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!

OpenOffice Bloated?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the feeling-the-weight-gain dept.

Software 941

cygnusx writes "ZDNet's George Ou has been writing a series of posts about Open Office bloat. Includes some interesting system usage comparisons" From the article: "Even when dealing with what is essentially the same data, OpenOffice Calc uses up 211 MBs of private unsharable memory while Excel uses up 34 MBs of private unsharable memory. The fact that OpenOffice.org Calc takes about 100 times the CPU time explains the kind of drastic results we were getting where Excel could open a file in 2 seconds while Calc would take almost 3 minutes. Most of that massive speed difference is due to XML being very processor intensive, but Microsoft still handles its own XML files about 7 times faster than OpenOffice.org handles OpenDocument ODS format and uses far less memory than OpenOffice.org."

cancel ×

941 comments

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

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889527)

wehewha

vabana (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889532)

Michael Sims Fired, Joins GNAA to Troll Slashdot Full Time FREMONT, CA (TECHNEWS) - After a heated debate at Slashdot executive offices, editor Michael Sims was locked out of the building and departed in a tirade of lisping insults, vowing revenge immediately. This morning, industry sources revealed that Sims has joined the infamous trolling organization Gay Nigger Association of America with the intent of trolling Slashdot fulltime. In a short phone interview with Technews, Sims asserted that he was calm but resolved on his course of action. "The Slashdot editors and I had a disagreement," he explained. "I did it all for the users, but they..." he drew the syllable out painfully, resting on a case full of Little League trophies and certificates of participation from transgendered dating services, "They just couldn't take my truth. They were -- babies, just babies, oh, the horror, the abomination," he said, before being led away by three white-clad male nurses. According to Harvard Psychology Professor Arnold Rothstahlberg, "trolling" is an internet phenomenon where dissenting users disrupt a site by flooding it with absurd or paradoxical information. "It satisfies the primal id," he said, chewing on a large, bulbous, phallic black cigar. "To justify themselves by forcing their enemies into hysterics. It's a compensatory mechanism much like getting back at the kids who beat you up in high school by installing Linux and using it to pingflood their XP boxes and Macs." Slashdot editor CmdrTaco was reticent to comment. At an interview conducted in the crap-filled Ann Arbor bungalow he shares with his wife, to whom he proposed over Slashdot, he said, "Well, you know, Slashdot is just a web site. Michael should calm down about this. But if he doesn't, our corporate sponsors will sue him until he's giving $4 blowjobs on Haight Street." From the GNAA corporate headquarters, a mysterious floating island off the coast of Newfoundland that few reporters have seen and even fewer have returned from with their sexual identities intact, GNAA "Head Programmer" timecop said he was glad to have Sims on hand. "From what I've seen of his postings on Slashdot," said timecop, "he's a total fag. Which is convenient as all our halfops need anal, and I can't handle the drama. That's what's worst about the net: the drama." Sims has been involved in previous internet firefights, most notably the controversy over the censorware.org website in 2001. While Sims alleges that the site was his creation that was sabotaged by others, his coworkers disagree. Bennett Haselton, security consultant for the "Anarchy Anal" and "Chaos Cumshot" websites, said of Sims, "We set up this website, and left him the password. We have a disagreement, bam, the website goes down and someone raped my two-week-old Labrador puppy with an iPod." Slashdot Editor CowboyNeal, who was entangled in a whale net after attempting to swim the English channel, spoke fondly of his former coworker. "Michael always brought a certain passion to the work, a passion that was easily ignited and led to many sweaty sessions in the corporate washroom," he said. "I'm not at all surprised he joined an organization of gay niggers. He always like something different and unique in his pasta salads." Programmer Seth Finkelstein alleges that Sims is "totally unstable" and agreed readily to this interview. "Of course, I'm a disinterested observer," he said. "But anytime I see that closet psychopath and monkey nut-muncher stealing the spotlight from hardworking programmers like myself, I have to speak up, for the benefit of the people, of course," he said. Technews reporters were permitted to leave the premises only after making a PayPal donation to Finkelstein. Mike Godwin of the EFF, who balances a career as privacy advocate with his hobby of making videos of teen swingers blowing goats, agreed. "I've never met another editor like Michael," he said. "And, since my regimen of retrovirals is already costing me an arm and a leg, I hope I never do." Godwin mentioned that Sims believes his trolling of Slashdot is providing a "different perspective" that benefits "the broader Linux, er, Slashdot, community." When Technews returned to interview Sims, he spoke softly and with conviction. "They don't have the interests of the user community at heart," he said. Suddenly he was pounding his desk in tears. "Those bastards cut off my lifeline, my raison d'etre," he sobbed. His voice and eyes became clear, a hatred burning behind the lenses. "I'll crapflood every Linux kernel update from now until oblivion. They haven't heard the last... of Michael Sims," he said. About GNAA: GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS. Are you GAY? Are you a NIGGER? Are you a GAY NIGGER? If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for! Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member. GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today! Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps! * First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. You can download the movie (~130mb) using BitTorrent. * Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website. * Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership. Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE. If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link if you are using an irc client such as mIRC. If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up. .________________________________________________. | ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact: | _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger | __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us | _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters | _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue | ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356 | _________#1__________?________________________ | | _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries: | ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi | ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_indian@gnaa.us | ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters ` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

