Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ubuntu vs. Windows In OpenOffice.org Benchmark

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the permutations-of-permutations dept.

Software 262

ahziem writes "Ubuntu's Intrepid Ibex and Redmond's Windows XP go head-to-head in an OpenOffice.org 3.0 performance smackdown measuring vanilla OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, Go-oo, and Portable OpenOffice.org 3.0. Each platform and edition does well in different tests. Go-oo is known for its proud slogan "Better, Faster, Freer," but last time with OpenOffice.org 2.4 on Fedora, Go-oo came in fourth place out of four. Slashdot has previously reported Ubuntu beating Vista and Windows 7 in benchmarks, so either XP is faster or this benchmark carries a different weight."

cancel ×

262 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402263)

Who cares? OOo is still slow no matter what platform it's run on.

Re:First! (5, Informative)

inhuman_4 (1294516) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402331)

Try disabling java in the settings. Made my version run a whole lot faster.

Re:First! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402687)

Is there anything Java can't slow?

Re:First! (5, Funny)

bami (1376931) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402949)

Sun's stock price drop.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AJAVA [google.com]

Re:First! (1)

kv9 (697238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403163)

boooooosh!

Re:First! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402977)

The stampede of developers away from it?

Re:First! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402905)

(AC that got first post above here)

Try disabling java in the settings. Made my version run a whole lot faster.

Already done. It's still slow. One other tip, as well as disabling the Java, is increase the amount of memory OpenOffice can use. That speeds things up, at the expense of RAM.

Having said that, OOo does what I need it to do, but subjectively it's still slow. Slow to start and slow when running. The widgets are particularly bad: flickering, slow to react, and never quite mapped to my theme correctly. Why-oh-why did the OpenOffice devs decide to create a whole new widget library? It's this sort of not-invented-here syndrome that causes OpenOffice to be bloated and slow. That and the weird idea to put the entire office suite into one, big executable.

OOo has plugins now. Maybe it would be an idea to strip-down the core office suite, by moving features not everyone needs into plugins. Then provide a dirt-simple interface for searching and installing new plugins. Not sure how this should be locked-down for big corps though.

Re:First! (5, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403399)

Why-oh-why did the OpenOffice devs decide to create a whole new widget library?

Portability. Remember that OpenOffice comes from StarOffice, which came from a company called Star Division (good band name, eh?). Star Division developed StarOffice back in the early nineties, before even Windows 95 was available... and they used their own C++ cross-platform library that was meant to make GUI development easier between Windows, OS2, Mac, and OSF/Motif.

Re:First! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402349)

AC's aren't allowed to get First's.

Re:First! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27403175)

But it's so much faster and better on Windows. I can't run sCalc for more than 30-45 minutes on Ubuntu before it's memory leaks or what ever performance problem it has catches up to it and it becomes so unbearably slow that I have to restart sCalc.

Big surprise (5, Interesting)

Bobnova (1435535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402337)

XP faster then vista/7? I'm shocked. I've been doing some general testing between XP and ubuntu 8.10 as well as dellbuntu 8.04. Ubuntu gets 25% longer battery life on my netbook, but cannot play youtube videos (on either version) without lurching video. XP on the same netbook does youtube just fine, but has a 3 hour batter life to ubuntu's 4 hour. On an old p4 i have xp scrolls smoothly and instantly in firefox, where 8.10 has a delay before anything happens. My conclusion: On a slow system, XP is faster.

Re:Big surprise (4, Insightful)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402551)

Perhaps, however videocard drivers could also be the cause of all 3, especially video and graphical user interfaces.

But, even the power usage, could be from improperly handling the videocard, or maybe even bypassing it and using the CPU. (fuck if I know, just an assumption)

Re:Big surprise (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402669)

XP on the same netbook does youtube just fine, but has a 3 hour batter life to ubuntu's 4

Obviously you should just virtualize XP alongside ubuntu so you can take advantage of Ubuntu's extended battery life but still utilize XP's greater flash performance! It's a win/win!

Re:Big surprise (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27403327)

running a VM is not a way to save on battery power, and you expect better flash in a VM with poor video performance already?

Re:Big surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27403535)

WOOOOSH

Re:Big surprise (4, Insightful)

master811 (874700) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402961)

Only on older hardware is XP better than Vista/7.

