I know it's off topic, but...

[phiscock-g851W1bGYuGnS0EtXVNi6w at public.gmane.org]

>> I suspect, or at least hope, that with that and:
>> 1) EU pressure
>> 2) Outrage over OOXML & ISO
>> 3) Customer pressure
>> they've realized the time has come to properly support ODF.
>
> I would not be so optimistic.
>
> As Lennart noticed, they will use every opportunity to mess up with a
> standard. ODF is a relatively new standard and, as such, certainly has
> logical flows embeded there. Any problem with ODF they will likely use
> for their own advantage.
>
> While OOXML possibly has been created just for reverting attention
> from ODF project. Possible? Yes. If to believe in various opinions
> about its complexity, it is likely that they do not know themself yet
> how to implement it.
>
> zb.

>From http://www.robweir.com/blog/, performance metrics on loading a large
spreadsheet file:
----------------------------------
    * Microsoft Office 2003 in XLS format = 0.75 seconds
    * OpenOffice 2.4.0 in XLS format = 3.03 seconds
    * Microsoft Office 2003 in OOXML format = 8.28 seconds
    * OpenOffice 2.4.0 in ODF format = 14.09 seconds
    * Microsoft Office 2003 in ODF format = 515.60 seconds

Can someone explain to me why Microsoft Office needs almost 10 minutes to
load an ODF file that OpenOffice can load in 14 seconds?
-----------------------------------

This is one of several ways that M$ could sabotage ODF: make it hugely
inefficient.

Fooled me once: shame on you. Fooled me twice: shame on me.

-- 
Peter Hiscocks
Syscomp Electronic Design Limited, Toronto
http://www.syscompdesign.com
USB Oscilloscope and Waveform Generator
647-839-0325

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists