Thursday, November 3, 2005 Paul wrote: > 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...
I don't think this premise is necessary :). As it was repeatedly mentioned, is not "talking about OOo" the problem, is the style and content. > === 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. More about this later. > 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. Yeah, I was already called on that one :) I had done the mistake of launching the decompression while OOo was opening up, so the CPU was already hogged by OOo :) > 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. Oh, I never meant to imply that the slowness was because of the idea itself of XML parsing! I was obviously referring to the way OOo was doing it. A part that obviously needs a lot of work. > 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. Nobody is arguing with that. > 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... Chad did not say to call a shovel a shovel and get on with getting it corrected. He just starting spouting nonsense and insults about how stupid the idea of having ODF as a standard format was, when not even the reference program could 'get it right' (time- and memory-wise). See the difference, and why emails like the one you posted don't need 'excuses' header? :) -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
