Also it's "Microsoft Office" (I could have gone for "MS Office", but "MsOffice" looks like a LibreOffice spinoff).
Why mention versions of LO/OO (3.6 and 3.4) in the title when he also tests LO 3.5.2 at some point? He tests Office 2003 (hardly the current version) on Win7 and 2008 on OSX.
I don't even begin to mention the entirely dubious methodology (one-time runs, no averages) and irrelevant benchmarks.
Not to mention:
> Why no OpenDocument (.odf or .od) or Office Open XML (.docx or .xlsx)? Well cause 90% of our files are .xls or .doc
which is baffling in itself, since LO will convert the file between doc and its internal representation (which is of course very close to ODT) every single time it's loaded/saved.
> and normally when we receive in any other format, we convert it to .xls or .doc
Dude, you're converting it to doc because you use Word. For fsck's sake if you receive ODT and you intent to use LO, keep it as ODT!
Why mention versions of LO/OO (3.6 and 3.4) in the title when he also tests LO 3.5.2 at some point? He tests Office 2003 (hardly the current version) on Win7 and 2008 on OSX.
I don't even begin to mention the entirely dubious methodology (one-time runs, no averages) and irrelevant benchmarks.
Not to mention:
> Why no OpenDocument (.odf or .od) or Office Open XML (.docx or .xlsx)? Well cause 90% of our files are .xls or .doc
which is baffling in itself, since LO will convert the file between doc and its internal representation (which is of course very close to ODT) every single time it's loaded/saved.
> and normally when we receive in any other format, we convert it to .xls or .doc
Dude, you're converting it to doc because you use Word. For fsck's sake if you receive ODT and you intent to use LO, keep it as ODT!