Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software Operating Systems Windows Linux

Ubuntu vs. Windows In OpenOffice.org Benchmark 262

Posted by timothy
from the permutations-of-permutations dept.
ahziem writes "Ubuntu's Intrepid Ibex and Redmond's Windows XP go head-to-head in an OpenOffice.org 3.0 performance smackdown measuring vanilla OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, Go-oo, and Portable OpenOffice.org 3.0. Each platform and edition does well in different tests. Go-oo is known for its proud slogan "Better, Faster, Freer," but last time with OpenOffice.org 2.4 on Fedora, Go-oo came in fourth place out of four. Slashdot has previously reported Ubuntu beating Vista and Windows 7 in benchmarks, so either XP is faster or this benchmark carries a different weight."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubuntu vs. Windows In OpenOffice.org Benchmark

Comments Filter:
  • First! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:02AM (#27402263)
    Who cares? OOo is still slow no matter what platform it's run on.
    • Re:First! (Score:5, Informative)

      by inhuman_4 (1294516) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:05AM (#27402331)

      Try disabling java in the settings. Made my version run a whole lot faster.

      • Re:First! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:28AM (#27402687)

        Is there anything Java can't slow?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        (AC that got first post above here)

        Try disabling java in the settings. Made my version run a whole lot faster.

        Already done. It's still slow. One other tip, as well as disabling the Java, is increase the amount of memory OpenOffice can use. That speeds things up, at the expense of RAM.

        Having said that, OOo does what I need it to do, but subjectively it's still slow. Slow to start and slow when running. The widgets are particularly bad: flickering, slow to react, and never quite mapped to my theme correctly.

        • Re:First! (Score:5, Informative)

          by MightyYar (622222) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @12:16PM (#27403399)

          Why-oh-why did the OpenOffice devs decide to create a whole new widget library?

          Portability. Remember that OpenOffice comes from StarOffice, which came from a company called Star Division (good band name, eh?). Star Division developed StarOffice back in the early nineties, before even Windows 95 was available... and they used their own C++ cross-platform library that was meant to make GUI development easier between Windows, OS2, Mac, and OSF/Motif.

          • by Nimey (114278)

            Shame they can't re-write for a modern toolkit like QT or WxWidgets, though.

        • Re:First! (Score:5, Informative)

          by warrax_666 (144623) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @12:59PM (#27403987)

          That and the weird idea to put the entire office suite into one, big executable.

          Modern systems only load the memory pages of executables that are actually needed, so it doesn't matter how big the executable is -- what matters is how much of the executable actually needs to be loaded.

  • Big surprise (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bobnova (1435535) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:05AM (#27402337)
    XP faster then vista/7? I'm shocked. I've been doing some general testing between XP and ubuntu 8.10 as well as dellbuntu 8.04. Ubuntu gets 25% longer battery life on my netbook, but cannot play youtube videos (on either version) without lurching video. XP on the same netbook does youtube just fine, but has a 3 hour batter life to ubuntu's 4 hour. On an old p4 i have xp scrolls smoothly and instantly in firefox, where 8.10 has a delay before anything happens. My conclusion: On a slow system, XP is faster.
    • Re:Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Vectronic (1221470) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:18AM (#27402551)

      Perhaps, however videocard drivers could also be the cause of all 3, especially video and graphical user interfaces.

      But, even the power usage, could be from improperly handling the videocard, or maybe even bypassing it and using the CPU. (fuck if I know, just an assumption)

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:26AM (#27402669)

      XP on the same netbook does youtube just fine, but has a 3 hour batter life to ubuntu's 4

      Obviously you should just virtualize XP alongside ubuntu so you can take advantage of Ubuntu's extended battery life but still utilize XP's greater flash performance! It's a win/win!

    • Re:Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by master811 (874700) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:46AM (#27402961)

      Only on older hardware is XP better than Vista/7.

