Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Office bloat

Reply
Thread Tools

Office bloat

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2008
The gap between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice is widening.

In resource usage, that is
<http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html>.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Craig Shore
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2008
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:00:59 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

>The gap between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice is widening.
>
>In resource usage, that is
><http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html>.


To be fair, MS Office has improved a lot maybe the size is worth it.
I use MS Office at work and Open Office at home. I prefer the latest
version of MS Office and if OO wasn't free i'd be buying MS Office for
home, not OO.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Craig Shore did
write:

> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:00:59 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
>>The gap between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice is widening.
>>
>>In resource usage, that is
>><http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html>.

>
> To be fair, MS Office has improved a lot maybe the size is worth it.


If you look at the chart, you'll see that MS Office is about four times the
size of OpenOffice. Does it really have four times the functionality? No it
doesn't.

> ... if OO wasn't free i'd be buying MS Office for home, not OO.


Price-performance wins.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2008

"Craig Shore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:00:59 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
>>The gap between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice is widening.
>>
>>In resource usage, that is
>><http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html>.

>


The report is not about "resource usage" in general but about the size of
the disk footprint. And it's totally misleading. My installation of Office
2007 Enterpise consumes all of 600Mb for Access, Excel, Word, Publisher, and
Outlook. In any case, hard drive space ceased to be scarce at least a decade
ago. 600MB on the typical 250GB desktop disk today is a proportionately
**smaller** footprint than a 400MB installation on the 80GB drives that
predominated in 2003.

> To be fair, MS Office has improved a lot maybe the size is worth it.
> I use MS Office at work and Open Office at home. I prefer the latest
> version of MS Office and if OO wasn't free i'd be buying MS Office for
> home, not OO.
>
>


Among other things, file sizes for Office 2007 documents are **much
smaller** than they were for comparable Office 2003 documents.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jekyll and Hyde
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2008
"impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:u_tik.215083$TT4.52473@attbi_s22...
>
> "Craig Shore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:00:59 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>
>>>The gap between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice is widening.
>>>
>>>In resource usage, that is
>>><http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html>.

>>

>
> The report is not about "resource usage" in general but about the size of
> the disk footprint. And it's totally misleading. My installation of Office
> 2007 Enterpise consumes all of 600Mb for Access, Excel, Word, Publisher,
> and Outlook. In any case, hard drive space ceased to be scarce at least a
> decade ago. 600MB on the typical 250GB desktop disk today is a
> proportionately **smaller** footprint than a 400MB installation on the
> 80GB drives that predominated in 2003.


Only this year did the standard shipping hard disk size go from 80Gb to
160Gb. 250Gb is not the current standard off the shelf disk size of a new
pc, 160Gb is.
Given that 160Gb became the standard only about 3 months ago, then (at a
guess) 75% of Office 2007 installs would be on 80Gb or less disks, not
250Gb.

J&H.

>> To be fair, MS Office has improved a lot maybe the size is worth it.
>> I use MS Office at work and Open Office at home. I prefer the latest
>> version of MS Office and if OO wasn't free i'd be buying MS Office for
>> home, not OO.
>>
>>

>
> Among other things, file sizes for Office 2007 documents are **much
> smaller** than they were for comparable Office 2003 documents.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2008

"Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:488a8d91$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:u_tik.215083$TT4.52473@attbi_s22...
>>
>> "Craig Shore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:00:59 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The gap between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice is widening.
>>>>
>>>>In resource usage, that is
>>>><http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html>.
>>>

>>
>> The report is not about "resource usage" in general but about the size
>> of the disk footprint. And it's totally misleading. My installation of
>> Office 2007 Enterpise consumes all of 600Mb for Access, Excel, Word,
>> Publisher, and Outlook. In any case, hard drive space ceased to be scarce
>> at least a decade ago. 600MB on the typical 250GB desktop disk today is a
>> proportionately **smaller** footprint than a 400MB installation on the
>> 80GB drives that predominated in 2003.

>
> Only this year did the standard shipping hard disk size go from 80Gb to
> 160Gb.


Only if you're talking about notebooks. Dell, the largest dealer in the
world, stopped packaging 80GB drives with its desktops at least 5 years ago.

> 250Gb is not the current standard off the shelf disk size of a new pc,
> 160Gb is.


The standard is set by the largest dealers in the largest markets. See Dell,
for instance.

http://www.dell.com/content/products...=19&l=en&s=dhs.

> Given that 160Gb became the standard only about 3 months ago, then (at a
> guess) 75% of Office 2007 installs would be on 80Gb or less disks, not
> 250Gb.
>


You're wrong. What can I say?

>
>>> To be fair, MS Office has improved a lot maybe the size is worth it.
>>> I use MS Office at work and Open Office at home. I prefer the latest
>>> version of MS Office and if OO wasn't free i'd be buying MS Office for
>>> home, not OO.
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Among other things, file sizes for Office 2007 documents are **much
>> smaller** than they were for comparable Office 2003 documents.
>>

>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2008

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:g6doae$tue$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Craig Shore did
> write:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:00:59 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>
>>>The gap between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice is widening.
>>>
>>>In resource usage, that is
>>><http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html>.

>>
>> To be fair, MS Office has improved a lot maybe the size is worth it.

>
> If you look at the chart, you'll see that MS Office is about four times
> the
> size of OpenOffice. Does it really have four times the functionality? No
> it
> doesn't.
>
>> ... if OO wasn't free i'd be buying MS Office for home, not OO.

>
> Price-performance wins.
>


"Costs next to nothing and takes up very little space" might be a flattering
recommendation for a pet gerbil, but not for a piece of software. Most
people want to know what software can **do** and on that score OO is
hopelessly behind.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-29-2008
"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:g6doae$tue$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Craig Shore did
>>> write:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:00:59 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The gap between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice is widening.
>>>>>
>>>>>In resource usage, that is
>>>>><http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html>.
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, MS Office has improved a lot maybe the size is worth it.
>>>
>>> If you look at the chart, you'll see that MS Office is about four times
>>> the
>>> size of OpenOffice. Does it really have four times the functionality? No
>>> it
>>> doesn't.
>>>
>>>> ... if OO wasn't free i'd be buying MS Office for home, not OO.
>>>
>>> Price-performance wins.
>>>

>>
>> "Costs next to nothing and takes up very little space" might be a
>> flattering recommendation for a pet gerbil, but not for a piece of
>> software. Most people want to know what software can **do** and on that
>> score OO is hopelessly behind.

>
> I suppose that depends on what you need. I find OO.o to be perfectly
> adequate for my needs, and professional documentation is part of my job.
> --


And the rave reviews just keep on coming!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which causes more code-bloat: inline virtual or template class? RainBow C++ 6 08-25-2005 11:47 PM
16bit photoshop files: why do they bloat? digiboy@mailinator.com Digital Photography 10 02-21-2005 10:50 PM
Open Office file bloat T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz NZ Computing 7 02-15-2004 04:28 AM
SSH/SSL Code Bloat Eric Computer Security 0 02-12-2004 06:35 PM
STL & reducing code bloat Salvador I. Ducros C++ 5 08-04-2003 11:20 PM



Advertisments