FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Microsoft vs. open-source in file sizes





ocalhoun
This completely amazed me when I noticed it.
I made a table in Gnumeric (a linux spreadsheet program comparable with excel) and saved it in the native format.
I went back to it and saved it as an excel 2000 format and the file size increased by 1750%! From 8 Kb to 140 Kb. It's the same table.

Is anyone else astounded by this?
Traveller
ocalhoun wrote:
Is anyone else astounded by this?

Why would anyone be astounded by common knowledge: Linux is more efficient than Windoze.
n0obie4life
Traveller wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Is anyone else astounded by this?

Why would anyone be astounded by common knowledge: Linux is more efficient than Windoze.


Biased.

I can use a different c++ complier for the same programs and their file size are different. IT's probably because MS coded Excel in Visual Studio.
webbone
I think excel include more tag in the file!
Example microsoft word file and txt file,txt file is very little!
atholas
webbone wrote:
I think excel include more tag in the file!
Example microsoft word file and txt file,txt file is very little!


That would most likely be the cause of the problem. The file size should be determined by the file format and character encoding method, and also how the underlying file system stores the file (in most cases this overhead would be fairly insignificant). So it is very likely that it is all those bells and whistles in excel that forced the file size to be bigger.

I like to use Gnumeric for the casual spreadsheet that I have to make, but excel is still easier and more powerful Razz
nealio1000
ocalhoun said: This completely amazed me when I noticed it.
I made a table in Gnumeric (a linux spreadsheet program comparable with excel) and saved it in the native format.
I went back to it and saved it as an excel 2000 format and the file size increased by 1750%! From 8 Kb to 140 Kb. It's the same table.

Is anyone else astounded by this?


I use windows and other microsoft software and i find that all open-source and most non-microsoft programs are much smaller and run smoother. For example, instead of using Microsoft Office Outlook, try using Mozilla Thunderbird. Thunderbird is much smaller and it runs much faster.
Ranfaroth
Contrary to modern softwares, M$ Excel saves many personnal datas in its files, opening privacy issues...
Daniel15
ocalhoun wrote:
This completely amazed me when I noticed it.
I made a table in Gnumeric (a linux spreadsheet program comparable with excel) and saved it in the native format.
I went back to it and saved it as an excel 2000 format and the file size increased by 1750%! From 8 Kb to 140 Kb. It's the same table.

Is anyone else astounded by this?

It's because of all the junk that's saved in the Excel file. Stuff that you'd most likely not need otherwise.

It's the same if you save a Microsoft Word document (or any Office document for that matter) as HTML Razz
Da Rossa
Daniel15 wrote:

It's because of all the junk that's saved in the Excel file. Stuff that you'd most likely not need otherwise.

It's the same if you save a Microsoft Word document (or any Office document for that matter) as HTML Razz


Could that mean that M$ Excel files are more powerful and versatile than the little spreadsheet program mentioned?
Arnie
It also works the other way around. Firefox memory usage and loading times are ridiculous compared to Opera. (Compared to just about anything, anyway.) Thunderbird isn't a clone of MS Outlook, rather of Outlook Express, which is a lot faster than Thunderbird on my system. Hogging seems to be Mozilla's trademark. And since we're talking about file sizes, how about this ? Then compare a bare Windows 95 or even 98 install to e.g. Debian with IceWM or QVWM. The interfaces are very much comparable, but Windows' runs smooth with 16 or 32MB of RAM. On Linux you need at least 64MB to even approach that smoothness.

In short, I'm surely amazed, but it's because you're jumping to conclusions with just one example while there are enough counter-examples.
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
It also works the other way around. Firefox memory usage and loading times are ridiculous compared to Opera. (Compared to just about anything, anyway.)
Fx is just one gecko browser (probably the worst). If you want to compare memory usage and loading time on win32, have a look to Kmeleon or SeaMonkey. You'll see that Opera is beaten.
Quote:
Thunderbird isn't a clone of MS Outlook, rather of Outlook Express
Stop. Outlook is years behind Thunderbird. You really can't compare them.
Quote:
Then compare a bare Windows 95 or even 98 install to e.g. Debian with IceWM or QVWM. The interfaces are very much comparable, but Windows' runs smooth with 16 or 32MB of RAM. On Linux you need at least 64MB to even approach that smoothness.
Debian is a complete and powerful OS, whereas Windows 95/98 lack many features and softwares.
If you want GNU/Linux with few RAM, you've got much more other choices. For instant DSL... Rolling Eyes
Arnie
That must be the fanatic's favourite smiley, I have noticed in all those happy years with them heroes on the Net. Anyway, it's good I just noticed that this topic is outdated. Let's close with this quote of great illustrational value, which I found in another Rolling Eyes-discussion:
Quote:
I have read the posts to my initial comment (and the subsequent posts) and can only say the following -

I accept your point of view and agree you have valid points.
I concede your arguments are valid.
I cannot deny your logic, arguments or reasoning.

