Download Squad

The several hundred dollar purchase price makes me real patient, especially when the M$ Office vs. OpenOffice speed difference is measured in seconds.

Reply

Historically, I agree OOo has been very slow, although I switched to the portable version after the last major release and I found it faster; note that I do not have new hardware.

I found further improvements could be made with a few tweaks: (modified from review at FileForum)
Tools / Options / Memory
increase graphics cache to 64MB and memory per object to 8MB. Optionally, set Undo to something less than 100 (its default). I have mine set to 16.
I've never disabled java, but supposedly that helps too.

OOo architecture is very different from MS Office, in that OOo is more monolithic (little code shared between suite apps) and MS O is far more modular (much code shared between suite apps), and I think this has much to do with the performance issue, presumably due to optimizations. It's hard to blame OOo since they're stuck dealing with poorly documented or non-existent MS standards. Still, I wish OOo would be rewritten from the ground up with an eye toward modularity, although I realize that'd be an enormous undertaking.

Reply

It is indeed an open secret that OO.o can be lethargic. But we shouldn't apologize for it. Open source programs can be made better, stronger AND faster if performance is made a priority.

Look at Firefox - it earned detractors claiming it leaked memory and was slower than IE.

In version 3.0, the devs sat down and tackled the complaints, overhauled the whole memory subsystem and in the process Firefox 3.0 beta is already using less memory and running quicker than the competition.

IMHO, until OO.o looks at performance (and usability), they'll be forever labeled as "almost as good as Microsoft Office, but hey it's free" instead of "It's the best, period."

Reply

"OpenOffice.org 1.1.5, for example, launches about 40% faster than OpenOffice.org 2.4."
No it doesn't - look at the graph!

What the survey ACTUALLY says is that "For cold start times, version 2.4 is 38% slower than 1.1.5 over a span of 2.5 years." - i.e. the sum of ALL the tests is c40% slower.

It's really only document opening that has got significantly slower mostly - they claim - due to more complex file formats.

Reply

I'm a writer. I've used M$ Office for ages, and when OpenOffice came out of the closet (no pun intended) i took the plunge and dumped M$ office, its price sticker and its HUGE file size.

Took me only the time to get used to not use M$ Office.
I kept it on the shelf, just in case, for a while, as if mourning, perhaps. then my wife saw the dust, my cat played with the box... Long story short, I gave it away to Goodwill.

M$ Office was faster, but I never typed faster with it.
M$ Office was faster, but I never wrote better stories with it.
M$ Office was faster, but I always went to the coffee machine or to the bathroom at my own speed.

OpenOffice is a tool that works very well for me. That's all.
I never timed its file opening, only my working time.

Reply

Do you really expect me to believe that OO is slower than MS Office? using what test data? are you assuming that MS Office has stayed the same speed or gotten faster in the past 2.5 years?

what about doing a real test with same hardware on OO and MSO, same tests, and then comparing that to a test of computers made 2.5 years ago and today? What about different operating systems? i bet there are some large differences, not only with the different OS's, but the percent slow-down per year.

point is (and im not a OO fanboy or anything) this is only enough testing to compare OO to itself, and doesn't give nearly enough testing to have an article comparing OO to MSO.

Reply

Uh, come on. Read the damned article.

"In conclusion, OpenOffice.org is generally getting slower with each release. However, startup performance has made great improvements, the performance losses are relatively small, advances in new computer hardware are more than making up the loses, and OpenOffice.org continues to mature with new features. OpenOffice.org doesn't compel users to upgrade, so you are welcome to continue using older versions."

In fact, startup time has improved. And if you look, it's actually quite snappy. This also doesn't compare with Microsoft Office, which can get *dramatically* slower on some operations -- look at Outlook 2007, for instance. And these are still isolated benchmarks, which should be taken with a grain of salt.

I find OpenOffice plenty snappy. And while I use plenty of proprietary software for certain tasks, for writing and complex documents I'm relieved to have a community behind my office suite rather than having Microsoft alone set priorities from a monopoly.

Reply

Mister Quickboy, you has a quick tongue to attack commentators rather than to express his/her/its opinion about the product being discussed.
Nice intellectual getup, er... mental getup, boy. Maybe you work for M$, i understand your priorities but not your understanding of English.

Reply

if some people want a program that works just like Microsoft office, count lack of speed as a feature, not an issue.

Reply

"Do you really expect me to believe that OO is slower than MS Office? using what test data? are you assuming that MS Office has stayed the same speed or gotten faster in the past 2.5 years?
what about doing a real test with same hardware on OO and MSO, same tests, and then comparing that to a test of computers made 2.5 years ago and today?"

You're right.
Here are benchmarks for MS-Office :
http://www.oooninja.com/2008/07/benchmarking-microsoft-word-95-2007.html
We can see that MSOffice 2007 is really slower than previous releases.

Reply