalent MS Office application.
Now, on to some real numbers. I'm timing this with my watch so you'll have to forgive the ~1 second resolution. I perform each test several times to ensure that disk I/O doesn't taint the numbers.
A random excel spreadsheet on my desktop that calculates some manufacturing costs.
XLS format - 1980 kb
Opening in Excel XP (this includes the time to load excel)
Less than 1 second
Opening XLS file in OO (Calc already loaded)
5 seconds
Ok. To be fair we should save the spreadsheet in OO format so the converter isn't required. Let's test save times first though.
Save as new XLS file under Excel XP
3 seconds
Save as new XLS file in OO
3 seconds
Save as new native file in OO
4 seconds
Ok. Let's see how long it takes OO to open a document saved in native format.
Open ODS file in OO (Calc already loaded)
7 seconds (not surprised - XML processing is sssllllooooowwwww)
And finally, on to memory usage with said spreadsheet loaded:
OO Calc - 67 meg
Excel - 15 meg
I won't even mention the issues with things like the noticable delay between the time you click the menu and the time it appears. Don't get me wrong - OO 2.0 is a nice office suite but don't claim it "run laps around" MS Office. That isn't true by any stretch of the imagination.
Anyone who has run OO on Linux knows very well that it is bloated. Not only is it bloated, but it uses some homegrown toolkit for the GUI. I won't even use OO, personally. Normally I don't have a use for an office suite, but when I do I'd rather us MS Office, which isn't a problem because I now have a Mac sitting next to my Linux box. Of course, I have never paid for MS Office. Maybe if I had to pay for it I wouldn't use it.
I'm sorry, but OO is one of the worst examples of what open source is capable of.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
"Bloated Speed" Sounds like a late 80s speed metal band featuring four blonde fat chicks.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Saying it's because XML parsing is slow doesn't make sense. Any decent XML parser
will parse at a 30 MBytes/s rate on a recent processor, usually one waits for I/O
it rather how that XML data are handled that makes for a slow loading, not the
XML format itself. 2 minutes of processing would mean like a multi gigabyte XML
file, that's not the problem.
Daniel
This article is missing the point of OpenOffice. It doesn't take scientific results to find out OpenOffice is slower to open files than MS Office. Anyone using them will see the difference in a big way regardless what data they use. The fact that it's slow to open files and uses more memory is the primary issue with OpenOffice. The fact that MS Office can't retain compatibility accross versions is the main issue with MS Office. The point here is that OpenOffice is the first software in years that is on par with MS Office. They are both 'comparable'. People may argue on which one is actually better, but for the first time they are both pretty damn close in what they can or cannot do. Why is it important? Because on every single other aspect OpenOffice wins hands down. It's free, while MS Office costs hundreds. It's open source and totally customizable, while MS Office is closed. It's free of patent issues, while the state of Massachusetts found MS Office's proprietary format isn't. That's what counts. We finally have a real alternative, that is for ever free, and documents created by it will always be able to be read by any application implementing this open standard. So sure, shout out all day long that OpenOffice uses too much memory for your taste, but at the end of the day, it still wins.
I'm not sure about the specifics of pre-caching, but there is some truth in your comment. However, your comment is still what I would consider a troll or a nag. At the very least, it's a good example of blind ignorance from a Linux apologist. If using a prefetch causes my documents to load faster, then that would seem to me to be good design. Your argument is analogous to the folowing:
Your car is faster than my bicycle, but only because it uses a complicated internal combustion engine. If you didn't use your car for a couple of years, it wouldn't start up very fast, would it? I'd be halfway down the block before you even got your car in gear...
Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
XML is a data interchange format. We've finally arrived at the era where apps can interchange data in XML without (necessarily) being trapped in a proprietary data format. But that doesn't make XML suitable for internal data representation. Apps should use internal data formats that support their native performance, and serialize data objects to XML for interchange, including storage. Using XML internally when performance thereby suffers is the bad kind of lazy, bad design that saves development time at the manifold expense of user time.
--
make install -not war
Indeed, those products are rather lousy on Windows. But then again, Windows is vastly different from UNIX, and the UNIX layers on Windows (like Cygwin) aren't very good.
