Talk:OpenOffice.org Calc: Difference between revisions
Tharikrish (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
→Apologetic: new section |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
: [[User:PJTraill|PJTraill]] 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry to say that my experience with a 65,000 x 40 spreadsheet conforms to the Ou article. My spreadsheet is a sort of diary/time log with a lot of running totals, long chains of references and lookup functions. OO is almost unusably slow, and saves the file at 2 to 3 times the size of M$. Suggested Options/Memory tweaks (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=27292) do not help much. One observation is that inserting a value into an unreferenced cell costs 9 or 10 CPU seconds on a 3GHz CPU, which suggests that recalculation takes little account of dependencies. I would love to see OO work better on such big sheets, but it is unfortunate that people disparage Ou for his factual report. |
: [[User:PJTraill|PJTraill]] 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry to say that my experience with a 65,000 x 40 spreadsheet conforms to the Ou article. My spreadsheet is a sort of diary/time log with a lot of running totals, long chains of references and lookup functions. OO is almost unusably slow, and saves the file at 2 to 3 times the size of M$. Suggested Options/Memory tweaks (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=27292) do not help much. One observation is that inserting a value into an unreferenced cell costs 9 or 10 CPU seconds on a 3GHz CPU, which suggests that recalculation takes little account of dependencies. I would love to see OO work better on such big sheets, but it is unfortunate that people disparage Ou for his factual report. |
||
== Apologetic == |
|||
Ummm, a lot of this article reads as an apology for Open Office. By and large, it should state the facts and not opinions such as "this is not considered a problem". Not considered by who? |
|||
Revision as of 15:32, 28 October 2007
 | Computing Redirect‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Calc provides a number of features not present in Excel, including a system which automatically defines series for graphing, based on the layout of the user's data.
Explain? Excel defines series automatically.
Unfortunately, Calc lacks several unfortunate features which Microsoft Excel has
Petty insult or typo?
Critique on performance
Lately there is a lot of input on Performance of OpenOffice.org Calc based on a single blog[1] on the web. Right now it is moved to this article under the above topic. But since this is a comparison article, I suggest contributors should try to write it in an article with a title like Comparison of office suites or Comparison of office performance. However, due to the highly disputable nature of benchmarking, I suggest writers perform their due duty to do some independent verification of those benchmark results on their systems using George's samples from his blog, like these from Slashdot.org. Also other sample files can be tested, like this one - which focuses on smaller files for daily use. In addition, I would suggest testing the same set of samples using Gnumeric as well if it to be a comparison of general office suite.
Keep in mind, however, this is unprecedented in Wikipedia as we have no articles in Category:Software_comparison that has focused on benchmarking results, not even for database comparison which is rather performance sensitive in nature. --Zero0w Feb 16 00:44
- PJTraill 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry to say that my experience with a 65,000 x 40 spreadsheet conforms to the Ou article. My spreadsheet is a sort of diary/time log with a lot of running totals, long chains of references and lookup functions. OO is almost unusably slow, and saves the file at 2 to 3 times the size of M$. Suggested Options/Memory tweaks (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=27292) do not help much. One observation is that inserting a value into an unreferenced cell costs 9 or 10 CPU seconds on a 3GHz CPU, which suggests that recalculation takes little account of dependencies. I would love to see OO work better on such big sheets, but it is unfortunate that people disparage Ou for his factual report.
Apologetic
Ummm, a lot of this article reads as an apology for Open Office. By and large, it should state the facts and not opinions such as "this is not considered a problem". Not considered by who?