ZDNet did a 'test' and found that with modern hardware 7/Vista (but more so with 7) easily beat XP comfortably.
 
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3789&page=3
 
The better the hardware, the smaller the difference I suppose or the bigger the advantage Vista/7 has over XP.

Re:Big surprise (5, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403277)

Ubuntu gets 25% longer battery life on my netbook...
XP...has a 3 hour batter life to ubuntu's 4 hour.

Isn't that 33% longer?

Re:Big surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27403359)

Ubuntu gets 25% longer battery life on my netbook, but cannot play youtube videos (on either version) without lurching video.

This was a problem with Flash 9 and below on Linux. Have you tried Flash 10?

Re:Big surprise (3, Interesting)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403465)

Could it be that playing Youtube videos uses 25% more cpu power? And thus, because you didn't play them on your ubuntu laptop it got longer battery life?

Like Windows users are gonna care (-1, Troll)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402343)

Who runs OO on Windows? The only point of this "test" is to see if Linux can keep up or not.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (4, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402405)

Who runs OO on Windows?

More people than who run it on Linux, that is for sure. We have it on all the computers here that didn't already have Office preinstalled (meaning most of them). I have both on my computer, although I use OO most of the time, as I like their spreadsheet app better than office.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27403011)

Who runs OO on anything? I use Ubuntu as my primary desktop/dev OS, but I don't use OO for anything.

It's slow, and it doesn't work for anything beyond a very trivial subset of Office functionality.

When I need Office, I go to my Windows laptop.

OO = total fail.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (1)

Logic Worshipper (1518487) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403471)

Get Crossover Office, it's defiantly worth the money. I use Microsoft Office 2007 of my Linux laptop. OpenOffice just doesn't cut it. Symphony [lotus.com] is also a nice, Linux compatible, alternative to OO.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (2, Interesting)

goltzc (1284524) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403491)

I own a small web development company. The company is basically 3 members and the occassional contractor. I run Ubuntu and the other two run vista and OSX on out development machines. We use Open Office so we can be platform agnostic.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402407)

You'd be suprised how many windows users are running Open Office. There are a lot of people, myself included who for one reason or other can't use Linux as their primary OS in some situations but still like to use Open Source Software wherever possible.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402467)

I use OpenOffice on Windows all the time. Some software that I use for work requires Windows and I don't have a personal copy of Microsoft Office. Besides, Using OO.o in Windows lets me access all of my personal documents in their native odt format.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402525)

before 2001 at my employer all the machines used to run MS Works or MS Office. then we realized that Works and Office were teh totally suxx0rz so we started using Oo0, gradually at first. by O0o ver 2 or so all the machines were on 0Oo and we no longer have Works or Office. dont' need that garbage

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (2, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402537)

We have four computer labs totaling 21 computes, soon to be bumped up to 27. These are all three or four year old Dells with OEM XP licenses, but even with educational pricing, I have little interest in spending my budget on any version of Office. OpenOffice.org 3.0 opens most of the major formats, is free (as in "no licensing headaches") and is a helluva lot more like Office 97/2000/2003 than the horror story known as Office 2007.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27403445)

Weird.. everything that i've heard from Office 2007 from my relatives is that is better tan previous versions, once the shock of the new UI is dissipated.

It's by no means a perfect benchmark, but for usability, I tend to believe them more than some random website

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403559)

My experience from the various people I have to deal with as their IT manager is that they loathe Office 2007. Maybe, all things being equal, it is superior, much as the Dvorak keyboard is probably superior to the Qwerty keyboard, but things are not equal. I deal with a staff, some of which have over a decade of experience using Word versions starting with Word 95 (and some earlier versions than that), where each new version wasn't really that big a leap, and suddenly they're plunged into the world of ribbons, and take five minutes just to figure out how to print a document.

There's this thing called a learning curve, and OpenOffice, while hardly perfect and certainly not a clone of Office 97-2003, is significantly closer in layout than Office 2007. So bravo to your Aunt Nancy for catching on, but I have to manage systems in a real live workplace, where retraining means loss of productivity until the learning curve has been matched. Taking the path of least resistance seems for many of the people I work with to be the way to go.

Microsoft should have, at every least, put in a "Looks Kinda LIke Office 2003" mode, much as they have done over the years with Windows itself.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (1)

ausekilis (1513635) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402553)

Who runs OO on Windows? The only point of this "test" is to see if Linux can keep up or not.