"Essentially" the same data? (1, Interesting)

LeonGeeste (917243) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889533)

I seriously doubt that. I was working with files similar in size to the ones discussed in the article just last night, and I got completely opposite results. OO.org took half the time to load that Excel did and took up just over half the space for the files. I really don't know where they get these numbers. Probably a biased test with fundamentally different data. I hate trying new software that does the same thing, and I am by no means tech-savvy, but even I can see that OO.org runs laps around any MS product for my uses. I swear, this must be someone shilling for Microsoft.

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (2, Interesting)

BoxRec (532280) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889579)

My personal experience is the opposite, Micro$oft Office loads and runs a lot quicker, however it also crashes a lot more often.

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (4, Informative)

plover (150551) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889648)

Hmm. I've been running MS Office 2003 for over a year and have yet to experience a single crash with Word or Excel. I've had Outlook freeze up numerous times, but virtually all of those problems have their roots in our Exchange server (and the seriously mismanaged overload they've piled on it.)

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (2, Interesting)

BarryNorton (778694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889681)

Hmm. I've been running MS Office 2003 for over a year and have yet to experience a single crash with Word or Excel. I've had Outlook freeze up numerous times...
Likewise. What's more I've had (win32) xemacs, yap, (cygwin) xfig and ghostscript crash inumerable times this week, let alone this year...

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (3, Interesting)

madman101 (571954) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889703)

With the exception of Outlook, Office 2003 has never crashed on me, even when handling huge files. On the other hand, when we evaluated Open Office, we couldn't get it to stay up for more than 1/2 hour, and when it did work it was unacceptably slow.

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (4, Informative)

mnmn (145599) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889594)

I dont know how you got the opposite results.

I installed OO 2.0 on my machine to check the updates, and to see if its speed is up to snuff. Issues with compatibility are gone but it is more than twice as slow while opening files. (I'm not using quickstarters for OO or MSO).

Heck since I'm reporting these results, I MUST be a microsoft shill too I guess.

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889606)

My company uses OpenOffice on literally hundreds of PCs. I use OpenOffice exclusively, save for the rare time we in IT use MSFT Office to open up a document for a user. (No, OpenOffice is not perfect at converting but that's OK with us).
OpenOffice is free (as in beer) and easy to use. The drawback? It's so friggin SLOW, SLOW, SLOW.

Real world use, real world PCs, real world users. OpenOffice is painfully slow. I have tested OpenOffice on dozens of PCs, users and my own, PCs and notebooks. Slow is as slow does, and OpenOffice does it slowly.

Kill the QuickStart process THEN try to open OpenOffice. UUGH! SLOW!!!!

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (5, Insightful)

Cereal Box (4286) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889610)

Hmm, you didn't provide any hardware/software specs OR timing/memory data (so others could confirm your work), but your results are nonetheless "informative". It must be because your results were in OO's favor.

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889618)

I swear, this must be someone shilling for Microsoft.

