OK, now OpenOffice is definitely good enough
Summary: There is a reason that the OpenOffice.org 3.0 servers are struggling to keep up with demand.
There is a reason that the OpenOffice.org 3.0 servers are struggling to keep up with demand. OO.org 3.0 really is a serious upgrade over version 2.4 and makes NeoOffice irrelevant for Mac OS X users (previously, OpenOffice only worked within X11; While NeoOffice did a great job porting OO.org to native OS X, OO.org 3.0 works out of the box in OS X as a native Aqua application).
Last week I asked if OpenOffice was good enough. The general consensus? OO.org is good enough to start a flame war, but we're not really sure if it's good enough to be a serious competitor to MS Office.
Now that OO.org 3.0 is out, I'm having a much tougher time seeing both sides of the issue here (I actually like Office 2007/2008, by the way; I think they're slick, well-polished, and highly functional). I had never liked the OpenOffice equation editor; this version brings a very nice graphical and text-based hybrid editor to us math teachers. Mail merge was clunky in OO.org; this version brings a mail merge wizard and improved label templates. Outline numbering tended to be a bit kludgy for notetaking in OO; this version improves the stability and interface of outlining.
Annotations are now incredibly easy to add (Insert, Note) and Office 2007/2008 formats are supported across the board. While Microsoft has dumped VBA support in Office 2008, OO.org users can run Visual Basic scripting, as well as Python and Javascript.
I'm not actually bashing MS Office here. It's a great suite and they still have something that OpenOffice lacks: Publisher. However, Publisher was lacking on the Mac platform anyway and *nix users haven't had access to MS Office (including Publisher) without some serious Wine work. Speaking of Access, OpenOffice continues to bring a solid database offering to all platforms. Is it as powerful as Access? I don't think so (let's face it - Access 2007 rocks). However, Mac, *nix, and Windows users can all interchange databases and use OO.org Base as a front end to a variety of data sources (including MySQL).
OpenOffice.org is not a clone of Office 2007 (good call, Sun). It's a full-featured suite that gives us everything we need from MS Office and the world of productivity software while keeping the bottom line quite a bit more reasonable (you don't get any more reasonable than free).
Yes, OO.org has been good enough for a long time; the latest release should leave little doubt for any users who had been on the fence.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Sadly, it falls short of my needs
It's unbelievably slow for OpenOffice Calc. 12
minutes to open, each drop down takes 2 minutes to
register.
No scripts, just formulas.
I believe the reason is ...
BS
with it in human-readable format.
You need to get out more ...
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/05/spreadsheet-file-format-performance.html
If you're going to make a statement at least make it factual so you don't look like an idiot. ;)
Edit:
I'll show you the interesting part of the source so you can't blame me for not finding it:
[i]"Not too surprising. These binary formats are optimized for the guts of MS Office. We would expect them to load faster in their native application.
So what about the new XML formats? There has been recent talk about the "Angle Bracket Tax" for XML formats. How bad is it?
* Microsoft Office 2003 with OOXML = 1.5 seconds per 100K cells
* OpenOffice 2.4.0 with ODF = 2.7 seconds per 100K cells
For typical sized documents, you probably will not notice the difference. However with the largest documents, like the 16-page, 3-million cells monster sheet, the OOXML document took 40 seconds to load in Office, the ODF sheet took 90 seconds to load in OpenOffice, whereas the [b]XLS binary took less than 2 seconds to load in MS Office.[/b][/i]
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/05/spreadsheet-file-format-performance.html
Relative comparisons of file performance
I'm using?
And, why the hell does Open Office take 2 minutes to
update a drop down menu?
I have no idea ....
update a drop down menu?[/i]
I have no idea. You can check out the forums at OpenOffice.org:
http://www.oooforum.org/
Jump in, do a quick search. It may be something very simple. :)
yes, something simple
Ah, forum based support.
modify a 12 MB spreadsheet to find out. :)
Sorry, the only way OO Calc works for us is if we can
take our EXISTING spreadsheets and use them without
having to maintain two separate versions.
Keep in mind - I would LOVE it if it worked that way,
I can probably get many of my customers to switch, and
Calc's ability to lay out sheets in points rather than
Microsoft's rubber rulers would be a great boon.
Your Solution.
Why does OO take 2 minutes to update a drop down menu?
It works with no lag in Excel
Could it simply be that OpenOffice Calc isn't
optimized for performance to the same degree?
I've checked the forums. We'll see if anyone has an
answer.
My experience with forum based support is that it's
great for asking really basic to internmediate
questions.
When trying to explain a performance issue, or get
into technical details, you get told "Wurld
Dominashun. Ur Doin' It Rong", or snippy comments
about inadequate hardware, using software poorly, etc.
Or, in other words, it's always the user's fault,
never that the programmers didn't actually talk to the
users about what they felt was important, because, you
know, that's boring and you have to talk to dumb
people. :)
Those famous hidden API calls to make MS look good and competitors bad....
RE: Why does OO take 2 minutes to update a drop down menu?
Translation
Good news: it's orders of magnitude faster than a proper file format.
Bad news: it's an incredibly buggy and unsafe way to program. Reading files from old versions is really tricky.
Office 2003 or Office 2007 formats?
The file is in Excel 2003
It IS doing something that most people wouldn't dream
of using Excel for.
It's also a file we send out to customers.
We've watched 2007 adoption rates and haven't updated
the file to 2007 specs yet, even though the additional
levels of conditional formatting would be of great
help.
Many customers have asked if it works in OO, and every
time a new version of OO comes out, we try it and see.
It fails each time, though it IS making progress.
It used to not open at all, then it used to open and
handle the INDEX() and INDIRECT() functions
differently from Excel. Now it just blows chunks on
performance.
Consider this...
- Excel's formulas need to be parsed and converted to OO.o's formula model; since Excel's formulas leave something to be desired (check CEILING() and FLOOR() on negative value for example), it adds another layer of translation: more time;
- in an Excel spreadsheet, two values are saved: actual value and displayed value. On import, OO.o considers that the two should match, and recomputes everything, which adds yet more time on huge files;
- INDEX() doesn't match between the two suites, as you say; this is in part due to the fact that both apps don't see a document the same way, and OO.o in fact needs to store an extra setting and execute a different code path when INDEX() et al. come from Excel: more time;
- there are still performance bottlenecks in OO.o, although it's gotten much faster;
- you could try increasing how much RAM OO.o allocates: a 12Mb spreadsheet may work better with more than (default) 20 Mb;
- Finally, if said spreadsheet is, indeed, very much used, you may want to consider doing a proper port to OO.o (save it as ODF, and re-work those formulas that cause trouble to fit OO.o better; some workarounds or settings asked by Excel may not be needed in OO.o): this should make it load faster.
Thank you for the lesson!
I found it interesting and helpful
(on Ubuntu) I am delighted to know these things. It helps me
work around to know WHY problems happen. Thank you!
The Real Issue is that...
Platform independence has a price...speed.