M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 22:29:56 PM -0600, Randomthots
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
All I'm saying is that for the files that *I* create with *my* copy
of OOo on *my* computer for *my* consumption, ODF doesn't offer any
real advantages. In fact, unless I have need to share that file with
someone, the file format is of little consequence either way.
Wrong. Remember that "someone" also means *you* 5, 10, 15 years
from now: even if you will have ever exchanged that file with anybody
else, you would still require complete access to your data for your
consumption, wouldn't you?
I just checked, I don't have any documents older than 2004 on my drive
other than MSMoney archives. I would love to transfer them to a better
format, but such a beast doesn't exist AFAICT.
...the truth is that ODF has been a real *disadvantage* on at least
one occasion; I wasted a fair amount of time trying to save and a
load a large spreadsheet in ods. Ultimately, I gave up and used
Excel for the project.
This is interesting: why do you think the limit is intrinsic in the
*format*, rather than a bug in the *current* version of OO.o (= *one* of
the many applications that could and will support ODF)? Please explain
Daniel Carrera and I went round and round about this just recently.
Actually, I don't *know* that it's intrinsic to the format; it was on a
1.9.x development version of OOo and I had less RAM installed then, but
it brought FC3 to its knees and took almost 15 minutes to load on the
Windows version. Daniel just dismisses it with hand-waving about XML
parsing being inefficient. It's not clear to me whether he was speaking
generically about XML or specifically about OOo. I suspect that, if
nothing else, the sheer size of XML files has an impact with regards to
memory usage.
--
Rod
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