Well, at least that makes more sense than the guy modded above you who thinks this is someone shilling for Intel!

Anyway -- the test files are linked in his post. I don't have OO installed at work, but would someone with it and Office care to take a look at them, and move this discussion to facts?

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (5, Informative)

fishybell (516991) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889628)

Well, don't believe it? Benchmark it yourself.

He provided the test data here [lanarchitect.net] and here [lanarchitect.net]

MOD PARENT OVERRATED (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889650)

Hypocrite - show some repeatable results, don't just talk out of your ass!

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (1)

jsailor (255868) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889676)

I'd have to second that. I regularly use both MS Office and OpenOffice Beta2 and do not notice significant differences between the two. Some of my spreadsheets are fairly complex and some of my documents are large, but most are the garden variety items that get passed around the Fortune 500. Both applications work fine and neither of them cripple my very modest laptop with 512 MB of RAM.

I thought finding obscure weaknesses in products and crafting tests to exploit was a task for vendors not industry commentators.

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (2, Insightful)

sinan (10073) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889702)

Even then , would you rather spend $500 on Microsoft Office or extra memory and a CPU to get a better machine to speed up all the applications. Paying for one piece of software usually does not pay.

Re:"Essentially" the same data? (2, Funny)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889721)

The article author provides a download of the documents he used, and invites everybody to download it and try it out. You are referring to private data that you claim show the opposite. I know who I'm more inclined to belive.

But I'll admit to beeing too lazy to actually find out for myself.

This can't be true (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889534)

OpenOffice is suppose to be better than MS Office, right? Because it's open source, and anythig open source is better, right? Say it ain't so, Dr. Science!

MS Office set the benchmark for bloat (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889537)

So if you can do worse, your software is considered mega-bloated.

I know the problem! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889541)

Java.

Re:I know the problem! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889568)

mod parent up for koala

Re:I know the problem! (1)

tweedledopey (888686) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889583)

I thought Java was the answer.

Re:I know the problem! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889704)

only if the question was "What is the most hyped, under performing programming language?:"

Re:I know the problem! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889584)

goto hell;

Re:I know the problem! (1)

beheaderaswp (549877) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889602)

Could be...

I think it was Corel Draw that was released as a Java port a bunch of years ago. That was a bloat and a half from the standards at that time (I think I had 64 MB of RAM on a Mac 7100.

Java... is bloat. But somehow... I still love it.

Re:I know the problem! (1)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889694)

You love Java yet obviously know nothing about it.

OpenOffice isn't even written in Java!

Re:I know the problem! (1)

beheaderaswp (549877) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889710)

Noo.... It hooks into it for a GREAT many things.

Re:I know the problem! (2, Informative)

eelke_klein (676038) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889723)

I think it was Corel Draw that was released as a Java port a bunch of years ago.

You've got it partly right, it was Corel but the application was WordPerfect.

Testament to Open Source Software Developers (4, Funny)

Thanatopsis (29786) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889544)

When attempting to replicate one of the biggest bloatware software packages out there, that they make a version even bigger and bloatier!

Re:Testament to Open Source Software Developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889735)

> When attempting to replicate one of the biggest bloatware software packages out there, that they make a version even bigger and bloatier!

OSS developers are like starving artists. It's not enough to recreate a painting of Elvis for free, you splash on a little black velvet baby!

Consider the Source (3, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889546)

Consider that Intel owns a big chunk of CNET and then you see a possible conflict of interest brewing over an article possibly designed to sink Open Office. Now consider the author, George Ou, who has also posted such titles as, Is the Honeymoon with Firefox Over? [zdnet.com]

Seeing a bit of a pattern forming.

Re:Consider the Source (2, Informative)

RPoet (20693) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889587)

This is no bad thing, however. An article like this, pointing out that feature X of OpenOffice.org is n times slower than on Microsoft Office, will only trigger the OOo hackers to optimize and improve. So, in a sense, Ou's effort against OOo will "backlash".

