I use OO on my home Linux systems, but unfortunately I am forced to use Windows at work. I have noticed that OO runs great on 32 bit Kubuntu and Suse Linux, but on fully-patched 32 bit versions of Windows XP Pro and Vista Home premium it starts up and runs much more slowly (crashing occasionally on XP with multiple instances open). The work machine is a little slower (P4 2.8 G, 512 MB) than the home machines, but the work machine runs MS Word and Excel 2003 just fine.
Being of a suspicious nature where Microsoft is concerned, I think that it would be interesting if a test were to be conducted using the same "standard machine" (not a VM) on both the current OOW and MS Office Word 2003/2007 startup times, and some standard "benchmark" OOW and MS Word function, on the following OS's: 1) Microsoft Windows XP Pro, 32 bit, fresh install, unpatched. 2) Microsoft Windows XP home,32 bit, fresh install, unpatched. 3) Microsoft Windows Vista home "premium",32 bit, fresh install, unpatched. 4) Ubuntu/Kubuntu 7.10 32 bit fresh install, unpatched. 5) Some other distro (Suse/Redhat), 32 bit, fresh install, unpatched. 6) Microsoft Windows XP Pro, 32 bit, fresh install, fully "patched" (all current updates on). 7) Microsoft Windows XP home, 32 bit, fresh install, fully "patched" (all current updates on). 8) Microsoft Windows Vista home "premium", 32 bit, fresh install, fully "patched" (all current updates on). 9) Ubuntu/Kubuntu 7.10, 32 bit, fully "patched" (all current updates on). 10) Some other distro (Suse/Redhat),32 bit, fresh install, fully "patched" (all current updates on). In the off chance that my suspicions are confirmed by these test results, and some of the "patches" being distributed by Microsoft actually seem to be intended to degrade or impair OO's perfomance, while sparing the performance of MS Office products, I think that this would make for interesting material for an anti-trust lawsuit by Sun.