Anybody that doesn't want to shell out $400 dollars for an MS Office license once the "try it for 10 runs or 60 days, whichever happens first" demo expires.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402739)

Right... people who care about not having illegal software but don't want to pay the MS tax.

I'd like to think that's a lot of people..

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (1)

Clarious (1177725) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402733)

People from 3rd world countries, we are having a big plan here to switch to OO.o here with the help from the government.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (1)

rzei (622725) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402759)

For every new PC (w/ Vista) we buy I instruct their new owners to start getting used to OpenOffice and if necessary, use the Office trial they bundle with it again, only if necessary.

So far I've had 100% (2/2 yei!) success with converting co-workers from Office to OpenOffice. Perhaps the transition from XP to Vista helps with Office to OpenOffice at the same time.. At least the new ribbon interface is so strange to some people that it seems to scare people off.

Small print: these guys were not programmers or writers and only do simple tasks; they most likely had never even (nor will learn in the future) learned how to use styles with word processor.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402773)

Who runs OO on Windows?

Any of my clients who came to me with a new computer recently.

Uninstall annoying McAfee/MS Office trial versions + Install AVG and OpenOffice = Happy client.

Anyone who wants documents readable in 10 years? (4, Informative)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402869)

Oh wait. It was a rhetorical question. Sorry.

Re:Like Windows users are gonna care (4, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403069)

Who runs OO on Windows?

A lot of our home user and student clients use OO instead of Microsoft Office.

Microsoft Office isn't cheap. It's several hundred dollars depending on what kind of discounts you get and what version you need. It used to come preloaded on a lot of systems, but these days they frequently give you some kind of 30-day trial of Microsoft Office, instead of the full version.

Business folks don't generally care. Most of our business clients have some kind of volume license anyway, so they throw it on whatever new computer they get.

A lot of our home users have a hard time justifying spending $100 or more just so their kid can type up a paper at home.

So we point them at OO, and it generally does what they need it to. We've made a lot of people very happy by giving them a free alternative to Microsoft Office.

Another Ubuntu-Windows Benchmark? (2, Informative)

Saija (1114681) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402387)

Disclaimer: I'm already a proud Ubuntu 8.10 User, i love that Os, has its issues but i think is good for me and what i do with it, but common, i'm already tired of this benchmark fever slashdot is suffering lately...

How many benchmarks do we need? Really..
Are we gonna benchmark every single app out there to see our loved Ubuntu beats the shit out of Windows?
Ubuntu Wipes Windows 7 In Benchmarks [slashdot.org]
Java Performance On Ubuntu Vs. Windows Vista [slashdot.org]
Ubuntu 8.10 Outperforms Windows Vista [slashdot.org]

Re:Another Ubuntu-Windows Benchmark? (1, Interesting)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402649)

I've got absolutely no problem with them, provided they are reasonably accurate, and neither the summary, nor article is flamebait.

Hell, i'd probably even frequent an entire section devoted to it.

Re:Another Ubuntu-Windows Benchmark? (1)

oftenwrongsoong (1496777) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402679)

How many benchmarks do we need?

Benchmarks are a good thing but we need to make sure that the FOSS community gets plenty of "real world use" data pertaining to the actual things people do with their software. With this data available the software can be streamlined and optimized to give the FOSS community software that is efficient with the use of resources, fast in terms of speed, and conservative with the use of battery power. This doesn't necessarily mean shaving cycles by coding in assembly or using different compiler switches. It does necessarily mean finding more efficient algorithms but it would be a waste of time to do this work in areas where the outcome won't be noticed. Here's the key: Software can be slow and it doesn't necessarily get noticed. Thanks to Microsoft's widespread install base and liberal use of processor and memory resources, people are accustomed to waiting for their computers. Better performance will be noticed when there is a basis for comparison.

And why's it always Ubunto? (1, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402857)

Not all of us use or want to use a linux dist clearly designed for the point-and-click brigade. Not to mention the daft name (no I don't care what it means in Zulu, to an English speaker it sounds idiotic), daft release names, moronic default restrictions (to a power user) such as a locked root account. Perhaps I'm just a crusty old git but anything with release names like "gutsy gibbon" and "intrepid ibex" to me sounds like something aimed at pre teens which makes me wonder what other "user friendly" cutesy rubbish they've hacked into the system itself.

How about some benchmarks of Suse or Fedora or even Slackware?

Re:And why's it always Ubunto? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27403065)

Ubuntu means "I'm too stupid to run Slackware" in Afrikaanz.

Re:And why's it always Ubunto? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27403321)

Slackware means "I'm too stupid to assemble a working system from components" in English.

Re:And why's it always Ubunto? (2, Insightful)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403497)

No, it means "I'm too lazy to install Gentoo and have better things to do."

As a Gentoo user, I should know.

Re:And why's it always Ubunto? (1)

Amasuriel (1176527) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403255)

Haven't you noticed? Anything tech related must have a retarded name these days.

Hulu sounds like either a kids toy or something I pay extra for while on a business trip.

...of course I also think of phone sex workers when I hear the word "teletubby", so maybe I'm not the best judge...

Re:Another Ubuntu-Windows Benchmark? (1)

Saija (1114681) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402863)

Auto replying here...
My point is: Really, how many Ubuntu-Windows Benchmark do we need? i know there's some hype about Ubuntu(yes, i know, i'm such hypocrital here), why not some (Fedora|Mandriva|Debian|Slackware|Gentoo|your-distro) - Windows Benchmark ? That way we know something about other distros and the behavior of the applications we run, that way even we can choose to try some of them

One phrase invalidates the whole shebang... (5, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402397)

"Due to the efficiency of Visual Studio 9 over GCC"... I don't want to pick a compiler flamewar here, but I think it is fair to say that making blanket statements about one particular compiler producing faster code than another is pretty ignorant. There are some things VC does that GCC doesn't do, and vice versa, compiler switches can make a big difference, and you really would need to study the most commonly used code in OO under both compilers to see who is, in fact, generating better code, and, incidentally, for which processor.

Re:One phrase invalidates the whole shebang... (0)

ausekilis (1513635) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402505)

With the notable exception that OOo is Java-based. I know both compilers handle java, but we're still talking something that runs in a virtual machine, likely with a whole slew of JIT-compilation. To truly compare these, you'd need to make sure you're running the same Java VM, and be certain that the behavior of the VM is the same across the board (i.e. it's actually dead between OOo runs).

Just look here. [openoffice.org]

The Java Runtime Environment (JRE) is required for the Base (database) component of OpenOffice.org as well as several other features. By default the OpenOffice.org installer will install this additional piece of software as well.

Re:One phrase invalidates the whole shebang... (5, Informative)

Vanders (110092) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403037)

With the notable exception that OOo is Java-based

No it isn't. It's written in C++. Look, you even contradict yourself with this quote:

The Java Runtime Environment (JRE) is required for the Base (database) component of OpenOffice.org as well as several other features.

Note that it doesn't say "The JRE is required for OpenOffice.org". You can install and run OO.o without installing Java, provided you don't want to use OO.o Base

Re:One phrase invalidates the whole shebang... (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402875)

"Due to the efficiency of Visual Studio 9 over GCC"... I don't want to pick a compiler flamewar here, but I think it is fair to say that making blanket statements about one particular compiler producing faster code than another is pretty ignorant. There are some things VC does that GCC doesn't do, and vice versa, compiler switches can make a big difference, and you really would need to study the most commonly used code in OO under both compilers to see who is, in fact, generating better code, and, incidentally, for which processor.

While you are right, at least in my own experience, when you're on a Windows machine, VS8/9 produces a much better executable (higher performance) than GCC. (And, we did actually perform benchmarks to make sure. It was on a heavy mathematical program.)

Of course, that is my own experience. YMMV, but the differences were large enough that I can't really believe a few compiler flags would make THAT much of a difference.

Re:One phrase invalidates the whole shebang... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403221)

for heavy maths, the compiler flags make all the difference. Did your compile use the CPU extensions (SSEx etc), if not, you should try turning them on (VS you need to change the platform from the default 'work on anything' to 'Enable Enhanced Instruction Set' (under code generation).

that might make quite a bit of difference, depending on your code.

