Not too sure it is only a linux thing. Using the same document (with just a 'a' in it) I get the following sizes on a win2000 - OOo2.0.3 : created using word, saved as .doc = 19456 bytes created using ooo, saved as .doc = 62976 bytes created using ooo, saved as .odt = 7004 bytes
There is a much large .doc file produced by OO than when produced by word. It would probably require someone deliving into a hex editor with the respective files produced. Is this something that requires a 'bug' lodged. /paul On 9/22/06, Robin Laing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeremy Morris wrote: > OK thanks Livio, I understand the point. But I've done a few more tests > and am now more confused: > > 1) Create blank document on OO on Linux. Save as .odt. Size=6985 > 2) Create blank document on OO on Linux. Save as .doc. Size=95744 > 3) Create blank document on OO on Windows. Save as .odt. Size=8192 > 4) Create blank document on OO on Windows. Save as .doc. Size=8192 > 5) Copy blank .doc file from Windows to Linux. Size=8192 > 6) Open blank .doc file in OO on Linux and save as .doc. Size now=95744 > > But... > 7) Copy Linux .odt to Windows. Save as .odt. Size=8192 > 8) Copy Linux .doc to Windows. Save as .doc. Size=8192 > > So it appears that an empty .doc file on Linux needs about 95K, while on > Windows it only needs 8K. These are all created by OO, don't forget - > I've not used MS-Word at all in this set of tests. > > I don't know what fonts are stored in a document with no content - I > assume just the defaults, but even so that seems a lot for a blank file. > > If I zip the .doc file the size drops to 1400, which is nice, but I > can't send zipped files to my remote site (it's automated and won't > recognise them) > > So does anyone have any idea why OO on Linux thinks an empty file needs > a 95K overhead? > > > Lívio Cipriano wrote: > >> On 20 September 2006 17:36, Johnny Andersson wrote: >> >>> answered the questions 2 and 3 >> >> >> Let me point you that those were not questions, but sequential steps. >> The questions was: >> >> "Is this a known feature, bug, problem etc? " >> >> My answer was >> >> "Both ODS and DOC formats embed the fonts used to produce the document >> in the file..." >> >> This is only one possible reason that can explain the discrepancy of >> the file sizes. We don't even know if the fonts used in Windows are >> the same that in Linux. >> >> Lívio This is quite interesting. It would be nice to see what the differences between the two *.doc (win<>linux) files are. Is it something simple as as saving blank space or more complicated. Bug report time. -- Robin Laing --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
