Open Office chokes on Open XML spec

I’ve been looking at the notoriously lengthy specification for ECMA-376, also known as Office Open XML. You can download it here in both PDF and Open XML (.docx) format. I grabbed both.

At 5219 pages the Markup Language Reference is a seriously large document. The PDF is about 34MB, and the docx about 14MB. I started with the PDF, which opens easily enough, but is desperately slow to search, prompting me to try the alternate docx version. This dialog amused me:

There are too many spelling or grammatical errors in Office Open XML Part 4 - Markup Language Reference_final.docx to continue displaying them.

The docx took longer to load than the PDF, but searching is indeed quicker. Frankly it’s impressive that it is usable at all. I was trained to avoid long documents, on the grounds that they are prone to corruption, and that if they do corrupt you lose more work. That was when we thought 100 pages was long. I cannot think of any good reason why this document is not broken into smaller pieces

Still, it makes an interesting test case. I wondered how Open Office would cope with a document this size. I saved it as a .doc – 68MB – and loaded it into Open Office 2.1. This took several hours (I left it overnight). Once loaded, Open Office repaginated the document to 7453 pages. Searching it was pretty quick though, if anything faster than Word. Finally I saved it in Open Document format. 15MB. Note that both Open Document and Open XML are zipped formats, which explains their smaller size.

Open Office takes 31 minutes to load the Open Document version – quicker than loading the .doc, but not tolerable for normal work. By contrast, Word 2007 can load the .docx to a usable state in around 5 minutes. It all suggests that Word 2007 and/or Open XML is superior for very long documents. I’m using Vista by the way, with 3GB RAM.

What about the content? So far I’m impressed. The entries I’ve looked at have been clear,to the point, and include example code. No doubt there are dark corners, but this strikes me as a good effort.

 

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Microsoft vs Open Source: only one loser

Microsoft, of course. Fortune reports that Microsoft will seek to extract royalties from users of open-source software. That would be monumental folly. Here’s why.

First, the company already has an image problem. It’s the “Evil Empire”, the vendor we love to hate. Litigating against free software would be appalling PR.

Second, let’s consider who would lose out if Microsoft succeeded in making widely used open source operating systems or applications illegal. Clearly, it would be the users of that software. But these users are in many cases also Microsoft’s customers. Windows on the desktop, Linux and Apache on the server, for example. Anyone who uses the internet uses open source software. If Microsoft litigates against open source, it will be litigating against its own customers.

Third, Microsoft won’t succeed. I don’t find it difficult to believe that:

…FOSS infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.

as Fortune reports. But what if big patent holders like IBM decide to trawl their files looking for ways in which Windows or Office might infringe a patent or two? I’d be astonished if they came back empty-handed. This is not a game that Microsoft can win.

Fourth, the free and open source software movement is good for all of us. It’s lowered prices and fostered innovation. That’s a problem for a company that decides to attack it, because everyone will want it to fail.

Fifth, Microsoft has a dismal record in the courtroom.

Sixth, major legal confrontations are a huge distraction. They drain productivity. They divert energy and attention away from what the company is good at.

If Fortune is to be believed, Microsoft has been listening too much to its lawyers, and not enough to its customers.

Microsoft can thrive alongside open source. The way to do so is to create great software like Silverlight. Not by embarking on unwinnable legal contests.

Despite the above, I can understand (though not approve) that Microsoft may wish to mutter about its patents now and again, to spread a little FUD and dissuade customers from a switch to Linux. This may be no more than that. Otherwise, it is making a costly mistake.

 

Technorati tags: , , , , ,