In short - I admit I am wrong.

Having said all that - I'm outta here.
imagefree
webbone wrote:
I think excel include more tag in the file!
Example microsoft word file and txt file,txt file is very little!


probably its the reason.
qscomputing
ocalhoun wrote:
I went back to it and saved it as an excel 2000 format and the file size increased by 1750%! From 8 Kb to 140 Kb. It's the same table.

Is anyone else astounded by this?


No. It's just an illustration of one of the fundamental differences between the way things are done in Windows and Linux.

In Windows: file formats are opaque and binary. Every new version has new features stuffed into the format, meaning that it must get bigger and bigger to store the same data. Excel has had I think nearly 10 versions.

In Linux: file formats are clear plain-text where appropriate - obviously graphics need to be binary, but certainly in OOo the document formats are just gzipped XML, I would guess Gnumeric is similar. XML, being plain-text, compresses well, resulting in a smaller file.
Da Rossa
Now I'm curious: why does the Gnumeric spreadsheet file is SO smaller than a .xls from excel?
infobankr
I've experienced something similar - my bookkeeper sent me an Excel spreadsheet saved on a windows machine - several hundred kilobytes. I saved it again using openoffice to the open format and it was under 10k.

Can we say bloat? Twisted Evil
infobankr
And Ranfaroth - I agree with your sentiments!!
sambhav
I guess its good. And ppl should go for other alternatives than windows.
thinkingskull
ppl its because of the extra tags in the excel file....

guess what in windows itself if u save a file as .xml then the size differs from that of normal xls....

but i think the extra tags are there because excel has more features than the gui relatives...

any ways for me ethics stand above all and I dont trust ppl who break patents though php is an absolute miracle...

anyways....
welshsteve
Microsoft have overcome this "bloated" file size issue in Office 2007, which now uses XML based technology. As a very quick example, a spreadsheet I created with 10 columns and 21 rows saved in .xls format (Excel 97 to 2003) is 20KB, but the same files saved in the new .xlsx format is 8KB.
snicker
Just my personal opinion: smaller does not mean better and bigger does not mean bundled with more features. But, actually, Excel is a great piece of software (the only one in Office, IMHO) and has far more features than its open source competitors (actually, in this case, its condition of being a standard de facto may be right, for once).

That said, it was time that Microsoft started to use XML-based files...

My 2 cents
DeiviD
qscomputing wrote:
No. It's just an illustration of one of the fundamental differences between the way things are done in Windows and Linux.

In Windows: file formats are opaque and binary. Every new version has new features stuffed into the format, meaning that it must get bigger and bigger to store the same data. Excel has had I think nearly 10 versions.

In Linux: file formats are clear plain-text where appropriate - obviously graphics need to be binary, but certainly in OOo the document formats are just gzipped XML, I would guess Gnumeric is similar. XML, being plain-text, compresses well, resulting in a smaller file.
no, its got nothing to do with windows or linux. you can save any file as binary or as text in both windows or linux. Windows's got nothing to do with .xml, windows doesnt even know .xml.

The size of the .xml file is determined by the amount of data thats saved inside it, and by the "template" used.

If it had anything to do with windows X linux, you would notice a diference in the size of a .bmp saved in paint and in any linux software. Now, .bmp files folow a known template -> http://atlc.sourceforge.net/bmp.html, so both files will have the same size.

Microsoft saves more data in the .xml files than Gnumeric - heck, Excells got a load more features than Gnumeric last time i saw it. More features = more data to be saved usually.
Arno v. Lumig
Traveller wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Is anyone else astounded by this?

Why would anyone be astounded by common knowledge: Linux is more efficient than Windoze.


Excel takes 2 seconds to start up, OpenOffice Calc takes over 5 seconds. on the same machine.
Da Rossa
thinkingskull wrote:
any ways for me ethics stand above all and I dont trust ppl who break patents though php is an absolute miracle...

anyways....