      ZDNet did a 'test' and found that with modern hardware 7/Vista (but more so with 7) easily beat XP comfortably.
       
      http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3789&page=3
       
      The better the hardware, the smaller the difference I suppose or the bigger the advantage Vista/7 has over XP.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tycho (11893)

        Facepalm! That is not much of a performance review. The reviewer gives the a score of 1 to the OS that was fastest on a given test for hardware second best OS a 2, third best a 3, fourth best a 4, and worst a five. So a test where the difference between the fastest and slowest is 5% and another where the difference is 50% both get scored the same. Add the results from the 31 tests done and a pre-release version of Windows 7 can look very nice even if the margin of final scores do not accurately represen

    • Re:Big surprise (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @12:07PM (#27403277) Journal

      Ubuntu gets 25% longer battery life on my netbook...
      XP...has a 3 hour batter life to ubuntu's 4 hour.

      Isn't that 33% longer?

    • Re:Big surprise (Score:4, Interesting)

      by man_of_mr_e (217855) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @12:23PM (#27403465)

      Could it be that playing Youtube videos uses 25% more cpu power? And thus, because you didn't play them on your ubuntu laptop it got longer battery life?

      • by Locklin (1074657)

        The 3 and 4 hours quoted are most defiantly idle or "light use" times, not playing video. The difference in playback is likely either video drivers on Linux, or flash not taking advantage of video acceleration on Linux.

    • Interesting. I'm running Ubuntu 8.10 on a Dell E1505 and youtube videos are lurchy in full screen mode. It's annoying :(
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DirePickle (796986)
      Whoa, really? On my t61p I get about 4 hours in XP but only 2-3 in Ubuntu 8.10. It's bad enough that I'm considering dumping linux and going back to Windows.
    • Re:Big surprise (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 0xABADC0DA (867955) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @01:11PM (#27404131)

      Some tips on netbook power. Hopefully /. will correct anything wrong here:

      1) Underclocking can have huge savings... as much as the backlight being on/off. I don't mean using cpufreq to change processor frequency... the power savings apparently comes from the ram and slowing down the ridiculously bad Intel GMA945. This is generally easier on XP since the OEM will have some software to do this, and nothing pre-packaged exists in Linux afaik.

      2) Use a plain background and plain graphics... no gradients or pictures. GMA can use run-length encoding to compress the display memory on a line-by-line basis, and if the line hasn't changed the display uses the compressed version.

      Somebody check my numbers... assuming 666 fsb, that's 666Mhz*4 bytes per second. The display might use 1024*600*3 bytes and if it refreshes the display at 60 fps, the shared memory for the display uses:

      (1024*600*3*60) / (666*Mhz*4) = 15% of fsb time

      That must be wrong, because at high res it would be using all the time. But I don't know what assumption is wrong... but anyway if you can compress by say 80% by using solid colors (or vertical gradients) then you can save some power and make the system somewhat faster. This might have to be turned on with the driver, idk if linux driver can do this.

      3) Some USB devices use a lot more power than you'd expect. For instance a standard USB laser mouse can use a watt from various things like having USB polling it frequently.

      4) As far as I can tell from reading the web, RAM power is basically how many modules you have installed not how much memory is on them. Maybe it's based on the number of chips? Anwyay it looks like upgrading memory should increase battery life by reducing disk access. So for instance if the system has low ram, like 512mb you might see disproportionately better power on linux since it generally uses less ram, so less hd activity.

      5) It's almost not worth it to put the hard disk to sleep. Modern laptop drives you might save .2-.4w over just idle, but spin up might take 5w. So telling hd to spin down every 3 min for instance might actually use more power.

    • by hairyfeet (841228)
      Have you tried speedswitch XP [ghacks.net] on WinXP? I got an extra hour and a half from my Dell Latitude by using speedswitch XP and setting it for "max battery" when I am running away from the cord. Since it is free you have nothing to lose but a bit of time. But if you want more battery life from XP it is worth a try.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by noundi (1044080)

      My conclusion: On a slow system, XP is faster.

      You reach to a conclusion about all slower PCs using one single hardware setup as test subject?

      Have you considered journalism?

  • Disclaimer: I'm already a proud Ubuntu 8.10 User, i love that Os, has its issues but i think is good for me and what i do with it, but common, i'm already tired of this benchmark fever slashdot is suffering lately...