On Linux, BSD or Solaris, for instance, such programs work very well. Indeed, one only needs to look at Kylix to see the reverse being true. The port of the Delphi IDE, using Wine, was terrible. It crashed terribly often, not that it was completely stable under Windows, mind you.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I don't want to be an apologist for OO but you can't deny the fact that MS has had about 10 years long to get MSO right than the OOo people have had to get OO right. Now that isn't to say that we should or will have to wait ten years till OO is as good as MSO is today but we should cut them a bit of slack if the software isn't a slick an lean as it could be. In a very short period of time the OOo team have gone from nothing to something that can rival MSO. Assuming the pace of development continues OO will, I feel, be as good as MSO in two years.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
OO is only better than MS because you don't have to pay for a bloated mess. The best office package I've used is Lotus Smart Suite. I'd be glad to pay a three digit sum for a cross-plattform version (Linux/OS X/Win) of that office package.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I realise you're trying to make a statement with all your telnet to port 80 instead of using a browser and such, but I think you should at least have used a compiler to build OpenOffice.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
OO is pretty usuable, as long as you have a very large amount of RAM. I upgraded my thinkpad from 256M to 1G and openoffice load times went way down ( probably ~5x under some circumstances).
I'm not at all familiar with the architecture of OO or what the developers priorities are, but it'd be nice if a bit more time was spent on performance. Firefox could also use work here also.
I'm sure that OO wants to concentrate on features and compatability. That's certainly a worthwhile goal, but perfect compatibility seems pretty much hopeless, and you can always think of more features to add.
This is one area where Open Source has its weakness.
Cutting down and optimizing existing code is not nearly as glorious as adding new features.
Micro$oft, on the other hand, can afford to have a whole team of programmers who's only job is to optimize and slim down the code.
As much as I hate MS, they did get a lot of things right in Office (except for that damn paperclip).
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
If using a prefetch causes my documents to load faster, then that would seem to me to be good design.
I think you misunderstand the OP (although, its possible I do). My take on his comment is that whichever application you use most commonly is going to be improved thru pre-caching and binding. So, if the testers use Excel often, their Excel load time is going to be faster than my load time if I never use Excel, even on otherwise identical machines. His point, I believe, is that if the testers did not account for this, then the Operating System's behavior of pre-caching and binding could play a significant enough factor in the load speeds to completely overshadow any differences in the Applications' respective abilities.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Because they don't care about "legal". Often when I tell someone about OpenOffice, they tell me it's neat but they already have MS Office at home - or at least word. If you tell them "but it's free", they often say they got the MS products free too - illegal of course. They figure why get some free knockoff when they can get "the real thing" free. The ones who paid for MS often got a student price or something, and they really have no incentive to switch until their existing version won't work any more.
The problem is that everyone has Word or Office already weather they paid for it or not. In that context, OOo has nothing to offer - the other benefits are too abstract for joe sixpack. It's a case where MS benefits from casual copies floating around.
The situation is the same for others: Mechanical Engineers tend to have a pinched copy of Autocad at home. Artists have a pinched Photoshop. Animators have a pinched copy of Maya. This hurts adoption of GIMP and Blender - sorry, there is no great GPLed CAD program (except for QCAD for 2D). I'm sure there are plenty more examples. If Longhorn can prevent people running illegal copies of all this software, we'll start to see people switch - assuming MS will allow them to run the legally free stuff.
I tried it myself on my P4 1.8GHz: the first start (with java) took about 15s, subsequent starts (with java) took 7s. After disabling java, the startup time didn't improve. All times are handstoped with a wrist watch, so YMMV.
I don't like Microsoft. I don't like Windows. I do, however, like Office. It's been a good office suite for a very long time. It's been very easy to use since I first started playing with Office 4.2. If Microsoft would actually release a version of MS-Office for Linux then I would probably purchase it.
Before everyone starts ranting about how this isn't good for GPL, or how I'm being bad by saying this, remember, the point of the GNU OS is for application developers to have a level playing field. Microsoft, like any other consumer software maker would be just as correct to participte in that kind of market as anyone else.