Re:One phrase invalidates the whole shebang... (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403475)

I came across a really fun bug in one version of the MS compiler where a colleague had tried using the SEE intrinsics to speed things up and found that it had become slower. Looking at the generated asm, it turned out that it was doing a function call for every intrinsic (while GCC just issued a single SSE instruction). I think the MS approach was to generate them as function calls and then use the inliner to turn them into single instructions, but for some reason the function inlining pass wasn't being run.

Not intending to bash the Microsoft compiler particularly here, just pointing out that the options you select for the compiler can make a huge impact on any compiler, often more than the difference between switching to a different compiler.

Re:One phrase invalidates the whole shebang... (1)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403443)

I would expect so - gcc has, as a primary advantage, portability in mind. Frontends for various languages transform the source into an intermediate language. Backends for various architectures transform intermediate language into native code. This makes it portable, as merely writing a new frontend gets your code onto all supported backends, and merely writing a new backend gives you the ability to compile languages in all supported frontends.

Some optimisations cannot be done, as the intermediate language does not have the concept of some of the optimisations, hence I'd expect gcc to emit less-optimised code than a single-language compiler.

OpenOffice benchmarks? Seriously? (5, Insightful)

The Hooloovoo (78790) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402401)

Is speed really the issue here? My LAPTOP was a bargain-barrel purchase 3 years ago and it has no problem running OpenOffice + FireFox + other standard software on either Ubuntu or XP.

What I care about is, "Which one is least likely to crash and make me lose my work?" That's always been my big complaint with the Windows versions of free software (GIMP comes to mind), not speed.

Re:OpenOffice benchmarks? Seriously? (3, Interesting)

Iyonesco (1482555) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402605)

My first thoughts were also "Is speed really the issue here?" but for different reasons. I used Open Office for eight months before having to give up due to a massive number of small niggles that when combined make it very unpleasant to use. I think a lot of issues need to be addresses in Open Office before speed but sadly none of the problems ever seem to be addressed and they instead seem to focus on adding new features. In the end I had to give up and switch to Kingsoft Office 2009.

Re:OpenOffice benchmarks? Seriously? (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403553)

On OS X, I cannot get myself to use OpenOffice.org. I just can't.
It ignores the system modifier key conventions, so I can't move through words with Option-LArrow/RArrow and Home/End with Command-LArrow/RArrow. Instead it uses some other scheme, which I can't be bothered to adopt.

And it is much slower than iWork.

Warmboot faster under XP (3, Informative)

hee gozer (1261036) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402461)

I wonder if the faster warmboot times under XP are due to its prefetching functionality. Another benchmark with prefetching disabled could determine this. Maybe Ubuntu or other distributions can try adding prefetch [google.com] functionality to their distributions and put Windows where it belongs, (at) last.

Re:Warmboot faster under XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402707)

Didn't the Yoper distro do some additional compiling optimizations/linking to improve performance on most systems?

Granted, it wasn't necessarily the best distro, but it was kind of cool seeing it run faster on old hardware.

Re:Warmboot faster under XP (3, Informative)

AlterRNow (1215236) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402727)

I've installed 'preload' on my laptop ( Ubuntu 8.10 ) and it almost makes the OOo splash screen obsolete ( it only shows for a second or so ). Isn't that the same sort of thing as 'prefetch' but maybe without aiding boot times?

OS X (3, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402517)

On my Mac desktop I used OpenOffice for a long time. I find MS Office on the Mac to be a train wreck. But OO's performance really sucks on the Mac, even with Java turned off. I switched to Apple's own iWork '09 and it's fantastic, far superior to any alternative on the same OS. I prefer open document formats, but I need to get my job done.

My point is I hope the OO teams can focus more on performance across the board. I realize the difficulty when it's built for multiple platforms, but once performance is improved it'll be a much better contender.

Re:OS X (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27403057)

I'm not aware that XP has any pre-fetching functionality, I thought that was a "new" feature in Vista and it's successors.

Re:OS X (1)

Psx29 (538840) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403183)

Did you try the mac branch off, neooffice [neooffice.org] ?

Re:OS X (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403403)

Yes, I used that before OO had native support for OS X. Neooffice appears to run on top of Java, so the newer native OO is much better.

Re:OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27403531)

Still slow loading, even with 2 GB RAM (1st Gen Macbook) and with Java turned off.

That being said, I still use it every week, which means it's not so slow that it's unbearable.
 