What exactly did you mean?
desertwind
Daniel15 wrote:
It's the same if you save a Microsoft Word document (or any Office document for that matter) as HTML Razz


Second that. It make a handful of files and 100s of lines of HTML code for a simple html page otherwise could've achieved using less than 25 lines of code. Sad

PS: I observed almost all WYSIWYG editors screw up the html code. That's why I still go the old way.
billgertz
n0obie4life wrote:

I can use a different c++ complier for the same programs and their file size are different. IT's probably because MS coded Excel in Visual Studio.


I completely agree with this one. also, with others bout MS Office Applications saves some unuseful tags along with the file.
qscomputing
DeiviD wrote:
no, its got nothing to do with windows or linux. you can save any file as binary or as text in both windows or linux. Windows's got nothing to do with .xml, windows doesnt even know .xml.

No, you misunderstand me. But I shan't hold it against you because reading back my post it wasn't very clear. What I meant was that in Windows it is more common to save stuff in opaque binary formats, whereas in Linux it is more common to use text-based formats. It's a reflection on the culture, not the technology.

M
DeiviD wrote:
icrosoft saves more data in the .xml files than Gnumeric - heck, Excells got a load more features than Gnumeric last time i saw it. More features = more data to be saved usually.

Granted, Gnumeric doesn't have all that many features. I was just using Gnumeric as an example because it's what the OP used. So lets compare Microsoft's "OO"XML with ODF (as used by OOo and others). Both have more or less the same capabilities, but ODF files tend to be a fair bit smaller. And no, more features does not necessarily mean bigger filesize, at least not for a properly written program. With a tag-based format such as any XML-based format, just because you have say 10000 tags at your disposal doesn't mean that your files will be any bigger than those written in a format that only has 1000 tags. If there's no bold text, you don't save any data about bold text, for example. etc for all the features in your program. You only save the data that is there, so filesize does not necessarily scale with features.
mehulved
What happens if you save the same file in xls from Gnumeric/Openoffice.org spreadsheet? I don't know if gnumeric supports saving in xls format.
That should tell us if the difference is in formats or in the softwares.
Da Rossa
Does this Gnumeric have a Windows version?
orcaz
But when I compared M$ to OpenOffice, OpenOffice's documents seem to be almost twice as large compared to M$ documents. So i would rather stick to M$ office.
Arno v. Lumig
Ranfaroth wrote:
Arnie wrote:
It also works the other way around. Firefox memory usage and loading times are ridiculous compared to Opera. (Compared to just about anything, anyway.)
Fx is just one gecko browser (probably the worst). If you want to compare memory usage and loading time on win32, have a look to Kmeleon or SeaMonkey. You'll see that Opera is beaten.


SeaMonkey is a bit lighter then Firefox, but still rather heavy. It also comes with a lot of stuff you don't want, like an email client, web page maker etc.
Quote:
Quote:
Thunderbird isn't a clone of MS Outlook, rather of Outlook Express
Stop. Outlook is years behind Thunderbird. You really can't compare them.


True.

Quote:
Quote:
Then compare a bare Windows 95 or even 98 install to e.g. Debian with IceWM or QVWM. The interfaces are very much comparable, but Windows' runs smooth with 16 or 32MB of RAM. On Linux you need at least 64MB to even approach that smoothness.
Debian is a complete and powerful OS, whereas Windows 95/98 lack many features and softwares.
If you want GNU/Linux with few RAM, you've got much more other choices. For instant DSL... Rolling Eyes


Yea, but Damn Small Linux is not nearly comparable to Windows 98/95. Windows is much more user friendly then some hacked together linux distro. When using DSL I always feel like it is just a compilation of hacks that make it run; nothing ever works the way it should.

On really low-end systems Windows clearly beats Linux, but on higher systems I prefer Linux/FreeBSD
DeiviD
qscomputing wrote:
DeiviD wrote:
no, its got nothing to do with windows or linux. you can save any file as binary or as text in both windows or linux. Windows's got nothing to do with .xml, windows doesnt even know .xml.

No, you misunderstand me. But I shan't hold it against you because reading back my post it wasn't very clear. What I meant was that in Windows it is more common to save stuff in opaque binary formats, whereas in Linux it is more common to use text-based formats. It's a reflection on the culture, not the technology.

M
DeiviD wrote:
icrosoft saves more data in the .xml files than Gnumeric - heck, Excells got a load more features than Gnumeric last time i saw it. More features = more data to be saved usually.

Granted, Gnumeric doesn't have all that many features. I was just using Gnumeric as an example because it's what the OP used. So lets compare Microsoft's "OO"XML with ODF (as used by OOo and others). Both have more or less the same capabilities, but ODF files tend to be a fair bit smaller. And no, more features does not necessarily mean bigger filesize, at least not for a properly written program. With a tag-based format such as any XML-based format, just because you have say 10000 tags at your disposal doesn't mean that your files will be any bigger than those written in a format that only has 1000 tags. If there's no bold text, you don't save any data about bold text, for example. etc for all the features in your program. You only save the data that is there, so filesize does not necessarily scale with features.
my mistake there - i meant xls files, not xml :X

xml's eficiency is pretty impressive - it only saves whatever it needs - no other unecessary data is saved to the disk.

reason the new office sticks to it for saving stuff Wink

sorry for the confusion.
Ranfaroth
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
SeaMonkey is a bit lighter then Firefox, but still rather heavy. It also comes with a lot of stuff you don't want, like an email client, web page maker etc.
No : this stuff is optionnal. You can choose to only install the browser
Quote:
Yea, but Damn Small Linux is not nearly comparable to Windows 98/95.
Windows 98/95 have been deprecated by M$. So you can't compare a modern, still maintained and secure Linux distrib, with an OS which is said to be old and unsecure by M$ itself.
If you want to compare with a M$ OS, you have to choose at leat Windows 2000™ or Windows ME™....
xbcd
from personal experience i can tell you when i use OOo and save to a xls file and then i use Excel and save the same file it makes it much smaller. Why, im guessing backward compatibility that OOo tries to make sure it reads right in Excel
tony
Daniel15 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
This completely amazed me when I noticed it.
I made a table in Gnumeric (a linux spreadsheet program comparable with excel) and saved it in the native format.
I went back to it and saved it as an excel 2000 format and the file size increased by 1750%! From 8 Kb to 140 Kb. It's the same table.

Is anyone else astounded by this?

It's because of all the junk that's saved in the Excel file. Stuff that you'd most likely not need otherwise.

It's the same if you save a Microsoft Word document (or any Office document for that matter) as HTML Razz


i have also noticed this; my odt (open office documents) are typically much smaller than the equivalent microsoft files; seems m$ adds a lot of extra stuff to the file; dono what is it though...
Arno v. Lumig
Ranfaroth wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
SeaMonkey is a bit lighter then Firefox, but still rather heavy. It also comes with a lot of stuff you don't want, like an email client, web page maker etc.
No : this stuff is optionnal. You can choose to only install the browser
Quote:
Yea, but Damn Small Linux is not nearly comparable to Windows 98/95.
Windows 98/95 have been deprecated by M$. So you can't compare a modern, still maintained and secure Linux distrib, with an OS which is said to be old and unsecure by M$ itself.
If you want to compare with a M$ OS, you have to choose at leat Windows 2000™ or Windows ME™....


Sorry for my late reaction, but you misunderstood me. I was saying that DSL was inferior to Windows 98, not superior.
Ranfaroth
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
Sorry for my late reaction, but you misunderstood me. I was saying that DSL was inferior to Windows 98, not superior.
Then your completely wrong Wink
DSL is a full modern OS...
Arnie
Judging by your standards apparently. For a normal home user, so is Windows 98. Except it's faster.
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
Judging by your standards apparently.
No : judging by the vendor opinion
Quote:
For a normal home user, so is Windows 98.
Not really.... Just try a plain install of windows98 and you'll understand your pain Wink
Arnie
Did it over 50 times, went fine overall. The first times too!

You may have had problems, but then again - I know enough people that had problems installing some Linux distribution and I bet you would claim it's easy.
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
Did it over 50 times, went fine overall. The first times too!
You don't understand...

I ask you to install windows98, and check if you've got a complete and secure OS.

For the security part, it's easy : M$ said it wasn't.

