Alexandro Colorado wrote:
Hi tanks for your files, I am happy to see this type of discussion because is
more factual than just ranting. I didn't like the calc because is very
subjective, with arguments like 'thinks I like' and 'I expect' are very vage
and can easily be argued simply because you are used to see what Excel present
you rather than what Calc present you so of course it would be more
'efficient'.
It's not a matter of being more familiar with Excel. I've been using OOo exclusively for over a year and I didn't really use Excel a lot before then. And I don't use Calc enough to be an expert with that either. Just enough, really, to be somewhat familiar with both.
I know some of the comments were subjective, but subjective experience *is* important. If you don't run Excel, if you can't compare, then you can't know what I'm talking about.
Let's start with charting. Both programs have similar chart wizards where you select the data set, go to Insert -> Chart, select your chart type and options. In general, the chart you get out of Excel at that point will be very likely what you want. It seems like in Calc I always have to do a lot of after-the-fact adjustments. And without adjusting things like the fonts and axes, etc., the Calc chart is just plain ugly. It's hard to describe more accurately without just having you sitting next to me while I do it.
Remember OpenOffice.org is not a MSO clone, we don't want to be a clone.
No. But you *do* want to be file-compatible (i.e. read/write xls files accurately) so that forces a certain amount of conformity right there. That and spreadsheets are a fairly mature technology, so the user expects a certain functionality. In the end you have two or more programs (Excel, Calc, Lotus, etc.) that all "look and feel" pretty much the same, like it or not.
We want to be efficient, which is a different direction.
Which was my larger complaint. I hate using that word because I really like OOo, but the situation really frustrated me.
However you other argument is challenging :)
I did went to the file and open it and time it, the Calc program opened in the
usual 4 seconds with Quickstarter. The version is 1.1.4 and the hardware specs
are
AMD XP 2200 1.79 Ghz on a 500 MB RAM
You don't mention OS. I noticed a big performance difference between Windows and Linux. You also have twice the RAM I have on my box. I know I need to upgrade that, but this is a dual-boot machine so it's a fairly direct comparison. Intel P4, 1.5 GHz, 256 MB RAM. 512 swap on the Linux side (which may not be enough, the Windows swap file is over 600 MB).
I saved your text file as csv and open it with Calc it opened in 2.32 seconds.
taking from the time I set the delimiter was a | symbol.
Loading the text file was very fast with either program.
It saved in aprox 10.5 seconds as a sxc.
Saving to xls format was faster than that from Calc and almost instantaneous in Excel.
I do have to agree that the fileds were only saved until line 6253 at field D
and not G like the rest of the lines, but this has to do with calc rowspan
capacity.
Another point to keep in mind was that I was using a beta (1.9.91??) so that I could get all the rows in. So that muddies things a bit. I don't know if the problem was that it was a beta version, or if the main complaint should be toward Fedora Core 3, or what. And after I rebooted into XP, I didn't spend a lot of time trying to do my analysis with the Windows version of Calc. At that point I was very annoyed.
Rod
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
