On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:04:47 -0400
"DFS" <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yawn. Another dumbass lie from another dumbass Linux liar.
I have to wonder why there are memory limits at *all* in any of the
64-bit versions that aren't hardware imposed. That is just stupid and
ugly (to borrow a few words out of the book of Torvalds). It doesn't
cost any extra to support what the hardware supports, so why the
limitation? One word: extortion.
> > Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
> I just saw - not read - that OpenOffice 3.0 Calc (latest version) has
> just 1024x65536 cells, or 1/256th the capacity of MS Office 2007
> Excel (latest version).
> OSS crapware: what can you expect for free?
I wouldn't open a sheet that used that many cells, let alone however
many you claim Excel can have. Such a sheet would not be very useful;
large datasets belong in database systems, not spreadsheets.
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.