Someone points out a flaw in OpenOffice.org - therefore they must be (a) evil (b) stupid (c) wrong (d) working for Microsoft and (e) torn apart.
How about we say "ok - there's a problem here, we should work on getting OOo to be less piggy with the system resources"? -Chad Smith On 11/1/05, Michael Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:52:14 -0600 > Matthew Keathley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > my experiance has always been that openoffice is slow and clunky. It > > has great potential put it isn't there quite yet > > > > > > On 11/1/05, RobinH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There is an article today on ZDnet describing a "test" which > > > purports to show that Open Office 2.0 is a memory hog compared > > > with MS Office. > > > > > > Can anyone comment? It sound like another put-up job. My experience > > > with Open Office has been good. > > > > > > Rob > > > > > Lets compare apples with oranges. > > Compare starting OpenOffice.org with starting Word, Excel, and > Powerpoint all at the same time then you are a little closer to an even > playing field. > > But even then the comparison is between apples and pears (two pip > fruit). The value of this is questionable. > > > -- > Michael > Those that can, do; those that can't, teach. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- - Chad Smith
