Before I start - I love OOo and much prefer to use it than M$ products - I'll continue use OOo and would prefer to use OOo than pay M$. However, I think we need to get real and look at what is what...
=== OOo slowness is nothing to do with parsing XML ===. If the article is re-read, it clearly shows that there was a test done for Excel opening an .xml file and OOo opening a .sxc file. Both products had to open XML files. I took both of these files and did some little tests of my own. The .xml file was opened in wordpad previous to the tests to ensure it was 'true' xml Excel opened .xml file in about 2 minutes OOo opened .sxc in about 4 minutes OOo opened the .ods version of the file in about 3 minutes Therefore both programs were having to parse XML, OOo was considerably slower than Excel. OOo was slower than Excel - its a fact and I don't believe it has anything to do with parsing XML - since both programs had to parse XML to produce results. I also believe it has nothing to do with compression. Again I tested compressing the .xml file and it took ~ 30 seconds. Even adding that to the times, the difference is lessened, but not completely closed. So it is not compression and it is not XML parsing. This means that it is how the programs handle the XML parsing and the internal code optimisation or something else. Whilst these tests were not scientific both the article and my cobbled together tests indicate that it is OOo code that needs to be improved to make it faster. Its that simple. On this point I agree with Chad.. Lets call a shovel a shovel and get on with getting it corrected. I believe that the OOo developers would have this in hand, which is the best place for it to be... /paul On 11/3/05, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks. Both comments sort of sum up my understanding. But I wondered if I > was missing something. Rick > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Derman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2005 5:51 pm > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [discuss] Re ZDNet article > > > > Rick wrote: > > > > > Someone also mentioned "entry level" computers still being offered > > >with 256 RAM. > > >Can someone define "entry level" for me? Is the same basic > > computer not > > >"entry Level" if it offers 512? What are other > > differentiations to look > > >for? > > > > > > > > >>>I would think most computers still in use now have at least > > >>> > > "Entry Level" is a euphemism for "Cheap", "Bargain" "Cut-Rate" etc. > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