    How many benchmarks do we need? Really..
    Are we gonna benchmark every single app out there to see our loved Ubuntu beats the shit out of Windows?
    Ubuntu Wipes Windows 7 In Benchmarks [slashdot.org]
    Java Performance On Ubuntu Vs. Windows Vista [slashdot.org]
    Ubuntu 8.10 Outperforms Windows Vista [slashdot.org]
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Vectronic (1221470)

      I've got absolutely no problem with them, provided they are reasonably accurate, and neither the summary, nor article is flamebait.

      Hell, i'd probably even frequent an entire section devoted to it.

    • Not all of us use or want to use a linux dist clearly designed for the point-and-click brigade. Not to mention the daft name (no I don't care what it means in Zulu, to an English speaker it sounds idiotic), daft release names, moronic default restrictions (to a power user) such as a locked root account. Perhaps I'm just a crusty old git but anything with release names like "gutsy gibbon" and "intrepid ibex" to me sounds like something aimed at pre teens which makes me wonder what other "user friendly" cutes

      • And why's it always Ubunto?

        Apart frome the simple install, well thought out details (e.g. WiFi config, proprietary HW drivers, USB startup key creation feature), great documentation, the Debian package management (apt-get, synaptic), features, I've absolutely no idea.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by DrgnDancer (137700)

        If the locked down root really bothers you that much do a "sudo su -" and reactivate the account. The same trick works in OSX if anyone has ever wondered. As long as your sudoers file gives your account ALL(ALL) it should work fine.

  • "Due to the efficiency of Visual Studio 9 over GCC"... I don't want to pick a compiler flamewar here, but I think it is fair to say that making blanket statements about one particular compiler producing faster code than another is pretty ignorant. There are some things VC does that GCC doesn't do, and vice versa, compiler switches can make a big difference, and you really would need to study the most commonly used code in OO under both compilers to see who is, in fact, generating better code, and, incidentally, for which processor.

    • by D Ninja (825055)

      "Due to the efficiency of Visual Studio 9 over GCC"... I don't want to pick a compiler flamewar here, but I think it is fair to say that making blanket statements about one particular compiler producing faster code than another is pretty ignorant. There are some things VC does that GCC doesn't do, and vice versa, compiler switches can make a big difference, and you really would need to study the most commonly used code in OO under both compilers to see who is, in fact, generating better code, and, incidentally, for which processor.

      While you are right, at least in my own experience, when you're on a Windows machine, VS8/9 produces a much better executable (higher performance) than GCC. (And, we did actually perform benchmarks to make sure. It was on a heavy mathematical program.)

      Of course, that is my own experience. YMMV, but the differences were large enough that I can't really believe a few compiler flags would make THAT much of a difference.

      • by gbjbaanb (229885)

        for heavy maths, the compiler flags make all the difference. Did your compile use the CPU extensions (SSEx etc), if not, you should try turning them on (VS you need to change the platform from the default 'work on anything' to 'Enable Enhanced Instruction Set' (under code generation).

        that might make quite a bit of difference, depending on your code.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)

          I came across a really fun bug in one version of the MS compiler where a colleague had tried using the SEE intrinsics to speed things up and found that it had become slower. Looking at the generated asm, it turned out that it was doing a function call for every intrinsic (while GCC just issued a single SSE instruction). I think the MS approach was to generate them as function calls and then use the inliner to turn them into single instructions, but for some reason the function inlining pass wasn't being r

      • I would expect so - gcc has, as a primary advantage, portability in mind. Frontends for various languages transform the source into an intermediate language. Backends for various architectures transform intermediate language into native code. This makes it portable, as merely writing a new frontend gets your code onto all supported backends, and merely writing a new backend gives you the ability to compile languages in all supported frontends.

        Some optimisations cannot be done, as the intermediate languag
  • by The Hooloovoo (78790) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:11AM (#27402401)

    Is speed really the issue here? My LAPTOP was a bargain-barrel purchase 3 years ago and it has no problem running OpenOffice + FireFox + other standard software on either Ubuntu or XP.