Re:Consider the Source (4, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889598)

I'm not sure I can see the conflict of interest here. Does Intel have an office suite of their own they're trying to sell? Or did they merge with Microsoft recently? :)

Re:Consider the Source (2, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889632)

I always thought the industry abbreviation "Wintel" says it all. But then again the tinfoil on my hat just gets thicker every year.

Re:Consider the Source (1)

shbazjinkens (776313) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889667)

I always thought the industry abbreviation "Wintel" says it all. But then again the tinfoil on my hat just gets thicker every year.

Well, saying MacOSXtel would just be too cumbersome and forward looking.

Re:Consider the Source (2, Insightful)

GileadGreene (539584) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889679)

Linux runs on Intel too. And OOo runs on Windows or Linux. I doubt Intel cares what sofwtare is running on what OS, so long as everything is "Intel Inside®".

Re:Consider the Source (5, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889670)

Indeed. Intel should be pushing OpenOffice, because nothing makes me aware of how much I need to upgrade my processor like starting OpenOffice.

Re:Consider the Source (-1, Troll)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889715)

I'm not sure I can see the conflict of interest here. Does Intel have an office suite of their own they're trying to sell? Or did they merge with Microsoft recently? :)

I wonder if Intel pays Microsoft to bloatify their OS and Apps, so as to sell newer, faster processors? :-)

Re:Consider the Source (1, Insightful)

jsebrech (525647) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889665)

What about the source? Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy. Who wrote the article should not have bearing on judging the validity of the article.

Now, what about the actual statements made in the article. Does anyone have anything to say about those?

Re:Consider the Source (2, Insightful)

jdclucidly (520630) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889714)

I can't believe this got modded +5; moderators, shame on you. This post is the oldest logical fallacy in the book: Argumentum ad Hominem [lander.edu] . Rather than attacking the source, you're supposed to attack the argument! And quite frankly, the tests look rock solid and statistically accurate. If you can't raise the level of the argument, just don't say anything at all. You make the rest of us look bad.

Your two digit ID be damned...

wow (1)

krelyk (909912) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889550)

Talk about stating the obvious... have you never tried to compile an app written by Sun before? The bloat just slaps you in the face repeatedly until you submit

I've used OpenOffice (0, Flamebait)

Deathly809 (887240) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889551)

And from what I have seen it does run a bit slow. If you try to open a file from the web might as well go get a drink. Maybe its just my computer?

Re:I've used OpenOffice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889683)

What tit moderated that flamebait. This is a guys opinion, disagreeing does not make it flamebait.

Re:I've used OpenOffice (1)

Deathly809 (887240) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889726)

Im flamebait? Better than jailbait atleast...

This just in: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889555)

Java is bloated! Film at 11!

How much difference between Java and C++? (0, Troll)

plover (150551) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889558)

How much of this slowness is the application's fault vs. this being a giant Java app running in a JRE? AFAIK, MS Office 2003 is still a suite of (mostly) C++ applications, and isn't running in .NET yet.

Re:How much difference between Java and C++? (5, Informative)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889608)

Openoffice.org is a C++ app. It uses java for some scripting, but everything else is C++.

Re:How much difference between Java and C++? (2, Interesting)

plover (150551) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889684)

Thanks for the clarification. I had always believed it was primarily a Java app (especially considering the strong backing by Sun.)

I wish I could retract my previous comment.

Re:How much difference between Java and C++? (2, Informative)

InThane (2300) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889620)

AFAIK, most of OO is NOT using Java - the only part of OO in Java is the database manager, and that's only for the JDBC connectivity.

Re:How much difference between Java and C++? (2, Informative)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889658)

How much of this slowness is the application's fault vs. this being a giant Java app running in a JRE?

OpenOffice is *not* written in Java. It'd most likely work better if it were. ;-) It is written in C++. I wonder if there'd be much of a speedup compiling it with the Intel compiler....

It does have some Java functionality, which is why a JRE is required. IIRC, gcj is the JRE most often used, which might impact interpreted Java performance. Gcj has a slow interpreter, though I think the most recent version has an optional JITC.

Re:How much difference between Java and C++? (1)

jdeisenberg (37914) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889669)

OpenOffice.org is not a "giant Java app." Some of the features require Java, but the main app is written in C++. See the build instructions [openoffice.org] .

