SUEEEEEEE! SUEEEEEE! Here pig, pig, pig!

OPEN OFFICE IS A RESOURCE HOG

Oh, way back in March when I had just gotten on th blogging bandwagon ( I still consider myself a neophyte and only just this week bought and started reading BLOG!) I posted a link from which users could download a trial version of Office 2003. An anonymous poster asked why not get Open Office. At the time I think that was the very first comment I had ever received and, frankly, had no idea what to do about it. But it stuck in my mind and so I was totally psyched when I found this today. Unbiased, third party performance testing from a trusted source. Awesome!

Performance analysis of OpenOffice and MS Office

Posted by George Ou @ 3:21 am

In my last blog, where I did a high-level technical evaluation of Microsoft Office 2003 and OpenOffice.org 2.0, I showed that OpenOffice was a memory and resource hog. Contrary to popular belief (among Open Source advocates), Microsoft Office came out very lean and fast while OpenOffice.org Office Suite was just the opposite. Some couldn't accept the numbers and complained that the Task Manager numbers may be inaccurate and hiding memory usage. They demanded more proof, so here it is.

To get more granular and detailed memory and processor consumption data, I downloaded a copy of Process Explorer from SysInternals and used it to gather a wide range of Data .... full story https://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=120.

Oh, and make sure to check out the comments, they are hysterical! Crocker's 'thoughts' are a complete crock and IT_User, must be just that, because to say that performance doesn't matter if the user doesn't notice shows zero understanding of the larger electronic ecosystem.

This one is my favorite "Just because something is free it doesn't mean you have to treat it like garbage, or make benchmarks to write it off.--Anti Zealot"

Oh, the open source community loves benchmarks when they are favorable, but dismisses them out of hand when they're not. Look folks, you get what you pay for. That's reality.