For the complet OS : does it has a modern browser ? A PDF viewer ? A modern mail client ? A IM/IRC client ? A real audio client ? Compression/decompression utilities ? A CD burning software ?
That is what we expect when we talk about an OS....
Arnie
It does have all that.
- Opera (or even Firefox for the memory-wasters out there)
- Foxit PDF Reader (or some version of Adobe Reader for the memory wasters)
- Opera also does mail, otherwise there's Phoenix Mail or Thunderbird (for the memory-wasters and HTML lovers)
- Pidgin runs fine on 98SE
- What's a real audio client? VLC player works, so there's lots of playback functionality. DVD players also available for 98SE.
- 7-Zip works fine on 98SE
- Burnatonce, CDBurnerXP, Nero 7 run on 98SE

I assume you're using OpenBSD since you're speaking of security as something absolute. Or wait, even OpenBSD had holes! So moving from theory to practice: my 98SE boxes have been running safely for years and still do.
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
It does have all that.
No...
Quote:
- Opera (or even Firefox for the memory-wasters out there)
Not included in Windows 98
Quote:
- Foxit PDF Reader (or some version of Adobe Reader for the memory wasters)
Not included in Windows 98
Quote:
- Opera also does mail, otherwise there's Phoenix Mail or Thunderbird (for the memory-wasters and HTML lovers)
Not included in Windows 98
Quote:
- Pidgin
Not included in Windows 98
Quote:
- What's a real audio client?
A client which understand modern standards
Quote:
VLC player works, so there's lots of playback functionality.
For instance, but not included in Windows 98
Quote:
- 7-Zip
Not included in Windows 98
Quote:
- Burnatonce, CDBurnerXP, Nero 7
Not included in Windows 98
Quote:
I assume you're using OpenBSD
No, I don't. And I neither use DSL. But my personnal choices have nothing to do with this thread.
Quote:
So moving from theory to practice: my 98SE boxes have been running safely for years and still do.
You seem to be a bit narrow minded, so please read those articles...
Arnie
You can go debate with the people that blame MS for including software such as WMP in Windows. Now you're blaming MS for not including all sorts of software. I'm not going to discuss with you: you should find some other heroes that bash MS for exactly the opposite reason you do! That would be very interesting indeed.

Personally I think an OS should be an OS, and not pumped up with a mountain of software. For Linux I choose Debian because I want to pick my own software. At install time. Which Debian allows very well, Windows 98 allows it moderately, and e.g. Ubantu and Windows XP don't have any such option whatsoever.

Installing Xubuntu (the 'light' version) costs four hours - so don't tell me it's a big deal to run some Setups for software on Windows. The software is easily obtainable from the Internet.

And if you insist on having stuff included, you can always burn your own Windows CD. Big deal. The point is: installing your own software on 98SE is not hard, doesn't cost heaps of time, and allows more freedom of choice.
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
You can go debate with the people that blame MS for including software such as WMP in Windows. Now you're blaming MS for not including all sorts of software.
Could you please read the post carefully ? I'm not blaming M$, I'm blaming you who claims stupid and false things.
You compare Windows 98, which is not a full OS (as you admited) with DSL which is a full OS.
So I'm just saying : compare which can be compared. Plain windows 98 can't play in the OS ground.
If you want to compare DSL with a windows 98-based OS, you'll have to add to windows 98 all the softwares you listed, and then, the size will be very different !

How could you misunderstood the thread this point ?
Quote:
Personally I think an OS should be an OS, and not pumped up with a mountain of software.
You can think what you want, but then you should compare what is comparable :
OS where you can't do nothing ? right : then compare Windows with debian with a minimal install. You'll see that the winner will be Debian.
OS with essential softwares ? Compare windows 98 with additionnal softwares with DSL : again, DSL will be smaller...
Quote:
Installing Xubuntu (the 'light' version) costs four hours
Windows needs 5 hours.
But that's not the topic of this thread ! Read it !
Quote:
And if you insist on having stuff included, you can always burn your own Windows CD.
And again, it will have a bigger size than DSL. You loose...
Quote:
The point is: installing your own software on 98SE is not hard, doesn't cost heaps of time, and allows more freedom of choice.
DSL is obviously faster to install.
But "more freedom of choice on windows" is the funniest thing I read this month Very Happy
Arnie
First of all, this is not about winning or "loosing". My only point in this is to show that not all the glitter of open source is real. Not to engage in some stupid contest.