Re:How much difference between Java and C++? (5, Interesting)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889685)

I'd chance my arm and say a fair bit.

I made the mistake of opting for x86-64 Gentoo for one of my desktop boxes ("upgrading" it to 32bit this weekend), meaning I have to use the 32bit precompiled OpenOffice binaries. But these need hooking into a 32bit JRE which x86-64 Gentoo doesn't have, since making 32bit apps available through Portage is seemingly something that Gentoo Won't Do Because You Should Be Happy With 64bit. So whenever you start OOo it spends about a minute looking for a JVM (and failing) before you can do anything. I could have manually installed Sun's 32bit JRE, but I can't be bothered.

Disable Java in the options and it starts in 1-2 seconds on the same machine.

By way of comparison, I tried the same trick on my 32bit box (similar spec but with slower HDD's) and OOo was as snappy as hell and opened like the proverbial soil off a shovel.

If there's any functionality I miss through disabling Java, I haven't encountered any yet. And please note I'm not saying that Java is slow to execute (it isn't), it's just appallingly slow to load.

GUI (4, Interesting)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889566)

Could it be the GUI? Excel uses native widgets and I'm sure is heavily optimized towards MFC (after all, its their API!). I don't think OO has that luxury. I doubt thats the entire issue but it could partially explain it.

Re:GUI (5, Informative)

bheer (633842) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889600)

Office uses zero MFC. Most of the older bits is Platform SDK C, and is a b*tch to maintain, and the newer parts are C++ *but not* MFC -- I understand the Office team has its own lightweight frameworks, similar to ATL.

Re:GUI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889615)

If the analysis is accurate, does it really matter? The end user cares about performance - not the 'why' of performance.

Re:GUI (1)

mnmn (145599) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889646)

Well they DO have other options. FLTK and QT both are close to native in speed of usage. (I havent checked what they use). I wonder if the GUI can be easily changed to some other API, so people could download the version thats fastest for them (OpenGL anyone?).

It doesnt seem to be the GUI thats slow. Once it starts, its fast enough. Its the loading part.

Re:GUI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889653)

Excel doesn't use native widgets at all.

Re:GUI (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889708)

I would be interested to see the test done on linux using Codeweavers crossover office .
(Well I don't know if the windows version of OpenOffice works on linux using Wine or such like ).
See if MS is up to some old tricks

Let me guess (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889567)


OpenOffice uses Java ? hmm i see a pattern forming

I'll bet (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889589)

Excel also crashes faster than Calc! *ducks*

Perhaps the reason is... (5, Insightful)

mishehu (712452) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889590)

Perhaps the reason that OO uses more private memory than does MS Office is that MS Office links to all the MS dll files, while OO bundles its own internal libraries with it?

And from article/blog/whatever: "Now to be fair, OpenOffice.org is free and is cross platform, but does this really matter to the 90% of the users in the world who only use Windows?"

If it's legally free to use and does the same task, why wouldn't 90% of the users in the world who only use Windows *not* care? People always look for what's cheaper, sometimes even if it's not better (note how MS became the company it is today...)

Re:Perhaps the reason is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889647)

It's the cross-platform part they don't care about.

Too many eyes on the code? (4, Insightful)

thekel (909848) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889592)

Most of the bloat I see results from kludging together work from multiple sources that are not communicating well. Can't they solve this by switching to a faster parser? Or is the format itself flawed? So many questions, this doesn't bode well. Speaking of bloat, why do linux distros come on 5 CDs with multiple versions of every possible thing. Have options is nice, but the fragmentation is getting out of head.

Re:Too many eyes on the code? (2, Insightful)

cyclop (780354) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889639)

The difference is: you don't have to load all applications of a Linux distro at once (haha, it would be nice to try), so you don't feel the "bloat" unless you somehow decide to open all these apps together.

shoe on other foot this time? weird. (3, Interesting)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889595)

It's interesting today to see the bloat and memory hog complaints leveled against the non-Microsoft product while showing MS' version as lean and mean.

