Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
Wednesday, November 2, 2005 M. Fioretti wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 10:56:46 AM +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't know how much of the problem is intrinsic in the fileformat
itself, and how much of it is nonoptimal coding in OOo. It would be
interesting how other suites (e.g. KOffice, which I have to try
sooner or later) fare on this file :)
Actually, the KOffice developers are already discussing this:
http://lists.kde.org/?t=113043237800002&r=1&w=2
VERY interesting read, Marco, thanks. Interesting that they
mention Gnumeric (I didn't even know Gnumeric supported the
OOo fileformats?) as being extremely fast. I have a strong
suspicion that many of the problems they point out in
*their* approach also affect OOo ...
Maybe we could forward this thread to the Calc developers,
or at least make them aware of it.
I did some tests and gnumeric wasnt that fast with the same files as
OOo in some cases with the same file.
Gnumeric OOo Excel Native Excel.ooo.export
Recalc 17.35 1:24.60 >1s 1:09.73
Save 2:21.48 4:32.48 17.65 17.73
Save as 14:35.15 2:40.98 7.64 2:37.22
Open 11.28 2:47.98 10.27 3:58.45
Gnumeric does not support ODF at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