I use Open Office, but I don't agree that it's the best productivity suite. It is the best free productivity suite for Linux at the moment. Since Microsoft's product will always cost money, Open Office undoubtedly will remain the best free productivity suite; it will serve as a baseline. If vendors wish to make a commercial product that is better than Open Office and charge for that product it's their right to do so.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So... I should load Macromedia Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flex, Coldfusion, Studio, JRun, Freehand, Authorware, and Contribute every time I want to edit a flash file with MM Flash?
Or should Photoshop also load up Illustrator, GoLive, and Premier?
Naw... there's no bloat in OO.org
Some of this is also arrogant assumptions on all sides. The pro-MS camp is going to test Office under Windows against OO.o under Windows. However, OO.o is a port. It wasn't written for Windows, so there are bound to be some performance issues. Likewise, the pro-OO.o camp will post their various figures proving otherwise while running OO.o under Linux or some other *nix. All the while not taking into account that "Joe Average" at home isn't going to be running the optimal OS for OO.o. I've even seen some weird responses on the ZDNet site. Like the guy who compared OO.o running under Linux with MS Office running under Wine and providing memory usages stats from that. That's just plain silly. Wine has a LOT of overhead, so it's unnfair comparison in much the same way that comparing MS Office on Windows to OO.o on Windows is. The real truth would be found in comparing MS Office on Windows with OO.o on a *nix and then providing the caveat that each Office suite is made to run well on a particular platform. That's the most realistic view. Of course when the AJAX based Office suites pop up all over the place, this will all be moot.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I used the data you suggested. My methodology and note-taking aren't perfect, but here's the lowdown
On a 3.06 GHz Intel with hyperthreading on (though it makes no difference) and 2 Gig of ram
OO 1.9.122 vs Excel 2002 SP3
3.4 Meg SVX file vs 191 meg xlm
File load: SXC OO ~3 minutes , XML Excel ~ 1 minute (not including time to unzip and open from withing excel).
Memory use (meg): min/typical/max OO 13/115/212 excel 4/45/65 (yes, 4 meg with a 191 meg file open, go figure !?!?!)
proc load: 100% during load times for both on "1" processor (HT did not help)
I saved the sxc file as ods and xls versions (hadn't figured out loading the zip into excel at that point). 3.9 meg and 49.5 meg file size repectively.
File load: ods OO ~1 minute, xls Excel ~3 seconds
Memory use (meg): min/typical/max OO ?/72/72 Excel ?/91/91
proc load: 100% during load times for both on "1" processor (HT did not help)
Seems the Excel has some advantage in extreme situations but the caveat mileage may vary seems to apply.
If OO would run twice as fast or use half the memory, I'd be willing to pay twice as much!
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
This may be an unusual concept, but what if MS's Huge Team of Developers have actually put out a refined copy of office, and OO being open source, hasnt reached that level yet?
The Mac version of Office is IMHO quite superior to the Windows version. It just works and it is much more unobtrusive. My main gripes with the Windows version have been it offering a little too much help when I just want to get some work done and the sometimes seemingly random manner that it shows special toolbars. Never had any of these problems in the Mac version. I hope someday they port it to Windows, even! ;)
Benchmarks for me, performed on:
Dell Latitude C840
1.4GHz CPU (plugged in, so full speed)
1GB RAM
5400 RPM 60GB hard drive
Windows XP SP2
Results:
Microsoft Excel
Application opening time: ~3 seconds (no preloader used)
Application opening RAM: 11MB
File opening time: 80 seconds
RAM usage with file open: 45MB
OpenOffice.org 2.0 Calc
Application opening time: ~4 seconds (no preloader used)
Application opening RAM: 35MB
File opening time: 379 seconds
RAM usage with file open: 240MB
Factors:
Application opening time: Effectively a tie
Application opening RAM: Calc uses about 3x more
File opening time: Calc takes about 4.75x as long
RAM usage with file open: Calc uses about 5.33x more RAM
Of course, this probably won't affect that many people. I'm a bit of a spreadsheet fiend, and even my largest work is rarely more than a few hundred KB. I did find it interesting that when trying to open the Excel XML file, Calc could not complete the opening, showing a General I/O failure.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Far less employee time is wasted waiting for Open Office to run than is wasted on Freecell
I'm not sure how feasible it is to profile such a large program, but I'm sure Microsoft profiles the daylights out of their stuff. Do OOo developers profile things like the start-up time? After all, you can't start optimizing things unless you figure out exactly what is slowing it down. Is it the Java run-time engine? Is it because it needs to load a lot of libraries that MS Office does not need to (because of dynamic linking to Microsoft DLLs). Maybe when loading certain data sets, the program goes into a pathalogical state, creating hundreds of thousands of small objects? I don't know.
