OO Calc 2008 crapware can't compete with Excel 2000 - Linux

This is a discussion on OO Calc 2008 crapware can't compete with Excel 2000 - Linux ; OO 3.0 for Windows Calc vs Excel 2000, both running on my WinServer 2003 SP1 system, P4 3.0ghz, 2gbRAM system Test 1) create large Excel 2000 .xls file (99mb native, 1.2mb zipped). Simple structure: filled columns A-IV with 1-65536. No ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: OO Calc 2008 crapware can't compete with Excel 2000

  1. OO Calc 2008 crapware can't compete with Excel 2000

    OO 3.0 for Windows Calc vs Excel 2000, both running on my WinServer 2003 SP1
    system, P4 3.0ghz, 2gbRAM system

    Test 1) create large Excel 2000 .xls file (99mb native, 1.2mb zipped).
    Simple structure: filled columns A-IV with 1-65536. No formulas whatsoever.
    Saved it with cursor in IV65536.

    Excel requires 2 seconds to open it, but the OpenOffice crapware literally
    takes 3-4 minutes to bring it on screen. Microsoft is doomed.


    Test 2) created an identical file in OO, saved as .ods. Impressively
    small - 395kb zipped, 13mb unzipped.

    It took 20 seconds for the poorly-coded OpenOffice slopware to open a small
    file created and saved in its own .ods format. Microsoft is doomed.


    It's OK for being free, but I won't embarrass OO Calc 2008 any further by
    noting the charting, the scripting, the IDE, the documentation, the help
    system, etc also isn't nearly as good as what's in Excel 2000, even though
    they've clearly spent 8 years copying many features straight from MS Office.

    Guess I shouldn't be surprised. OO Base today isn't nearly as good as MS
    Access was 13 years ago. Microsoft is doomed.




  2. Re: OO Calc 2008 crapware can't compete with Excel 2000

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:06:07 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > OO 3.0 for Windows Calc vs Excel 2000, both running on my WinServer 2003 SP1
    > system, P4 3.0ghz, 2gbRAM system
    >
    > Test 1) create large Excel 2000 .xls file (99mb native, 1.2mb zipped).
    > Simple structure: filled columns A-IV with 1-65536. No formulas whatsoever.
    > Saved it with cursor in IV65536.
    >
    > Excel requires 2 seconds to open it, but the OpenOffice crapware literally
    > takes 3-4 minutes to bring it on screen. Microsoft is doomed.
    >
    >
    > Test 2) created an identical file in OO, saved as .ods. Impressively
    > small - 395kb zipped, 13mb unzipped.
    >
    > It took 20 seconds for the poorly-coded OpenOffice slopware to open a small
    > file created and saved in its own .ods format. Microsoft is doomed.
    >
    >
    > It's OK for being free, but I won't embarrass OO Calc 2008 any further by
    > noting the charting, the scripting, the IDE, the documentation, the help
    > system, etc also isn't nearly as good as what's in Excel 2000, even though
    > they've clearly spent 8 years copying many features straight from MS Office.
    >
    > Guess I shouldn't be surprised. OO Base today isn't nearly as good as MS
    > Access was 13 years ago. Microsoft is doomed.


    There is a reason why OpenOffice is being ignored by corporations.
    This looks like one of them.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  3. Re: OO Calc 2008 crapware can't compete with Excel 2000

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:06:07 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> OO 3.0 for Windows Calc vs Excel 2000, both running on my WinServer
    >> 2003 SP1 system, P4 3.0ghz, 2gbRAM system
    >>
    >> Test 1) create large Excel 2000 .xls file (99mb native, 1.2mb
    >> zipped). Simple structure: filled columns A-IV with 1-65536. No
    >> formulas whatsoever. Saved it with cursor in IV65536.
    >>
    >> Excel requires 2 seconds to open it, but the OpenOffice crapware
    >> literally takes 3-4 minutes to bring it on screen. Microsoft is
    >> doomed.
    >>
    >>
    >> Test 2) created an identical file in OO, saved as .ods. Impressively
    >> small - 395kb zipped, 13mb unzipped.
    >>
    >> It took 20 seconds for the poorly-coded OpenOffice slopware to open
    >> a small file created and saved in its own .ods format. Microsoft is
    >> doomed.
    >>
    >>
    >> It's OK for being free, but I won't embarrass OO Calc 2008 any
    >> further by noting the charting, the scripting, the IDE, the
    >> documentation, the help system, etc also isn't nearly as good as
    >> what's in Excel 2000, even though they've clearly spent 8 years
    >> copying many features straight from MS Office.
    >>
    >> Guess I shouldn't be surprised. OO Base today isn't nearly as good
    >> as MS Access was 13 years ago. Microsoft is doomed.

