Hans du Plooy wrote:
I mentioned the other office suites specifically for this reason. Even with the quickstarted (which should give OOo the same advantage), it still takes a good while longer than any other office suite to start. Heck, Word/Excel even starts faster through Crossover Office than OpenOffice does.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the startup times of OO - it's started once, then kept running. Two particular advantages of OO - 1) it runs on Linux. 2) it's scriptable. (i.e. it can be used in batch).
when I show him all the apps on my computer and they're all much slower than what he's used to, considering he's using a 400mhz celeron with 196mb Ram. There's no way you can explain that kind of difference away.
It's probably not very useful to look at OO performance on an ancient PC much behind todays average spec. Some apps should run relatively fine on e.g. an old 486 with 32Mb, whereas others (such as desktop apps) very reasonably should be developed with a fairly modern desktop machine in mind.
I don't mean to diss OOo in any way, it is a good product. But it's has a long way to go to catch up with the commercial offerings, and they keep improving to, so it keeps lagging behind.
It seems to be that some commercial offerings have an even longer way to go to catch up with OO - did anyone mention bugfixes? I changed to use only OO around version 1.1 (mostly writer and spreadsheet), typically on 2GHz/512M machines and have not looked back. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - managed anti-spam and anti-virus solution. Let us analyse your spam- and virus-threat - up to 2 months for free.