On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:32 +1300, Paul wrote: > 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.
Slowness in general is partly to do with XML parsing. Slowness compared to Excel is not to do with XML parsing alone but the way in which OOo does it. Both Excel and OOo could be made faster if they didn't have to parse XML and had some form of optimised binary description of the data. There are therefore additional factors about OOo that also slow it down further. We have already had this discussion several times. 3.0 should concentrate the development effort on reducing the size of the OOo code foot print, speeding up starting OOo and speeding up opening and saving files. When these factors are fully optimised then think about adding features. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