Who cares about CPU speed if it slows your work? (5, Interesting)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402519)

Seriously. ... Who cares if OpenOffice opens a .xls document 4 seconds faster, since it takes me a good 25 minutes to reconfigure all the graphs formating that it lost from MS Office??

Is that 25 minutes taken into factor? ... That's right, I didn't think so.

Re:Who cares about CPU speed if it slows your work (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402761)

the people that care are the one using open standards. If you use .xls, you better stay on ms office.

Re:Who cares about CPU speed if it slows your work (4, Interesting)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402879)

I use xls on both Excel and Open Office and they are mostly compatable. If you are one of those accounting types with 100000 lines in an excel file then you you should stick with excel.

Open Office is a replacement for M$ office for 95% of the use cases. Still the proprietary formats of M$ Office made it difficult to port. Since those standards are now published [microsoft.com] I think cross program support will improve.

Re:Who cares about CPU speed if it slows your work (3, Insightful)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402903)

the people that care are the one using open standards. If you use .xls, you better stay on ms office.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I personally would love to have open formats all the time. Heaven knows that it would make my job easier. But, the fact of the matter is, most companies/people/etc use MS Office. You must have that compatibility. It's nice to hold to ideals, but you can't shoot yourself in the foot while doing so...

Re:Who cares about CPU speed if it slows your work (4, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403199)

Seriously. ... Who cares if OpenOffice opens a .xls document 4 seconds faster, since it takes me a good 25 minutes to reconfigure all the graphs formating that it lost from MS Office??

Is that 25 minutes taken into factor? ... That's right, I didn't think so.

That's just silly.

If you need Excel, why would you be running OO? If you've got all kinds of graphs and formatting and whatever else that's going to take 25 minutes to fix in OO, why wouldn't you be running Excel? That time adds up pretty quickly and before long it becomes very easy to justify the cost of a license for Excel.

That's like the folks who switch to Linux or OS X and then load up their machine with some kind of VM and run everything in Windows anyway. If you need Windows, why not just run Windows?

Of course the best solution would be to get everyone working from some kind of open format, so it didn't matter what software you were using. So there was absolutely no vendor lock-in. But that won't be happening any time soon.

Re:Who cares about CPU speed if it slows your work (2, Interesting)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403519)

I'm not really running OO, for the exact resons you listed.
I'm just saying I tried using OO, and my response was a criticism of all the advice I got from linux zealots who love to rub in your face how OO is perfect and can do everything Excel can do. Bullshit.

Plug-outs or Pluck-outs in OpenOffice? (2, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402573)

I feel OOo is slow both on Linux as well as Windows. Most likely this is due to the bloat and mindless copying of MS Office features. I have a question: Is it possible to weed out the redundant or useless features in OOo and make it sleek and quick? Since this is completely open source, theoretically this should be possible.

In similar vein, I'm also looking for pluck-outs from Firefox which is also bloated. Rather than running extensions called NoScript, AdBlock, FlashBlock etc.; why not remove these products from the installed version itself to make it lean, mean and less resource hungry?

Re:Plug-outs or Pluck-outs in OpenOffice? (2, Insightful)

ais523 (1172701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402661)

How exactly are you going to remove the ad-handling code from Firefox? It's not as if there's special code in Firefox just to display ads...

As for NoScript and FlashBlock, people use them because they offer better functionality than just disabling the features in the browser itself (which is possible); the idea's to have control over what scripts run and flash is shown, rather than just blanket-disabling everything. (For instance, I block JavaScript on most sites, but not Wikipedia or Slashdot, or a few others.)

Re:Plug-outs or Pluck-outs in OpenOffice? (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402709)

the idea's to have control over what scripts run and flash is shown, rather than just blanket-disabling everything.

There are situations where blanket-disable is better. Think of a corporate web-application environment. Rather than dozens plug-ins to disable unwanted features which are also potential security hazards, it would be much better to simply remove the functionality from the browser itself. I'd like to know how to do this on a practical basis with Firefox and OOo.

Re:Plug-outs or Pluck-outs in OpenOffice? (1)

ais523 (1172701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402871)

Edit | Preferences | Content in Firefox 3 allows you to disable JavaScript, Java, and images; Tools | Add-ons | Plugins allow you to disable plugins such as Flash, Java (two ways to disable that, it seems), and audio playback. I'm not sure about the OpenOffice equivalents, though.