    >
    > There is a reason why OpenOffice is being ignored by corporations.
    > This looks like one of them.


    Current assignment at is working with a group of
    performance reporting/ planning analysts/strategy people. We do heavy
    spreadsheeting, and using OO Calc would be like going back 10 years in terms
    of speed and functionality. It's just not going to happen in any large
    corporation with sophisticated number crunching needs.

    But I do think a truly competitive office suite could be a big blow to
    Microsoft. Windows and Office are their cash cows, and often in the
    business world Windows is just the platform to launch/run Office. At this
    at least, I'm seeing fewer and fewer Windows-only apps. More new
    development is web-based; they're replacing a couple of my large-scale
    Access/Oracle systems with Adobe Flex apps that run in a browser.






  4. Re: Microsoft Office crapware can't even open it's own formats

    Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:

    > You forgot one step here. Nevermind, I'll fix it for you.
    >
    > "Excel couldn't open this file at all."


    He also forgot about this:

    Microsoft Office Drops Support For Older File Formats
    By Scott Gilbertson

    You might not have noticed it yet, but the recent service pack 3 release
    for Microsoft Office 2003 contains a hidden "feature" — it disables
    support for older Microsoft Office formats. If you've got any old Word,
    Excel, 1-2-3, Quattro, or Corel Draw documents hanging around your hard
    drive you'll need to delve into the Windows Registry to open them.
    http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/20...oft-offic.html

    So much for archiving important documents with MS Office.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
    | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
    | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    01:27:36 up 16 days, 11:23, 4 users, load average: 4.21, 4.36, 4.15

  5. Re: OO Calc 2008 crapware can't compete with Excel 2000

    TomB wrote:
    > On 2008-10-26, DFS was urged to write the following:
    >> OO 3.0 for Windows Calc vs Excel 2000, both running on my WinServer 2003 SP1
    >> system, P4 3.0ghz, 2gbRAM system
    >>
    >> Test 1) create large Excel 2000 .xls file (99mb native, 1.2mb zipped).
    >> Simple structure: filled columns A-IV with 1-65536. No formulas whatsoever.
    >> Saved it with cursor in IV65536.
    >>
    >> Excel requires 2 seconds to open it, but the OpenOffice crapware literally
    >> takes 3-4 minutes to bring it on screen. Microsoft is doomed.


    2 seconds to open that small 'view' of the spreadsheet, maybe.

    >>
    >>
    >> Test 2) created an identical file in OO, saved as .ods. Impressively
    >> small - 395kb zipped, 13mb unzipped.
    >>
    >> It took 20 seconds for the poorly-coded OpenOffice slopware to open a small
    >> file created and saved in its own .ods format. Microsoft is doomed.
    >>

    >
    > You forgot one step here. Nevermind, I'll fix it for you.
    >
    > "Excel couldn't open this file at all."
    >
    >> It's OK for being free, but I won't embarrass OO Calc 2008 any further by
    >> noting the charting, the scripting, the IDE, the documentation, the help
    >> system, etc also isn't nearly as good as what's in Excel 2000, even though
    >> they've clearly spent 8 years copying many features straight from MS Office.
    >>
    >> Guess I shouldn't be surprised. OO Base today isn't nearly as good as MS
    >> Access was 13 years ago. Microsoft is doomed.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >


    --
    Norman
    Registered Linux user #461062

+ Reply to Thread