backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 47 comment(s) - last by masterofpuppet.. on May 31 at 5:55 PM

Microsoft still has no love for OpenOffice

Never one to often pat a competitor on the back, Microsoft has found an axe to grind with the OpenDocument format (ODF). Citing a performance analysis carried out by ZDNET in October of last year, Microsoft's Alan Yates pointed to longer load times and increased CPU/memory usage compared to Microsoft's Open XML format, "The use of OpenDocument documents is slower to the point of not really being satisfactory."

A representative from the ODF Alliance was quick to point out the inconsistencies in the performance evaluations that Yates pointed to. The ZDNET blogger who did the initial tests only compared ODF to XML and not Open XML and he also pointed to the fact that no Open XML products are actually on the market yet. From ZDNET:

Marcich said Open XML is harder for companies to implement as it has more than 4,000 pages of documentation, compared with 700 for ODF. "A skeptic might say the documentation is so long so only one application will support it well," he said. "On my initial reading of the (Open XML) documentation, it looks like Microsoft is trying to reinvent the wheel, while ODF freely refers to existing standards like SVG," or Scalable Vector Graphics.

I have found OpenOffice.org to be generally slower with higher memory usage than Office 2003 in my day to day activities, but I have been using it for the past year due to it being a free, open source alternative. Now that I've been using the Office 2007 Beta 2 which is freely available for download, I can say that its general performance has been faster than both in my experience.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 1:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot to say Microsoft's office software alternative only runs on top of Microsoft's own platform, meaning a significant advantage for OpenOffice.org, that runs on a variety of other platforms. That also explains why Microsoft Office may be faster than OpenOffice.org: since it's designed to run only on Windows and is made by those who know what happens under Windows' hood, it can link directly to Windows kernel, much like Internet Explorer does. That means a bug in Microsoft Word is a bug in Windows Vista.
Besides, there are other alternatives out there like for example AbiWord (for Word), Gnumeric (for Excel), KOffice (for the whole suite), Lotus 1-2-3 (for Excel), Evolution (for Outlook), AppleWorks (for the whole suite) and of course the legendary WordPerfect.
Besides, people should prefer using non-Microsoft software and file formats to avoid feeding their monopoly, which has been for years a barrier to innovation in the IT market.




RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 1:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That also explains why Microsoft Office may be faster than OpenOffice.org: since it's designed to run only on Windows and is made by those who know what happens under Windows' hood, it can link directly to Windows kernel, much like Internet Explorer does. That means a bug in Microsoft Word is a bug in Windows Vista.

1. Do you have evidence that Word "links directly to Windows kernel"? I think Office is written to the Win32 API just like everyone else's Windows apps do. I don't see how linking to the kernel would help them. I'm not sure you understand these things.

2. Office is fast for the following reasons: (a) it is Windows only and directly uses Win32 - no adapter layer, no "runtime" like JRE. (b) it is mostly native code written in C++, no bytecode, no JIT, etc. (c) Microsoft has spent years and tons of money on performance

quote:
Besides, people should prefer using non-Microsoft software and file formats to avoid feeding their monopoly, which has been for years a barrier to innovation in the IT market.

This is just your political view, and an assertion you could never back up. I don't see how Microsoft could be a "barrier to innovation," since realistically, anyone can innovate whenever they want, with or without Microsoft. Think about Java for example - how did Microsoft keep that innovation from happening? How about Eclipse? How about Linux? How about Apache? Etc, etc.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/26/2006 2:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
People get negative when it comes to Microsoft. So what, their office suite is really not all that expensive, and there isn't a large company in this country that isn't using it. Ok so you want to go down and pay 50 bux for a product that you basically need to do real professional looking stuff with your computer. Oh you just want Word, Excel and Powerpoint? Buy the stupid stripdown edition for 150 and stop crying. As much as people trash talk Microsoft they do a heck of a better job making sure everything works without rediculous amounts of modifications. Linux? get real, I have to recompile the kernel everytime I want to install new hardware, or change out drivers/protocols. Linux is far behind Windows when it comes to ease of use, and just working, without user intervention. Ok so it crashes occasionally. I have 12,000 Windows 2k and XP machines here at work, and I see maybe MAYBE 12 BSOD in a week, and 9/10 times its a HARDWARE failure. So.... back the the point in question.

Stop bashing microsoft, they do a good job, and have modernized the way thousands of companies do business and operate, don't hate them because they aren't giving it away free, how would you like to spend 5 years working and get paid for nothing, pay the bills much? Didn't think so.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 4:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think you haven't read all my post too... I mentioned commercial alternatives as well. And surely Microsoft Office isn't that expensive, but it's licensing scheme is very expensive. Simply because the next version of Microsoft Office will use a different, incompatible file format and they will cease support to the old version. Eventually, you will have to update and pay again for something you had already paid - usually there's nothing very special about the newest version and you simply don't want it.
You also have shown me how much you understand about Linux. Of course recompiling the kernel isn't an easy task, but having to recompile the kernel everytime you install new hardware is just ridiculous. If it were a new unsupported hardware maybe I could almost agree with you, mainly because you can usually install a module that will do the work very well. Oh, and don't confuse ease of use with lack of sophistication. There are many modern Linux distributions so easy to use that you will never even have to type a command in a terminal box - meant for the common everyday user. Don't like Linux? There are other alternatives, both free and commercial. Never heard about PCBSD?
Well, if you call it "doing a good job and modernizing the way companies do business", then I think you should learn a little bit about the history of Microsoft...


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 4:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Simply because the next version of Microsoft Office will use a different, incompatible file format and they will cease support to the old version. Eventually, you will have to update and pay again for something you had already paid

Wrong. The new version, Office 2007, has full support for the older versions. It can read and write Office 2003 and Office 2000 file formats. Also, Microsoft is going to release free plug-ins for Office 2003 and I think also Office 2000 that will allow those version to read and write OpenXML format.