Installing Windows 98 nor XP (which is mentioned in your link) takes me over 2 hours. The guy in the link isn't just installing, he's tweaking everything since apparently he wants his Linux stuff in Windows. Those 4 hours of Xubuntu installation were measured from the boot of the install CD to the shutdown at the end of setup. Measuring the same for 98SE on the same machine would be like 1 hour. Include software installation time, at most 2 extra hours if you're really slow. What that 5 hour XP guy needs to do, is burn a copy of PING and backup an image of the installation. Then burn a recovery disc and whenever he manages to mess up his installation after 9 months, just put in the disc and restore everything. But he probably knows that and wrote the article for a different reason...

There's no point in comparing the functionality of plain installs because the whole point of functionality is about the end-user's view. Whether something is preinstalled or installed afterwards doesn't affect the end-user functionality. And if comparing file sizes, my software library for 98SE fits well on one 700MB CD and it contains more functionality than a default Xubuntu install (also one CD).

However Debian doesn't even win when it has the same functionality as 98: you need Xorg for the GUI which is a major hog.

And yes, it is a myth that Linux always allows more freedom.
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
First of all, this is not about winning or "loosing". My only point in this is to show that not all the glitter of open source is real.
this is not the topic of this thread : open a new one and I'd be pleased to show how you're wrong.
Quote:
Installing Windows 98 nor XP (which is mentioned in your link) takes me over 2 hours.
We're not talking about time to install, but about size (and 2 hours for an incomplete OS like Windows 98 proves how it's deprecated...)
Quote:
The guy in the link isn't just installing, he's tweaking everything since apparently he wants his Linux stuff in Windows.
Excacly : a Linux OS : less than 30 minutes. A Windows OS with as many features than the equivalent Linux OS : 5h...
Quote:
Those 4 hours of Xubuntu installation were measured from the boot of the install CD to the shutdown at the end of setup.
First, this sentence is a nonsense : there are many installs (with all features, with minimal features)
Second, a usual Xubuntu install takes less than 1 hour when you download the packages. When you use the CD, it's even faster...
Quote:
There's no point in comparing the functionality of plain installs
There's even less point comparing non plain installs, since they differ even more !
Quote:
And if comparing file sizes, my software library for 98SE fits well on one 700MB CD and it contains more functionality than a default Xubuntu install (also one CD).
DSL is 50 M and has more functionality than Windows 98 (as you admitted previously)
700>50, right ?
Quote:
However Debian doesn't even win when it has the same functionality as 98: you need Xorg for the GUI which is a major hog.
but Xorg is already included in Debian and in DSL !
Quote:
And yes, it is a myth that Linux always allows more freedom.
It would be very easy to prove how you're wrong (for instance, comparing the number of win32 softwares and Linux softwares for the same functionally, like PDF reading, file explorer, FTP client), but this is not the subject of this topic...
qscomputing
To compare a fresh install of Windows to a fresh install of a modern Linux distribution isn't really a fair comparison. The best article I found on how to compare the installs was where a guy gave to his wife (who didn't really know much about computers) a computer, install disks for a recent version of Windows and a recent Linux distribution (I forget exactly which, it's a while since I read the article), and a list of tasks to be performed. Her job was to install each operating system and perform each of the tasks in each one - the tasks were typical everyday things such as "write and send an email", "play a song" - things that you wouldn't necessarily expect a freshly-installed OS to do but that you wouldn't consider the OS to be completely installed until you could. He also gave her no technical help but Internet access via another PC so she could look up anything she needed.

The conclusion was that most of the tasks were successfully performed in Linux, but significantly less in Windows. Unfortunately I forget where I found the article so you'll just have to believe me or Google for it. Sad
Arnie
Ranfaroth wrote:
Arnie wrote:
First of all, this is not about winning or "loosing". My only point in this is to show that not all the glitter of open source is real.
this is not the topic of this thread : open a new one and I'd be pleased to show how you're wrong.
In another topic you'd show me I'm wrong in saying it's not about winning or losing? ... I will not spend my time in such a debate. Of course we can bicker on for pages, but let people try Windows and Linux side by side, and see for themselves what they like better. That's what matters in the end, and as far as I can tell, no Linux distribution outperforms Windows 98 on minimalist systems. And I've tried DSL too. Maybe I've overlooked something, because I don't claim to know everything, but here I've shared my experience. That's all there is to say about it.
qscomputing
Arnie wrote:
as far as I can tell, no Linux distribution outperforms Windows 98 on minimalist systems. And I've tried DSL too.

You may well be right - I haven't tested it. It probably does depend on your definition of "minimalist", and whether you are including a factor for the way in which Windows slows down over time.