    What I care about is, "Which one is least likely to crash and make me lose my work?" That's always been my big complaint with the Windows versions of free software (GIMP comes to mind), not speed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Iyonesco (1482555)

      My first thoughts were also "Is speed really the issue here?" but for different reasons. I used Open Office for eight months before having to give up due to a massive number of small niggles that when combined make it very unpleasant to use. I think a lot of issues need to be addresses in Open Office before speed but sadly none of the problems ever seem to be addressed and they instead seem to focus on adding new features. In the end I had to give up and switch to Kingsoft Office 2009.

      • by cp.tar (871488)

        On OS X, I cannot get myself to use OpenOffice.org. I just can't.
        It ignores the system modifier key conventions, so I can't move through words with Option-LArrow/RArrow and Home/End with Command-LArrow/RArrow. Instead it uses some other scheme, which I can't be bothered to adopt.

        And it is much slower than iWork.

      • IBM taking over Sun might breathe new life into OOo and improve the development processes (remove political barriers to accepting certain much-needed-patches.

  • by hee gozer (1261036) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:13AM (#27402461)

    I wonder if the faster warmboot times under XP are due to its prefetching functionality. Another benchmark with prefetching disabled could determine this. Maybe Ubuntu or other distributions can try adding prefetch [google.com] functionality to their distributions and put Windows where it belongs, (at) last.

  • OS X (Score:4, Informative)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:17AM (#27402517) Homepage Journal

    On my Mac desktop I used OpenOffice for a long time. I find MS Office on the Mac to be a train wreck. But OO's performance really sucks on the Mac, even with Java turned off. I switched to Apple's own iWork '09 and it's fantastic, far superior to any alternative on the same OS. I prefer open document formats, but I need to get my job done.

    My point is I hope the OO teams can focus more on performance across the board. I realize the difficulty when it's built for multiple platforms, but once performance is improved it'll be a much better contender.

  • by gapagos (1264716) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:17AM (#27402519)

    Seriously. ... Who cares if OpenOffice opens a .xls document 4 seconds faster, since it takes me a good 25 minutes to reconfigure all the graphs formating that it lost from MS Office??

    Is that 25 minutes taken into factor? ... That's right, I didn't think so.

    • by Ephemeriis (315124) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @12:01PM (#27403199)

      Seriously. ... Who cares if OpenOffice opens a .xls document 4 seconds faster, since it takes me a good 25 minutes to reconfigure all the graphs formating that it lost from MS Office??

      Is that 25 minutes taken into factor? ... That's right, I didn't think so.

      That's just silly.

      If you need Excel, why would you be running OO? If you've got all kinds of graphs and formatting and whatever else that's going to take 25 minutes to fix in OO, why wouldn't you be running Excel? That time adds up pretty quickly and before long it becomes very easy to justify the cost of a license for Excel.

      That's like the folks who switch to Linux or OS X and then load up their machine with some kind of VM and run everything in Windows anyway. If you need Windows, why not just run Windows?

      Of course the best solution would be to get everyone working from some kind of open format, so it didn't matter what software you were using. So there was absolutely no vendor lock-in. But that won't be happening any time soon.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gapagos (1264716)

        I'm not really running OO, for the exact resons you listed.
        I'm just saying I tried using OO, and my response was a criticism of all the advice I got from linux zealots who love to rub in your face how OO is perfect and can do everything Excel can do. Bullshit.

  • by jkrise (535370) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:19AM (#27402573) Journal

    I feel OOo is slow both on Linux as well as Windows. Most likely this is due to the bloat and mindless copying of MS Office features. I have a question: Is it possible to weed out the redundant or useless features in OOo and make it sleek and quick? Since this is completely open source, theoretically this should be possible.

    In similar vein, I'm also looking for pluck-outs from Firefox which is also bloated. Rather than running extensions called NoScript, AdBlock, FlashBlock etc.; why not remove these products from the installed version itself to make it lean, mean and less resource hungry?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ais523 (1172701)

      How exactly are you going to remove the ad-handling code from Firefox? It's not as if there's special code in Firefox just to display ads...