But things like analyzing profiling data and then optimizing are not fun to most people. Even more so if it means that an algorithm needs to be re-written. After all, if the "open file" operation needs a complete re-think + re-write, who's going to do it? It's not "fun". After all, the "open file" operation already exists. Generally, I think programmers like to build *new* things as opposed to fixing old things. And in this case, it's not even a matter of "fixing". It's a matter of rewriting. I presume that at Microsoft, if Word's "open file" operation (run with me on this for a minute) is uber-slow, then somebody is going to *have* to fix it, or not get a good performance review/etc. However, in the case of OOo if no one makes it faster, well, it does not negatively affect the person who wrote the slow version in the first place (not to discredit OOo authors or anything. They've done a phenomenal job given that they do this for fun and not profit).
Of course, there are an equal number of programmers who like to fix security holes and so forth, but patching a security hole is one thing, while re-writing major algorithms in a large program is another. There are of course some programmers who love optimizing code (Michael Abrash?). But I think they are far and few between. Very often, once something works, an attitude sets in that "It's working. Now don't break it". And optimization in it's early stages will often break things.
I was wondering how much of the RAM footprint difference was due to Office relying on Windows code. So just for the fun of it I fired up Excel on my Mac. 22.94 MB of real memory being used for Excel, 34.14 for Word. Compare that with 7.10 and 9.81 for Excel and Word on Windows and 37.54 and 37.66 for Calc and Write on Windows. Anyone running OpenOffice on a Mac want to add another data point where MS doesn't have code "hidden" in the OS?
"Wife! I NEED a new dual-processor multi-gigabyte machine. No, OF COURSE, it isn't just for games. How could you think even think that."
Nonetheless, I'm finding that I'm opening Abiword about 1/2 the time these days. I was a WordPerfect fanatic in the day but since Word set the standard for lowest common denominator for slapping simple text on the screen, I'm finding that Abiword fills those needs nicely a great deal of the time.
No, the only post that seems to complain about long startup times is dealing with the case where there is NO JVM INSTALLED, but OO is looking for one.
Disabling Java support resulted in vastly improved startup times.
Since OO was no longer searching for a JVM that wasn't there in the first place...
That does lead us to believe that Java is somewhat responsible for some of the problems that have been noted.
Logic error, retrying....
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I'm using Office 97 and OOo 2.0 on Win 2K. I'm using the OOo Quick starter, which means that soffice.bin is resident and taking about 15M. I'm also using MS Office Startup, which is soffice.exe taking about 1.1M. When I start Winword.exe it takes an additional 7.5M, and open a simple document that merely has the text "This is a test" it take another Meg or two, and only takes a second or two. Now when I open an OOo document (.odt), there is no other process that starts, but soffice.bin shoots up to 42M! However, it opens in two seconds.
So, while I do see more memory usage, a real speed test is not really very different. I suspect in the article, he is not using the OOo quick start, whereas he is using the Office Startup. And how much Office stuff is being hidden by it's hooks deep into the OS, and thus it's startup time is part of the OS startup.
This is not to say that OOo couldn't be improved. I'm sure it will be. But OOo 2.0 is an excellent tool to have in anyone's toolbox.
Peace,
Jim
"You clearly don't know what an ad hominem attack is."
The GP does indeed appear to understand the subject. I think the confusion lies in the fact that there are various types of ad hominem attacks. In this case, this is what's known as a circumstantial ad hominem.
The wikipedia article explains this well. If you believe the wikipedia article to be incorrect, you may want to take the time to edit it.
"But when Ou, who has a long and easily verifiable history of writing articles that disparage open-source software, says the same thing, his words should be taken with a generous pinch of salt."