But to be honest, if I wanted to run a machine where I couldn't even get Damn Small Linux to work well, I'd consider making a custom distro and compiling specifically for that machine. I admit that it would be hard and the vast majority of people wouldn't even consider it, but it's not even possible with Windows.
djclue917
Ranfaroth wrote:
Contrary to modern softwares, M$ Excel saves many personnal datas in its files, opening privacy issues...


Yeah, and it's "surprisingly" called "hidden data" (hint of sarcasm. Very Happy). Nice. As far as I can remember, there's a Microsoft Office plugin/add-in for removing these "hidden data". Guess what, it's creatively called "Remove Hidden Data".

Here's the link:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Office-tools/Other-Office-Tools/Office-2003-XP-Add-in-Remove-Hidden-Data.shtml
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
In another topic you'd show me I'm wrong in saying it's not about winning or losing?


I'll show you how all your of topic claims about windows/Linux are wrong.... So just stop it there.
Quote:
That's what matters in the end, and as far as I can tell, no Linux distribution outperforms Windows 98 on minimalist systems.
During all this thread we prove you the contrary. I won't spend time in copy/paste, just read above...
ssbonez
error
xbcd
Arnie wrote:
You can go debate with the people that blame MS for including software such as WMP in Windows. Now you're blaming MS for not including all sorts of software. I'm not going to discuss with you: you should find some other heroes that bash MS for exactly the opposite reason you do! That would be very interesting indeed.

Personally I think an OS should be an OS, and not pumped up with a mountain of software. For Linux I choose Debian because I want to pick my own software. At install time. Which Debian allows very well, Windows 98 allows it moderately, and e.g. Ubantu and Windows XP don't have any such option whatsoever.

Installing Xubuntu (the 'light' version) costs four hours - so don't tell me it's a big deal to run some Setups for software on Windows. The software is easily obtainable from the Internet.

And if you insist on having stuff included, you can always burn your own Windows CD. Big deal. The point is: installing your own software on 98SE is not hard, doesn't cost heaps of time, and allows more freedom of choice.
.

i think what were are complaining about is not the lack of software or the extra crap we get with windows. Its that we can't customize it out of the box, we aren't allowed the option to install a high end word processor when we install windows. If you ever had something in windows that you wanted to remove you would notice that you can't uninstall certain features and thats is a pain when you don't want it.

I noticed the open source software saving smaller files too. (i have gimp which saves jpegs much smaller then windows or the batch image program i have. It simply was programed better with the users wants in mind, where as M$ has backwards compatibility in mind but doesn't want to update the extentions to make the saved file smaller)
ganesh
On a lighter note...

Why worry about file sizes? Just use Google Docs Spreadsheet program Very Happy
xbcd
ganesh wrote:
On a lighter note...

Why worry about file sizes? Just use Google Docs Spreadsheet program Very Happy


wouldn't that have a file size? and we worry about size because we want as much stuff as possible and if we minimize everywhere we can we can get alot more out of our hard drives.
Ranfaroth
Talking about bad-designed M$ format : you can share this video with unaware friends...
daviosoftware
ocalhoun wrote:
This completely amazed me when I noticed it.
I made a table in Gnumeric (a linux spreadsheet program comparable with excel) and saved it in the native format.
I went back to it and saved it as an excel 2000 format and the file size increased by 1750%! From 8 Kb to 140 Kb. It's the same table.

Is anyone else astounded by this?


Excel is storing much more info. You should check the report (amount of data)/(disk cost) to see the real situation. Take in consideration the functions that excel provide (remembering the selected sheet for example).
I'm working a lot with excel and know these drawbacks. Excel is ok in my opinion because: it is used by the majority of people and I don't have problems in communication, it works fine with huge data (try making more tables with more data), it has "some" fault tolerance (crashes only 1or 2 per year Smile ), has a wide range of functions witch I use daily and none of the others programs have.
Related topics
Microsoft vs Open Source
Microsoft slams UK open-source study
5 Best Open Source Remote Desktop Software 4 linux
Intel forms internal open-source group
Cheaper to patch--Windows or open source?
Open source
Openoffice => l'open source de reference...
Open Source Software for Windows
Anyone know of a good open-source flash progg?
Movable Type Open Source
My greatest custom made avatars (open-source :D)
Framasoft - A very great place for open source software
Open source - uma paixão
open source software
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Software

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.