On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 02:34 -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 23:17 -0500, Chad Smith wrote: > > > > How about we say "ok - there's a problem here, we should work on > > getting OOo to be less piggy with the system resources"? > > I can get OOo to run acceptably on an Athlon 500 with 384M RAM (with > 256M it was occasionally a bit slow especially if I had other > applications up). I don't think the resource use is a problem, but if > future versions are more efficient I won't mind.
Improving code efficiency should be the number one priority for 3.0. I don't really care if there are no other additional features but the code size is 20% smaller and loading is 50% quicker. Having said that, its a lot less expensive to by 512 meg of RAM for your computer than to pay for a MSO license. On the slow speed of large spreadsheets with XML, if you are regularly opening and saving a spreadsheet to work on it, save it in a different format. If you need ODF for interoperability with someone else save it in this format at the end and send it to them. > I would think most computers still in use now have at least 512M, if not > much more, RAM; am I wrong on this? Probably wrong since a lot of people still have Office 2000 running on Windows 2000. We also want to make the code more efficient to get into the PDA markets and office on line etc. Desktops will diminish in importance and in portable devices bandwidth and power consumption limitations mean efficient code is strategically much more important than "Bells and whistles". Let's target the big developing volume market that will determine the standards of the future. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
