Hi Mathias, On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Mathias Bauer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21.06.2011 23:01, Christian Lohmaier wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Mathias Bauer<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> [...] >>> Not really. It's mainly about the shrinking of the LO Windows download >>> size >>> (that BTW still is bigger than the download size of OOo). >> >> But includes *all* languages, as opposed to one single language. >> (it doesn't include help though, that is in an extra package, if not >> installed you'll get the help online in your browser). >> >> So don't start comparing apples and oranges. > > <sigh> I was not the one who started that nonsense discussion. </sigh>
But you were the one who made that nonsense statement. Live with it. > And I still fail to see how that related to performance. It is not. Only thing that is related to size is the amount of data needed to read from disk and how much memory that useless data uses. But no, I don't know whether that accounts to performance at all, and as I'm not using windows myself, I don't care either. Or otherwise put: No idea whether the windows9x compatibility stuff that was removed for example was ifdef 0 ed already, or whether it ended up in the compiled result.. But just because the one thing doesn't have anything to do with the other, doesn't make that other part irrelevant. All I asked for is to not compare apples with oranges. Not more, not less. So many b*t is written and picked up by others, so don't start it here. > Can we now go back to real work again? Well, consider me as observer only/ignore me, I surely won't hinder you from doing your work. But I surely won't just accept any nonsense written here without commenting. (as for performance: I myself didn't bother to compare for myself, but users report that LO feels faster for them, so they are happy, and that's what counts in the end) ciao Christian