Ironically, you have made an ad hominem attack yourself. From the wikipedia article:
But I'm not surprised that you're incorrect, since Anonymous Cowards usually are. ;-)
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I say that Microsoft is about $500 too bloated. That extra 5 seconds on initial load, and 2 seconds to open a file are worth the half a grand it'd cost for me to purchase Microsoft Office 2003. Ehh, $499 for an office suite, I tell you, that's just insane. I'll stick with OpenOffice.org thank you ver much, it's more than capable. Happy business user of OpenOffice.org since 2002.
Technological advances render all but the most dramatic processing demands almost moot.
It used to be true that a given process would be run exponentially faster over time by the growing power of processors. So if you wrote bloated crappy code, within two years it worked fine because all the processors got better. The problem is that we're running into a wall as to how high they can clock the processors because of the heat and power requirements.
The solution has been to switch to a multi-core processor that runs at the same or even sometimes lower frequencies. This works great but it has one HUGE caveat: the code must be able to run in parallel. Code that is being written today, by and large, doesn't account for this. Sure there's threading and all that in much of today's code, but not quite such that you're seeing those same exponential increases in performance.
To write fast code today you have to be able to write code that can break down into numerous discrete chunks that can all work in parallel. With each new generation of processor, this is going to become more and more critical. Right now we have 2 cores, then we'll get 4, 8, etc. With each generation, you'll get faster performance, but with each generation, the code becomes more complex because it must be broken down into smaller pieces to take advantage of the extra cores.
Having said that, I suspect that the OO people are, at the moment, more focussed with creating functional parity between OO and Office. Sure, sometimes it will be noticebly slower, but if it can do everything Office can do, then they can refactor the innards down the line to improve performance.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I was wary of that too. The times I reported were done after just logging in after a reboot, so there shouldn't be anything cached. To make doubly sure, I turned off swap and still saw a colossal speed increase. This was on Linux and I don't have the quiskstarter installed.
It seems a significant portion of OOo's startup time was waiting for the JVM to load (since I don't have any other Java apps and rarely see/use it on web pages), and at the moment disabling it doesn't seem to give any less functionality. I imagine there may be problems with the new database stuff, but I use UNIX ODBC for my DB connection which bypasses Java.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
I'll begin by saying that I mostly use Linux, and I use OpenOffice even on Windows when I can help it. One reason is that I don't want to give money to Microsoft, but there are other reasons as well, including my belief that Free Software is the key to the advancement of IT in the future.
But this situation is pure hillarity. OSS fans have their list of reasons why Linux (or some Linux app) is better than Windows (or some Windows app). Two reasons near the top are that Windows is slower and more bloated. These reasons are sited often and are part of the OSS mantra.
So I find it incredibly ironic that now that the shoe is on the other foot, the tables are turned, etc., that these very same people are dismissing "bloated" and "slow" as unimportant.
No, you idiots. "Bloated" and "slow" are ALWAYS bad, even when they apply to an OSS application. That means there's something wrong with OpenOffice.org, and if you have half a brain in your head, you have to accept that it's broken for that reason. That doesn't mean you should stop using it or feel disillusioned. And defending your beliefs in the face of this embarrassment just makes you look stupid and inconsistent. HAVE SOME FREAKING STANDARDS, and have them ALL THE TIME, not just when they make your favorite thing look better. It's time for you to have egg on your face, admit it, and take it like an adult. And then the next thing you need to do is stop wasting your time and fix the problem.
"It is a known problem that OOo takes a while to start. Staroffice (at the point when Sun bought it) was made by a German company. Most of the internal functions are named in german, and use abbreviations that are not obvious."
While I understand that you were not trying to be an open source apologist, this statement is the epitomy of the frustration that many mainstream users have with open source:
Office worker: "why does Open Office take so long to load?"
IT guy: "That's because the routines were written by a German guy in his free time. I'm sorry, little-miss-everybody-should-speak-English, but this poor guy was working for free. What do you expect?"
Office worker: "what does the German language have to do with this?"