I can't defend the numbers, they do look huge, but we're seeing about one or two articles a week in the trade rags about the latest memory, cpu, cache, etc. advances. Technological advances render all but the most dramatic processing demands almost moot.

In the numbers and benchmarks from this article, unfortunately, this is one of the more dramatic instances. I'm always willing to wait a little more for opening an application, or a file if other factors offset. In this case, free vs. whatever Office goes for now, typically is enough of an offset, but maybe not so for a large company where that extra "time" and computer resources add up big, and the pricing is likely to be more disounted for volume licensing.

Interesting numbers on the two different speeds on processing XML. Does anyone know or conjecture the difference in the true internal XML data for the comparison? I thought OpenOffice was the more pure in the sense that it is true human readable data in the XML while Microsoft's format is more of an envelope architecture for binary proprietary Office payloads. And, I wonder what the specifics in this test were around that.

Bottom line for me: I'm still going with OpenOffice, I've been a fan for years.

At least its not as wallet intensive! (1)

bazmail (764941) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889596)

[see post title]

Bloat? Don't talk to me about bloat... (4, Funny)

shoppa (464619) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889609)

  1. vi is a bloated version of ex
  2. EMACS stands for Eight Megabytes and Continually Swapping
  3. Sometimes I just telnet to port 80 instead of using a browser
I have compiled OpenOffice from scratch... took a while!

XML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889613)

sounds like an abuse of XML, which should be used for data transport and not really data storage, for that there's binary.

No Office Gripes (5, Interesting)

afra242 (465406) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889616)

I don't use Windows and haven't since '98. At one point, I ran Linux, but kept a dual boot system with Windows, just for opening complex Word documents. Then, I started using Crossover and that saved me a lot of time and I eventually wiped Windows off my box for good.

Now I got into OS X, and I run MS Office on it. I must say though, without bias, that MS Office has to be their greatest product. It just works and I haven't ever had any issues with it at all. It is fast, user friendly, stable and usable. Let's face it: when coders code a word processor they will always look at MS Office for implementation ideas. On the Powerbook, MS Office just flies.

A few weeks ago, I tried to run Openoffice on my Debian box, and there was a huge performance decrease, when compared to running MS Office. It was certainly noticeable. It took a while for a document to open up.

Though, Office has been around for a long time and Openoffice hasn't, so I'm sure there will be lots of features and performance gains in the coming years for the latter. I'm definitely going to keep an eye on Openoffice.

On its face (2, Informative)

shareme (897587) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889619)

On its face MS Office does not handle OpenDocument format so theother claism are entirely suspect.. Do anly /. contribs actually read what they submit?

My results (2, Insightful)

travail_jgd (80602) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889622)

I get the exact opposite results for Excel and OpenOffice Calc: Excel takes forever to load, doesn't share memory, etc, and Calc is a lot faster/leaner.

Then again, I'm running Excel in Crossover Office; all those Windows libraries aren't "preloaded" for me. Maybe that's why XP and Vista have such large system requirements?

I'm unsure where the truth lies... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889625)

...but I am sure that if there is any truth to this, it will be addressed and corrected in a fairly short time. I believe it's really as simple as that.

I think it would be really nice of the people producing the article to make the sample data available to the rest of us to see the results for ourselves.

not fooling anybody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889630)

I'm not surprised, I heard MS put secret anti open office code in their latest security updates to fool the sheep into using their stuff because it 'appears' superior in every way. To that I say HA! You've not fooled me!

Call a Spade a Spade (5, Insightful)

espek (797676) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889631)

Just go ahead and admit it, they both suck for different reasons. We need a third player.

Re:Call a Spade a Spade (1)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889733)

AbiWord
Lotus SmartSuite
GoBe Productive

FUD (2)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889635)

This is total garbage. I have been using OO 2.0 at home since it was released and I have noticed no lag compared to Office which I have to use at work. I do not have quantitative numbers to present, but I can certainly attest anecdotally that this blogger is flat-out wrong. I notice no appreciable speed difference between the two suites while processing the same files. (The machines are roughly equivalent at home and office)

NeoOfficeJ (4, Informative)

ontheheap (824062) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889637)

I recently purchased an iBook G4 which came with a trial edition of Office.Mac (or whatever it's called). I used it for the 45 days of the trial and then switched to "OpenOffice.org for the Mac," otherwise known as NeoOfficeJ. The only thing I've noticed thusfar is that Neo takes about 1.5 times longer to run initially, and it seems to take longer to save files. Other than that I really haven't noticed any other differences in performance.

