Daniel Kasak wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's an interesting debate going on at ZDNet about resource usage
in Oo 2.0 It would be great if you guys put in your 2 cents...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=119
The author of this article went out of his way to create a spreadsheet
that would perform badly under OOo.
The reason it takes so long to load is that the XML for each cell has
to be parsed by OOo.
Before you go off on that line, could I ask how you know he fudged the
data to favor one application over the other. When I read the list it
appeard that he just chose a log file that he normaly uses. It might be
that this test does favor Excel, but saying he purposefully did so can
back fire.
That's my thoughts on the matter. Posting comments to the website is
broken, so I'd say the M$ fanboy has done this to prevent more OOo
users from questioning the validity of his claims based on this
extreme test case. Obviously most documents open quite fast, and he
would know this, but chose to present a case where OOo was quite slow,
and made this the focus of the article.
I have to point out that the one thing I did not see on ZDNet thread was
anyone posting up numbers from their own test results. The truth is OO
is a good package, but performance is not a strong suit, least not on my
WinXP machine. I tend to think this is more a function of the
compatablility layers - and after watching a presentation from the last
OOConn it may also be a little deeper then this. (I would give the OO
team high points for having this discussion in public, and I think it
shows that the problem is being taken seriously, as it should)
For my purposes I have been really hitting the Base module hard and one
thing I have noticed is that when I take data from a Base table and link
into a Calc sheet the amount of time for the transfer appears to be
pretty bad. I haven't created precise metrics for this, so it is just
perception at this point. But if I am not careful about limiting the
number of rows then it can take minutes not seconds for the transfer to
happen. I would imagine this is more to do with memory management then
XML parsing, as there is no XML to parse as far as I know.
Pretty dodgy stuff, but it's Microsoft we're dealing with here.
I would not call it dodgy, at my last corporate position our customer
base would send us files of many 10s of thousand of records - we offered
an analysis service as part of the process of cutting them over from
their old backend systems to ours. The same was done annualy for as long
as they used our system, so that we could generate statistics (from all
installed systems) to feed back into the system for forcasting purposes.
It is not uncommon in my experience therefor to work with the size files
he was talking about. It may not be an every day affair - but it is
certainly not unheard of, and when it comes up there is no easy way to
get around it - either the tools you have available can handle it
reasonably well or they choke.
Andrew Jensen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