IT guy: "Your PC was built in Austin, Texas. German is its second language. See this routine here, öffnenSiediegroßeAkte()? Your American PC doesn't know what that means, and has to consult a dictionary each time it sees it. There's a group of teenagers translating it into English. They work on one word each for greater safety. One of them saw two words of the program and spent several weeks in the hospital."
Office worker: "So, what do I do about it?"
IT guy: "Have a little more tolerance for the global community in which we live, and worship the holy light of open source that's shining out of Richard Stallman's ass. Oh, and consider dying your hair blond, adopting a schnauzer, and carrying a riding crop. Open Office seems to like that."
Office worker: "Dork."
If this continues, I think it will inevetably lead to new ad campaigns like:
Microsoft Office: We won't coerce you into adopting a schnauzer!
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
From my personal experience, OOo takes at least 20 seconds to load on a reasonable machine. Suppose I start OOo once every day (not very unrealistic) that would mean some 120 minutes lost. That would result in 2280 years lost over the population of OOo users. Tends to put load-times in perspective, doesn't it?
Abiword and Gnumeric do fine for me personally and start in a flash. Now if my boss would stop sending me .ppt's I could finally get rid of OOo for good. Speaking of which, the latest Abiword can handle ODF! \o/
This sig is intentionally left blank
More like, one bicycle is locked up out front, one bicycle is in the back of the garage behind crates with piles of stuff on top, and yet a third bicycle is somewhere in the attic, we think. I yell "go", and time who gets around the block faster. Storage placement and access is not a fair test of the design of the bicycle.
FIX IT!!!!!!
\m/
The Excel team at Microsoft have always been a bunch of hardcore performance-and-utility fanatics, and the quality of Excel reflects that. In my opinion it's the only component of Microsoft Office that's worth anything, and I dearly wish it was available as a separate program so fat incompetant slobs like Word could be left to scrounge for users on shareware sites.
To maintain performance and compatibility, they refused to get drawn into the COM morass for many years... they interoperated with but didn't depend on COM. At one point they were even using their own compiler. Setting OOO Calc up against Excel is like comparing a donkey to a thoroughbred, and never noticing that the rest of the horses in the stable with the thoroughbred are broken down old screws.
To what extent is this just the proper natural evolution of a large scale application?
Step 1: Functional demo, very lacking in features and stability. This would be StarOffice up through the 5.x series, and the OpenOffice 0.x series.
Step 2: Dramatic increases in stability and completion of all the major technical functions, but with a somewhat clunky or non-intuitive interface. OpenOffice 1.x.
Step 3: More user friendly and natural interface, but performance is not yet up to par.
Step 4: Performance optimization.
Each step is the natural evolution from the prior state. The initial state is an idea, which leads to a functional demo. The functional demo gets poked at by a few outsiders who say, "This might be a good idea, but it doesn't support features X, Y, and Z, and it crashes all the time." That feedback leads to the incorporation of new features and advances in stability. Then a larger group of outsiders uses it and says, "Yeah, this is getting good - it does everything I need it to, but the interface is a little goofy, so I'm sticking with my current solution for now." That feedback leads to user interface improvements. Those improvements lead to a much larger group using the software, and more people using the software full-time, those people say, "Wow, this is really well done, but look at how much (CPU|RAM|disk space|bandwidth) it uses." Which should, inevitably, lead to performance optimization.
That sounds like the natural sequence to me. In fact, that whole process - release, listen, refactor, wait till the end to performance optimize - has always been a big part of successful projects and is now becoming a big part of standardized software development models like those that come under the Agile umbrella. It would be worse if there had been a lot of unnecessary performance optimization that had lead to an unmaintainable code base.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
John
Hidden code, you say? Before you go off accusing Microsoft of a Consent Degree violation, perhaps you should be a bit more careful about what exactly you're comparing. It is extremely important when you try to compare "memory usage" on different Operating Systems that you are actually comparing apples to apples. And since you didn't cite the source for your "7.10" and "9.81" numbers above, I doubt you really understand what you're measuring.
If you're using Task Manager, for example, you will by default only see "Mem Usage" which reports the physical memory (i.e., the "working set") consumed by the process. Even though this metric includes both private and shared pages (i.e., shared code and data segments of DLLs are charged to each process here), it does NOT include pages which still reside on disk (either in the executable images, memory-mapped files, or the system pagefile.