So why isn't it more popular? (0, Flamebait)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889640)

Americans LOVE bloat. All you-can-eat restaurants. Trucks with HEMIs and lift-kits only driven on pavement. Giant houses with even larger pole barns. You'd think it'd be a little more popular.

Re:So why isn't it more popular? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889737)

You know what they say about guys with giant trucks, pole-barns and Office suites...

parsing a large XML in java can be a hog (1)

n0md (926351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889644)

Yes, potentially if they are parsing the XML into a full DOM tree, this could potentially take MASSIVE ammounts of memory. If you read up on the DOM parser for java. There are clearly many benifits of parsing an xml document into a DOM tree structurally and whatnot, but practically, at this point, if your document is large its just not viable memory wise. I don't know if this is what OO does, but its just a possible explaination.

No Methodology (4, Insightful)

anderm7 (68050) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889651)

These articles are complete garbage. No mention of methodology is made. What files were loaded, what conditions were they loaded under. Was it the same machine, or a very similar machine. What distro, what JVM, and on, and on, and on. Sounds like another MS shill to me.

Bought (4, Informative)

Psionicist (561330) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889656)

He is already anti-Open Document http://government.zdnet.com/?p=1723 [zdnet.com] and heavly pro-Microsoft http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/ [zdnet.com] so this is not unexpected.

Re:Bought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889712)

Thats what I thought at first, but I downloaded the test data - and its true. I have Office XP (not 2003) and OO 2 and MS is WAY faster... I tend not to notice since I usually work on a much beefier machine, but here it is certainly a big deal.

Re:Bought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889740)

What's not unexpected?

If it's the truth, then it's the truth.

I certainly would not take what any PRO OO.o huckster said with any more confidence.

You think Sun or OO.o would point out MASSIVE shortcomings in their own products?

Or would you rather a world where no one expresses an opinion different from your own no matter what?

I'll tell you what's not unexpeced, to have 90% of /. readers completely ignore facts because the source is "one of THEM".

b*tch, b*tch, b*tch (1)

dougwhitehead (573106) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889666)

As with any technology, first it becomes capable, then it becomes efficient.

The fact that people are carping about efficiency means that it largely has what they need.

There is a fax available! (0, Flamebait)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889672)

There is a fix available here if you run Windows:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/ [microsoft.com]

For those running Linux, you'll also need this:

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/ [microsoft.com]

Re: So what's the FAX say? (1)

robw810 (819414) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889728)

The fix is broken too...
RW

is the solution "Mozillarization "? (2, Interesting)

ghee22 (781277) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889682)

read about it here: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/8136 [oreillynet.com] .

I'm not sure. I know I rarely use anything except writer, so maybe having a writer lite edition as well as the whole suite.

Measuring (1)

pyta (926352) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889687)

There is question what exactly these results mean. Pure memory usage is very hard to compare because Microsoft Office is based on their own API and COM technology whereas OpenOffice use UNO. It means that whole UNO runtime is loaded into memory and is part of the soffice process. The same problem is in startup times - running Openoffice means to run almost whole OS. Of course that users don't have to take care about such argumentation, but I think that we cannot expect any major decrease of memory usage in any near future.

Easter eggs (1)

aminal (122974) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889691)

Apparently the built in flight simulator easter egg in OO is slow too.

More info on the source.... (3, Informative)

zippity8 (446412) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889693)

Not to argue about whether or not OOo is more bloated than Office, but George Ou has always seemed to be ranting pro-MS and putting forth statements like this just to get the reaction.

Here's his webpage [lanarchitect.net]

And his other ZDNet entries [zdnet.com]

Also, you might want to check out the comments already posted to his review of OOo beta2 [zdnet.com]

Lets see... (3, Insightful)

Shads (4567) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889695)

... open office being slow:

Java, now I'm no language bigot, but Java is slower than C (but more portable without changes in code).
It's a replacement for the most bloated piece of windows software and has most of the same features.