Re:Plug-outs or Pluck-outs in OpenOffice? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403223)

go back to lynx then, i for one welcome being able to browse the web as it was designed is, an if i want to modify that i SHOULD use extensions scripts to achieve it. As for OO being slow, in my experience the slowest link is me typing/reading, so while id rather it was a better office suit i couldn't give two shits what fps it gets or how fast it boots and opens files.

Re:Plug-outs or Pluck-outs in OpenOffice? (1)

arhhook (995275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402749)

why not remove these products from the installed version itself to make it lean, mean and less resource hungry?

So when people do not want NoScript, AdBlock, FlashBlock, Feature X, of Feature Y, they're supposed to...what?

Are you asking for a browser that won't do javascript, flash, and weeds out ads? You could use lynx [wikipedia.org]

-----
Remember, Remember, the [Conficker/Downadup+ worm. Windows, Exploits, and pwnage].

Re:Plug-outs or Pluck-outs in OpenOffice? (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402831)

Are you asking for a browser that won't do javascript, flash, and weeds out ads? You could use lynx

But what if I still wanted Firefox for simnple HTML rendering, with the GUI and mouse support instead of command-line-based lynx?

Re:Plug-outs or Pluck-outs in OpenOffice? (2, Funny)

lahvak (69490) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403041)

I feel OOo is slow both on Linux as well as Windows. Most likely this is due to the bloat and mindless copying of MS Office features. I have a question: Is it possible to weed out the redundant or useless features in OOo and make it sleek and quick? Since this is completely open source, theoretically this should be possible.

It has been done long time ago. It's called pico.

Re:Plug-outs or Pluck-outs in OpenOffice? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403215)

Is it possible to weed out the redundant or useless features in OOo and make it sleek and quick?

Yes. It's called LaTeX [latex-project.org] .

Re:Plug-outs or Pluck-outs in OpenOffice? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403565)

Hmm. LaTeX took around three minutes to typeset my last book, on a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo. Not sure if that counts as sleek and quick, although I've not seen MS Office or OpenOffice handle 900+ page documents, so it might be (last time I tried OpenOffice for long documents it started having problems over about 30 pages).

Do people really care? (1, Funny)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402715)

It's just me? I don't find very interesting a benchmark of office suites. Look, my suite can write bold text faster than yours! Boring...

Re:Do people really care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27403515)

Benchmarking office work IS IMPORTANT. Recent video drivers focus almost entirely on 3D performance and neglect 2D performance, on both Linux and Windows. The result is that it takes 8 seconds to scroll through a document in a word processor.

Only a small fraction of users need fast 3D, but almost anyone needs fast 2D. People reviewing graphics cards should take that into account!

Did I read the summary right? (4, Funny)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402747)

Because...well, I didn't read the article, but are we benchmarking Word Processing applications now? How fast a spreadsheet can calculate the sum of a column? Whether there's a pause between fade-in transitions in a presentation?

I'm trying to think of a good car analogy here...maybe how fast your passenger side door closes?

Re:Did I read the summary right? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403047)

FYI: I have not RTFA but...

For the average Joe Sixpack (the same people who can easily look over the difference between office suites as far as function) this isn't a big issue. But there are those of us who have created some pretty strong "applications" within an office suite who may think differently. Ever try to use MS Access as a front end to an enterprise database in a situation where you can not use a pass-thru query? Or maybe doing calculations on a spreadsheet that has years od daily input on a PIII PC with 512Meg of ram running XP? If you have you'll know exactly what I mean.

And sure, it's ugly, it shouldn't be done, but in some situations you work with what you are given.

Re:Did I read the summary right? (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403099)

I feel ya. We've got researchers here with gigantic models that consider traffic patterns, greenhouse gas emissions, and the cradle-to-grave cycle of cars...all on an excel spreadsheet.

Re:Did I read the summary right? (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403243)

You're not kidding. Word Perfect 5.1 for DOS was released 20 years ago. It was snappy as all hell. What has 20 years of progress gotten us? Bloat.

CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (32-bit, single core) (1)

polaris20 (893532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402753)

Nothing like testing on modern hardware! Wait, I've got a P4 sitting around here somewhere we can test with.......

Re:CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (32-bit, single core) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402827)

That's all of 3 years old, there are probably more machines around with that CPU than the "modern hardware" you're thinking of. I think that CPU should be plenty for doing office tasks, don't you?

