3 ms·
“Great”. No offence to anyone, but I would not consider the performance of MS office to be great. I guess it's comparative, but then I compare to its previous
by dijit 2mo ago
“Great”.
No offence to anyone, but I would not consider the performance of MS office to be great.
I guess it's comparative, but then I compare to its previous editions which used a sliver of the resources to accomplish 95% of what modern o365 does.
- Ygg2 2mo agoOffice documents since the 2007 have used a zipped XML approach. Just take an .docx and open it in 7zip. EDIT: Narrowed the date.
- dijit 2mo agoI’m aware. IIRC this was a response to Microsoft being forced to use some “open” protocol or something.
- mdp2021 2mo ago> previous editions... used a sliver of the resources Well of course, but given that the previously employed technique was blitting, fliedumping memory areas, you can't be more efficient than that. Using XML is for transparency (readability). (And, note, in context, I regard the ms office file format as lousy. The OpenOffice/LibreOffice format is good.)
- thaumasiotes 2mo agoI don't think your parent comment was talking about the resources involved in saving a file, but rather the resources involved in running the software.
- mdp2021 2mo agoThank you, probably so, but in that case I cannot see how said comment is consistent in the branch ("about file formats") - I do not get how it would follow.
- graemep 2mo agoIts very widely used. Perfomrance might not be great, but adoption is.