Another common memory statistic from Task Manager is "VM Size" (you have to add it to your column view by "View->Select Columns"). "VM Size" tallies private virtual bytes consumed by the process. Private means that this quantity does NOT include shared/shareable pages like DLLs and memory-mapped files. "VM Size" is sometimes smaller than the "Mem Usage" precisely because shared pages aren't counted. This causes a large amount of consternation to those who don't understand what is being reported, because they expect physical memory usage to be smaller. "VM Size" is the equivalent of the process's page file allocation, since shared pages by their nature are already backed up on disk elsewhere.
Another common memory usage metric in Windows can be obtained from Perfmon (perfmon.msc, the Performance MMC snap-in). From this tool, you can view "Virtual Bytes" of each process, which is the amount of reserved virtual memory for the entire process, including shared pages. It is equivalent to "VM Size" from task manager PLUS shared virtual memory.
So, as you can see, it is not altogether obvious what is being reported unless you really understand the details of memory management on the underlying OS. Before comapring application memory usage across platforms, you need to be sure you're using comparable metrics!
I tried this recently, just to check on initial memory usage, and fired up Word 2003 and AbiWord v2.4.1, typed in a very small line of text into both (same text), and checked memory usage under Windows - and found AbiWord using slightly less than half the memory that Word 2003 was taking. I've not tried having AbiWord laod up any Word documents or anything like that, yet, but it's certainly worth checking into.
Are you using a beta or stable release of OpenOffice? I think that there are two different versions (Beta being the buggier version, stable being bug free, persumably)
And yes, OO.org is based off of star office.
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
I think he's referring more to Windows' trait of moving the data for the most commonly used programs to defragmented sectors on the outer edge of the hard disk platter. The quickstarter may pre-load parts into memory, but it doesn't improve disk performance.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Nope, the previous poster is right.
The reason MS Office performs well, seems to load quickly and use less memory is the fact that it uses mostly libraries that are loaded and used by Windows from startup.
A true cross-platform application like OOo won't make use of such platform specific features for the sake of portability, and pretty much all of the bloat you are refering can be attributed to this. Yeah, there's going to be some legacy code knocking around, but that's also true of MS Office.
However, once you're run *any* of the OOo apps for the first time after a reboot, subsequent startup/reload time is actually around the same as MS Office.
If you'd rather spend £250+ on software (or run illegal copies) just to save a few seconds when you open your first document of the day, then go ahead. I don't hate or have a problem with MS Office, but I genuinely prefer OOo for day to day use. To my mind and way of working (and the many others I've introduced to OOo), it's UI is more streamlined and better organised, so even if the MS apps were free, I'd still go with OO.
I read the blog entry, and this looks like an attempt to report the worst case (corner case) benchmark, for whatever reasons George might find useful. A fuller set of tests and results might make his case that MSOffice is better a little more convincing.
Hard to be convincing about the usefulness of MSOffice over OpenOffice, if you're going to ignore the fact that MSOffice isn't available for some portion of the users, and choose to report a single data point as if it were conclusive.
The Internet has no garbage collection
Me here using OO.org for the best part of 3 years for my Open University assignments and have not noticed.
This is a non issue for anybody that looks at the cost of the alternative, not only in monetary terms, but also in terms to access to your own data.
I don't care if it takes a bit longer fo OO.org to do this or that task, at the end I have a document that I am pretty certain I will be able to open and manipulate in a few years time, and I will not have to pay anybody for such privilege if I don;t want to.
Keep putting your data in the hands of the beast, eventually you are going to be deprived of it and will be charged to access it when you more need it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
On my Fedora system, the OOo calc package lists i386 as the architecture, so I'm wondering if SSE/SSE2 floating point is enabled. The old stack-based floating point is slow.
I agree, with some qualifications.
Excel is a pretty solid program. What I don't like is how some people use it. Because Excel has some database-like features built in, it leads people to attempt to use it as if it were (and in place of) a real desktop database, leading to really ugly, bloated spreadsheets and finicky cross-sheet references that break at the drop of a hat and are a major pain to track down.