      As for NoScript and FlashBlock, people use them because they offer better functionality than just disabling the features in the browser itself (which is possible); the idea's to have control over what scripts run and flash is shown, rather than just blanket-disabling everything. (For instance, I block JavaScript on most sites, but not Wikipedia or Slashdot, or a few oth

      • by jkrise (535370)

        the idea's to have control over what scripts run and flash is shown, rather than just blanket-disabling everything.

        There are situations where blanket-disable is better. Think of a corporate web-application environment. Rather than dozens plug-ins to disable unwanted features which are also potential security hazards, it would be much better to simply remove the functionality from the browser itself. I'd like to know how to do this on a practical basis with Firefox and OOo.

        • by ais523 (1172701)
          Edit | Preferences | Content in Firefox 3 allows you to disable JavaScript, Java, and images; Tools | Add-ons | Plugins allow you to disable plugins such as Flash, Java (two ways to disable that, it seems), and audio playback. I'm not sure about the OpenOffice equivalents, though.
        • go back to lynx then, i for one welcome being able to browse the web as it was designed is, an if i want to modify that i SHOULD use extensions scripts to achieve it. As for OO being slow, in my experience the slowest link is me typing/reading, so while id rather it was a better office suit i couldn't give two shits what fps it gets or how fast it boots and opens files.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by lahvak (69490)

      I feel OOo is slow both on Linux as well as Windows. Most likely this is due to the bloat and mindless copying of MS Office features. I have a question: Is it possible to weed out the redundant or useless features in OOo and make it sleek and quick? Since this is completely open source, theoretically this should be possible.

      It has been done long time ago. It's called pico.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      Is it possible to weed out the redundant or useless features in OOo and make it sleek and quick?

      Yes. It's called LaTeX [latex-project.org].

      • Hmm. LaTeX took around three minutes to typeset my last book, on a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo. Not sure if that counts as sleek and quick, although I've not seen MS Office or OpenOffice handle 900+ page documents, so it might be (last time I tried OpenOffice for long documents it started having problems over about 30 pages).
      • Don't forget AbiWord.

  • It's just me? I don't find very interesting a benchmark of office suites. Look, my suite can write bold text faster than yours! Boring...

  • by lymond01 (314120) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:32AM (#27402747)

    Because...well, I didn't read the article, but are we benchmarking Word Processing applications now? How fast a spreadsheet can calculate the sum of a column? Whether there's a pause between fade-in transitions in a presentation?

    I'm trying to think of a good car analogy here...maybe how fast your passenger side door closes?

    • FYI: I have not RTFA but...

      For the average Joe Sixpack (the same people who can easily look over the difference between office suites as far as function) this isn't a big issue. But there are those of us who have created some pretty strong "applications" within an office suite who may think differently. Ever try to use MS Access as a front end to an enterprise database in a situation where you can not use a pass-thru query? Or maybe doing calculations on a spreadsheet that has years od daily input on a PII
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192)

      You're not kidding. Word Perfect 5.1 for DOS was released 20 years ago. It was snappy as all hell. What has 20 years of progress gotten us? Bloat.

  • wtf is go-oo? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kozz (7764) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @11:34AM (#27402791)

    For others (like me) who are familiar with OOo but never heard of "Go-oo", Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org],

    Go-oo is a concentrated set of patches for the cross-platform OpenOffice.org office suite. Go-oo is also one of OpenOffice.org variants created from these patches. It has better support for Office Open XML file formats than the official OpenOffice.org releases produced by Sun Microsystems, and other enhancements that have either not yet been accepted into the upstream Sun version, or will not be because of business or political reasons. Some of these changes or enhancements will eventually be part of the Sun version, too; the process of assessing patches, "upstreaming", just takes time.

    It's a shame that even the Go-oo website does a poor job of explaining this on the front page (doesn't mention OpenOffice.org until nearly the very end) nor on the "about" page.

    • by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

      Good thing they didn't pull the same trick with "Portable OpenOffice.org" - I'd have to turn off SafeSearch to even find it.