Re:CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (32-bit, single core) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402893)

That's all of 3 years old

They were out in 2003.

Re:CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (32-bit, single core) (1)

polaris20 (893532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403573)

Those chips came out no later than 2003. I have a 2500+ from the same series still sitting in my basement. It's now 2009. 2009 minus 2003 equals 6 years. Glad I could do the math for ya.

Re:CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (32-bit, single core) (2, Insightful)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403431)

Have you looked at the machines in many offices recently? Many companies are on a four or five-year computer lifecycle, which would mean that they very well may have machines about as powerful as that Athlon XP 3000+. Many businesses run even older machines as they want to continue to run Office 2000/XP/2003 on Windows XP and don't want to pay to replace perfectly functional machines. Machines with a 2.0-3.0 GHz P4 and 512 MB-1 GB RAM running Windows XP are very typical; newer Core 2-based (or Athlon 64-based if you have HPs) machines are much less common, probably because a P4 will run older versions of MS Office on XP just as well as a brand-new machine will. It's really only Vista and MS Office 2007 and their big RAM demands that make those old P4s obsolete.

Re:CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (32-bit, single core) (1)

polaris20 (893532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403529)

Yes I have looked at machines in offices lately. I work in one. I realize some offices are on a longer cycle than we are (3 year) however it would have been nice to see tests done on a modern machine, even with modest hardware. And an Athlon XP 3000+ is from like 2002 or 2003; a little long in the tooth, and edging on being pretty damn irrelevant. Prior to my current position I was a consultant downtown, and even then there were no offices (out of at least 100) that ran desktops older than 5 years.

isn't ubuntu supposed to be the best? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402779)

I've love this! This is the site where "benchmarks are all important," and ubuntu "is the greatest OS, evuh!" When XP beats ubuntu, we have:

. Slashdot has previously reported Ubuntu beating Vista and Windows 7 in benchmarks, so either XP is faster or this benchmark carries a different weight.

I don't love windows, but I've found it really annoying how the site has truly turned into a cult of Ubuntu and OS X.

   

Re:isn't ubuntu supposed to be the best? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402897)

OS X sucks.

wtf is go-oo? (5, Informative)

Kozz (7764) | more than 5 years ago | (#27402791)

For others (like me) who are familiar with OOo but never heard of "Go-oo", Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] ,

Go-oo is a concentrated set of patches for the cross-platform OpenOffice.org office suite. Go-oo is also one of OpenOffice.org variants created from these patches. It has better support for Office Open XML file formats than the official OpenOffice.org releases produced by Sun Microsystems, and other enhancements that have either not yet been accepted into the upstream Sun version, or will not be because of business or political reasons. Some of these changes or enhancements will eventually be part of the Sun version, too; the process of assessing patches, "upstreaming", just takes time.

It's a shame that even the Go-oo website does a poor job of explaining this on the front page (doesn't mention OpenOffice.org until nearly the very end) nor on the "about" page.

Re:wtf is go-oo? (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403083)

Good thing they didn't pull the same trick with "Portable OpenOffice.org" - I'd have to turn off SafeSearch to even find it.

Insufficient at any speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27402891)

Speed? Fix the feature set first.

Until Open Office Writer gets a Track Changes that works reasonably and Mail Merge allows the most basic of custom fields (and maybe even integrates with email), then organizations like mine will continue to pony up to Microsoft. I keep trying it out, and it's still just not good enough to push onto my users.

...and yet Office 2003 beats it by a longshot (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403251)

Not trying to be a troll, but I kind of laugh when I see the "OOo benchmarks on various OS" reports. I use openSUSE for the most part and the Go OO version of OpenOffice on both Vista and openSUSE. What I've found interesting is how much faster and more responsive Office 2003 is running either natively or under Crossover Office (which I posted before in the openSUSE mailing lists).

I really like OOo - and especially Go-OO - for it's user interface and nice clean setup, when working in Calc or Text. However, I would like to see some serious speed improvements in starting time, especially for the bundled versions coming with the distros.

Benchmarks, smenchmarks (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27403423)

Why are benchmarks considered important here? How about real consumer acceptance that goes beyond the Ubuntu and Open Office hobby community? Wake me up when desktop Linux hits 5% of consumer desktops.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>