Tom wrote: >the sheer "weight" of MS Office suite in terms of computing resources required just to start it up, etc.
Perceptually, MSO uses _fewer_ system resources to startup, than OOo. My Lotus Smart Suite 2000 folder contains 2 309 files, that uses 178 MB. My OOo 1.9.130 folder contains 3 118 files, that uses 203 MB My MSO97 folder contains 6 6585 files, that use 233 MB My Corel Office 9 folder contains 4 791 files, that uses 418 MB My OOo 1.1.3 folder contains 4 422 files, that use 457 MB of disk space. OOo 1.1.5, on startup, 88 940 KB Memory, 397 207 page faults, 286 996 KB VM, 211 handles, 9 threads, 50 user objects, 19 013 I/O reads, 3 559 I/O writes, 107 064 I/O other. Word97, on startup, 15 900 KB Memory, 18 788 page faults, 8 825 Kb VM, 182 handles, 10 threads 43 user objects, 2 330 I/O reads. 5 743 I/O writes, 53 991 I/O other. Still want to claim that OOo uses less resources? [And for Chad, this comparison is fair, because the choice for SOHO is staying on MSO97, or switching to something else, that is perceived/known to be incompatible with MSO97. For that matter, it is not unknown for organizations to standardize on software that the software distributor has said are at, or past their end of life. ] > Making you pay usurious sums for your chains is quite another. So long as the organization is getting perceived value for that payment, it doesn't matter what the actual terms and conditions are. The absolute _worst_ thing that one can do, when marketing OOo, is talk about money. More to the point, the fact that OOo is free, is seen as a _major_ liability, and is a good selling point for why MSo should be the replacements. for all practical purposes, TANSTAAFL is engraved in the minds of every PHB who has to decide whether to buy MSO, or OOo or any other software. xan jonathon -- Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