    • It's basically Novell's (more-or-less friendly) fork of OpenOffice.org. It's designed to have a simpler build system and be easier to contribute to, but in terms of total contributions is still dwarfed by Sun's work.
  • Not trying to be a troll, but I kind of laugh when I see the "OOo benchmarks on various OS" reports. I use openSUSE for the most part and the Go OO version of OpenOffice on both Vista and openSUSE. What I've found interesting is how much faster and more responsive Office 2003 is running either natively or under Crossover Office (which I posted before in the openSUSE mailing lists).

    I really like OOo - and especially Go-OO - for it's user interface and nice clean setup, when working in Calc or Text. However
  • Why are benchmarks considered important here? How about real consumer acceptance that goes beyond the Ubuntu and Open Office hobby community? Wake me up when desktop Linux hits 5% of consumer desktops.
    • by jedidiah (1196)

      > Why are benchmarks considered important here?

      Perhaps it is something that Lemmings like to crow about.

      "consumer acceptance" doesn't "just happen". Something has to happen to drive it.

      All of the necessary bits might be there. Or they might not be.

      What are those necessary bits?

      Alienation caused by the new UI in Office2007 gives Linux an opening and OO will be what helps enable that.

      • by rabbit994 (686936)

        Where do you make the jump that alienation by new UI in Office is going to cause average joe to completely throw his OS out the Window and replace it with Linux? If anything, he might download Open Office on Windows and give it a spin but most users do what they do in my office. They complain about the new UI, grumble, use the Help Facility to find where some stuff got buried and by end of the week, the complaining has stopped. It's change and all users hate change but majority of them get over it.

  • by malevolentjelly (1057140) on Tuesday March 31, 2009 @01:40PM (#27404583) Journal

    OpenOffice.org is a unix application rigged into running on Windows, sort of like Pidgin or GIMP on Windows.

    http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Windows [openoffice.org]

    And if you go over each of the official build services, you will find that one of the big differences between go-oo.org, StarOffice, and OpenOffice.org vanilla is simply build engineering. Specifically, if they're building with cygwin, it provides some major performance issues. Although Windows has some native POSIX support, you don't use it quite the same way as you do in Linux or Solaris- rather than accounting for these differences, OOo uses a POSIX emulation layer in order to avoid extra work. Despite the fact that Windows is the primary platform for distribution, it's simply too much trouble for Sun or Novell to screw with it. I know Novell is trying to move their build service (go-oo) into a straight GCC cross-compile solution, so the speed issue will not get any better on Windows.

    My point is that this is built with Visual Studio 2005 as more or less a standard Windows application, not a Vista/7 application- it's not using the NT 6+ API's, so it's invalid as a true performance test. This would be similar to us testing Microsoft Office 2003 (I don't think OOo is quite feature comparable to 2007) on Windows vs. Wine and then declaring that Windows is the hands down superior platform.

    So let's talk about Platform inequities. The Microsoft optimizing C compiler is a better compiler than GCC-- but GCC is really not half bad anymore. Visual Studio's really superior because of its debugging, refactoring, and profiling tools, not so much JUST its compiler. I think this is part of why Firefox runs faster in Wine than in native Linux. In fact, by writing your application in like vim and debugging with gdb then just using Visual Studio as a build slave, you're really getting the short end of the stick in both directions. But I digress, a native unix application like OOo is a native unix application, and I wouldn't expect you to get tremendously better success in Windows unless you're running it on Interix or something. Of course, that's not to say Windows doesn't do unix tasks like NFS better than UNIX, just that it doesn't necessarily run direct unix code better.

    But this is all fluff, the fact of the matter is that OOo is not a Windows application and most people are Windows users, so let's look at some logical alternatives:

    So... if you're running Windows and you just need to type a paper for school for free/cheap.... why not just use Softmaker Office 2006... or Softmaker Office 2008 if you have 20 bucks. Just use Office 2007 if you're doing long reports- the bibliography handling alone will make the 60 bucks to get it through ultimate steal worthwhile when writing something long and arduous. Consider the time you save on formatting and grammar checking and such over a semester or two- it's worth it. If you're paying thousands a year for your education, the least you can do is not waste time with shitty office software.

    Personally, I use OOo on my linux netbook and Softmaker Office 2006 on my Windows box and just keep my documents in ODF. It's the cheap-ass pro solution.

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen

Working...