All you are demonstrating is that you know nothing about this topic.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 4:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
And you my friend are demonstrating you can't read, I never said Office 2007 won't have support for the older versions... it's ridiculuous not to have support for the old file format.
But older versions don't have support for the new file format.


By TomZ on 5/26/2006 4:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But older versions don't have support for the new file format.

Did you read my post?


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 4:58:14 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, now I understand! You thought I was talking support as support for the old file format... poor man, doesn't know anything about business and how the real world really is, all he see is his fancy Windows GUI.


By TomZ on 5/26/2006 4:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
When logic and facts run out, switch to personal insults. :o)


By MacGuffin on 5/27/2006 2:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
<q>it's ridiculuous not to have support for the old file format. But older versions don't have support for the new file format. </q>

<q>You thought I was talking support as support for the old file format... poor man, doesn't know anything about business and how the real world really is</q>

Smart Warthog? Don't you mean 'Special'-Warthog?
"I don't know Officer...its like, my hands were typing stuff my mind had no control over. I swear Officer, I am a really smart warthog...I'M NOT ROADKILL!"


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 4:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
I surely understand these things much better than someone who never saw something else but Windows and is used to the way things are today after Microsoft has dominated the market - and probably thinks this is normal. That's because I have enough experience to know the difference between before and now. And I think I know a bit about programming too... :)
Both of us know I don't have evidence (and won't have until I break the law and reverse engineer that stuff, which of course I won't do), but as I said, it can link directly to the Windows kernel, I didn't say it do. Of course it's much probable that it does, since most of the Windows API and library calls are undocumented, giving Microsoft a significant advantage: to know what is happening inside that stuff. You don't see how this would help them 'cause you didn't read my post: they get a big performance advantage by talking directly to the OS.
The fact is that Microsoft doesn't innovate: they purchased a CP/M ripoff and named it MS-DOS, and they cobbled Windows together from various bits and pieces that they bought, stole or borrowed; the graphic user interface for Windows was based on IBM know-how and the user interface of the Apple Macintosh, which was in turn derived from technology developed by Xerox ages ago; NT was based on good but old VAX VMS design principles - in short, all Microsoft OS products only implement features and ideas that have been around for as much as a quarter of a century. And they dominate the market as well. Then I ask you: how can a market dominated by only one company, which does not innovate at all, see any innovation? Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention one of their innovations: they came up with an animated paper-clip, how about that?


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 4:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
since most of the Windows API and library calls are undocumented

Is this a fact or your opinion? If you are claiming this to be a fact, please provide a credible reference. "Most" undocumented - sheesh, I don't think so!

Also, here are two examples that disprove your assertion, that Microsoft had to access the kernel in order to get good performance.

1. How do all kinds of other companies write applications that are good performers under Windows? Are you going to claim that it is common for apps to access the kernel (I know enough to know it is not) or that other companies commonly access all your hypothetical undocumented APIs (not common either).

2. How is it that Office also runs well on Mac? Did they hack the kernel and use undocumented APIs there also?

quote:
The fact is that Microsoft doesn't innovate


You claim they don't innovate. I'll give just one of many possible examples to prove you wrong. What about the GUI is MS Office. Where did that come from? Did they buy, borrow, or steal that? Or did they come up with that on their own?

Your argument is not based on logic; it is only based on your political/religious zeal against Microsoft.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 5:14:35 PM , Rating: 1
Just to give you a little example: Windows' Structured Exception Handling support APIs have never been documented and had to be reverse engineered for the Wine project and free compilers.
1- In fact they do access these undocumented APIs. How did Borland implement Structured Exception Handling in Delphi? Microsoft knows her buddies...
2- In the early 90s Microsoft muscled Apple into granting them a license for portions of the MacUI (they threatened to withdraw all Mac applications, unless Apple would grant them a license to use MacUI code to port Macintosh apps to the PC). Your code is always faster when it integrates to the code on which it runs.

If you call bells and whistles innovations, then Microsoft was really innovative. The GUI in MS Word was copied from WordPerfect.
Why don't you give me an example of a piece of truly useful technology invented by Microsoft?


By TomZ on 5/26/2006 5:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just to give you a little example: Windows' Structured Exception Handling support APIs have never been documented and had to be reverse engineered for the Wine project and free compilers.

Here are a couple of MSDN articles describing SEH, one from 1997 and another from 2001.

http://www.microsoft.com/msj/0197/exception/except...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/09/hoo...

But your argument is that "most" (your word, not mine) of the APIs are undocumented. I'm not saying that the API is 100% nor 100% documented. Never has been, never will be. This is true of most APIs in commercial software (but I think you know this already). So where is the proof that "most" are undocumented?

quote:
The GUI in MS Word was copied from WordPerfect.

Do you know anything about Office 2007 or WordPerfect? Zero correlation between GUIs, except for the obvious "File Save," etc. Download the Office 2007 beta and have a look-see.



RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By nangryo on 5/26/06, Rating: 0
By Nekrik on 5/26/2006 10:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really get your rant, do you think they're giving their apps access to the run in the same level as the kernel? Or are you thinking they call components of the kernel? Doesn't really make sense either way and there wouldn't be a lot of performance to gain from either. Just a lot of switching back and forth, which is counter-productive.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 10:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft got into legal trouble in the past for having their applications call undocumented APIs. Now, they have internal tools that they are required to run that automatically scans their applications to make sure there are no calls to undocumented APIs. This is the basis for my belief that Word is not making direct calls to the kernel.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By nangryo on 5/27/06, Rating: 0