I use OO presently, it's not a speed demon thats for sure. However, A) It's free, B) Keeps me from having to run a windows emulator for word docs and scuh. So it's a win win. The equation would be ... 500$ vs lackluster speed, good compatability, and 90% features of office.

So true (5, Informative)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889713)

Honestly, I want to love Openoffice and to advocate it... I have worked in finance on excel, dealing with huge huge spreadsheets and many graphs... Have you tried to plot a 10 000 points graph in OOo Calc vs excel... in excel it is done in less than a second... In OOo the application will freeze for half and hour before slowly starting to display the graph. Cherry on the cake it will conviniently try to write "ROW" under each point in a huge ugly font. After that, changing the data means of course waiting half an hour again because the chart is updating. OOo calc simply doesn't do the job, how hard I wish it would.

No kidding... (2, Informative)

Dr. Zowie (109983) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889716)

The Mac port of OpenOffice (NeoOfficeJ) is so bloated that by default it starts up in the background when you log in! That's a crappy solution because it sits there hogging swap space until you want it.

I can start Mac Pages, Inkscape, Keynote and even the Gimp before NeoOfficeJ is finished loading. Now that's slow.

Free RAM with open office (5, Interesting)

clare-ents (153285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889722)

Well, according to the Misco catalogue I received this morning MS Office standard costs £300.
At my local computer shop, RAM costs £75/GB, so I could have 4GB of RAM for my machine.

On a price performance comparison MS Office uses 7MB and OO.org uses -3960MB.

OpenOffice.org is not written in Java (4, Informative)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889724)

Just to attempt to forestall all the Java posts - Openoffice.org is written almost entirely in C++, not Java.

XML Parsing (1)

Ca_computer_geek (926344) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889729)

XMl parsing is memory intensive in general. So it does not surprise me that open office would be a little slower in parsing through the xml. Microsoft has been able to keep the APIs for their XML parsing closed to the general public. So if those API's ever see the light of day then Open office would greatly benefit from the code in those APIs.

memory is cheap. (1)

joey_knisch (804995) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889731)

Again (already pointed it out on the blog) I want to point this out.

2G of cas 2 ddr3200 costs less than office 2003.

Bloats vs Bugs (1)

JPyObjC Dude (772176) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889738)

MS has been very good at optimizing their software to run fast and have a relatively low memory hit *but* always at the sacrifice of stability and maintainability.

They have also had many years to optimise their code bases. OOo is stil very new and will get better over time. I doubt that MSo will improve.

Now don't get me started on the 1gb plus installation of MSO on my new laptop when I got it from my IT group :[

JsD

XML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13889739)

Most of that massive speed difference is due to XML being very processor intensive

So, why again do we have to use XML for everything? Couldn't you represent a spreadsheet just as well and transparently with something like s-expressions? And then you'd have a tight little parser in half a page of code, instead of a monstrous xml parser that handles entities, namespaces, etc.

What's even worse is using XML for remote procedure calls.

I know there's benefits to putting everything in the same basic syntax, but it's not like it's that hard to translate s-expressions into xml, anyway. With a little extra tool support you can interoperate fine, but keep it simple when simple is all you need. But use XML everywhere, following W3C's "all or nothing" rule, and your app has all kinds of extra complexity whether it uses it or not.

Abiword, Gnumeric, KOffice (3, Interesting)

chill (34294) | more than 8 years ago | (#13889742)

I've tried to use Open Office on my machine at home (dual-P3 800 MHz, 1 Gb RAM) and have always gone back to KOffice. OO has always felt "bloated" to me. It takes much too long to start up, and everything seems to slow down a little on my machine.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Abiword and Gnumeric load very fast and seem to fly during use. KOffice is a touch slower than Abiword/Gnumeric but still light years ahead of Open Office. It also has a very snappy feel to it. Abiword works on Windows, Mac and Linux. Yes, I know, this doesn't address databases or presentation software.

IMHO, there should be no question mark, but more of an exclamation point.

  -Charles
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?