I work regularly with a gigantic spreadsheet like this which is used as an internal financial planning and forecasting tool. The reason I've heard for originally using Excel is that they wanted something that would make graphs. Beginning from that premise, they piled all the data into a spreadsheet, and added sheet after sheet of subtotals forms, reports by week and month, reports by person, etc. It's truly hideous. In order to add a new person, you have to (by hand) modify each of the sheets, update the subtotal lines, etc., while in a real database program this would be relatively simple, if it even required any additional effort at all.
Excel is a great spreadsheet program for doing spreadsheets. What it's NOT is a desktop database, and far too many people are laboring under the impression that it is.
If Microsoft would quit loading all the query and PivotTable type features into Excel and concentrate on being a better spreadsheet than it is already, I wouldn't have any complaints. Even so, I suppose I grudgingly have to say that Excel is probably the least-offensive MS program out there.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I saved this file in .ods and .xls format in OpenOffice 2.0. I opened up the .xls file in Excel (and it does load MUCH faster) and saved it again (again MUCH faster than OO 2.0). File size results: .xls = 52,239,872 (49.8MB) .ods = 4,045,860 (3.85MB)
:)
Sometimes size does matter
Golly, could also be that many people never have a problem with Microsoft products. Like me. And if I'm being paid by Microsoft for this positive comment, I hope the cheque comes soon. My VISA bill is due.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
To be blunt, the guys who wrote the Excel GUI got an "A" in computer science, but the guys who built the calculation engine only got a "C+". To be a truely great spreadsheet, Excel must:
Any engineer who gives me a calculation done in Excel using circular reference calculations had better be prepared to get his butt roasted. I've had 10Mb files modelling a copper smelter that converged to a wrong answer - that's unacceptable given that the same calculation saved as a 1-2-3 file converged to a correct answer in 10 seconds using Lotus 1-2-3.
-AD
Not sure if it's relevant, but as I recall Excel was developed outside MS and purchased to become a companion to Word. (This would explain why it's not called Microsoft Spread, as most apps that originated within Microsoft tend to use purely descriptive names like Windows, Word, Internet Explorer, Flight Simulator, etc. I never did figure out Bob, though.)
If correct, this could provide a degree of comfort to those who wish to preserve their MS-hating credentials and still admit that Excel is a damn good office app.
Love the Monty Python reference.
For thoe who don't recognise it:
http://www.pion.ch/Fun/funniest.html
meh
Sloccount says:
Totals grouped by language (dominant language first): cpp: 4525856 89.71 java: 343291 6.80 ansic: 96307 1.91 perl: 48153 0.95 sh: 10484 0.21 yacc: 6785 0.13 cs: 5114 0.10 lex: 2458 0.05 python: 2354 0.05 asm: 2045 0.04 awk: 885 0.02 objc: 702 0.01 pascal: 397 0.01 csh: 272 0.01 php: 104 0.00 sed: 3 0.00The first figure is the number of lines, the second is the percentage of the total lines. Sloccount also says Total Estimated Cost to Develop is $ 208,768,434. The output form the program is much more pretty than that above, but the lameness filter is preventing it's display. Is that filter preventing lameness of enforcing it?
Backups are for wimps. Real men post their data in comments and have slashdot mirror it
~~~~
:-)
From: Guy de'Geek
Newsgroups: comp.office.app
Subject: What would you like to see most in openoffice?
Summary: small poll for my new office suite
Date: 25 Oct 2005 20:57:08 GMT
Hello everybody out there using OpenOffice -
I'm doing a (free) office suite (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like OOo) for 586(686) stones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in openoffice, as my suite resembles it somewhat
(same layout of the GUI (due to practical reasons) among other things).
I've currently done numberscruncher and wordscruncher apps, and things seem to work.
This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them
PS. Yes - it's free of any openoffice code, and it is fast,
multi-threaded and not greedy to resources. It has descent charting too.
~~~~~
So there is hope...
I had a user with a corrupt Excel spreadsheet. She wanted me to dig up a tape backup from March to restore. Instead I opened it in OpenOffice, and saved it back to Excel format, and voila, it mirculously opened in Excel again. So, in this instance, at least, OOo was much faster. :)