Hi guys
Not related to UM, but to LO... I know
A simple basic question though
Years ago when I started using LO, the documents saved as .odt files were taking less memory in size then the ones saved as Word's .docx
Now it is the reverse, e.g. just saved a simple one pager 6.8 kb as a .docx and 32.4 kb as a .odt
Just wondering and raising this to those who may know the reason
Cheers
W
Any graphics in the file ?
Non no nada
W
No, I do not know the reason. I know that both formats compress file's content. BTW, if you rename .odt into .zip you can open is as archive and verify compression ratio like this:
Sure, Eugene
It is not really an 'issue'; hence posting this under 'uncategorised'...
And I don't have any storage volume issue in any case.
Really it is a matter of curiosity for me asking as to why the .docx are now smaller then the .odt, when not so long ago it was the opposite. Maybe only due to the compress action being more effective then before... who knows.
Anyway, for that reason I made the saving being .docx by default.
W
Given Eugene's hint, I opened an ODT file to see what was there. Here is a glimpse:
It may be that the exporting contains more than basic minimum, given the XML orientation. My 2 cents worth.
I am pretty sure that .odt being native LO format saves more, than alien .docx. Say,
... and it looks like the ODT format is a task-/application-oriented customization of the standardized EPUB format. So ... for the implied longevity/portability geared to archiving, there is bound to be some bloat, as opposed to M$'s DOCX format which, while being a zip format as well, adhere's to M$'s in-house structure/format, which does not resemble the EPUB standard in any way and, being copyrighted, need not attempt at being "recognizable" or "portable" for any non-M$ applications.
Maybe some of the filesize is overhead, and wouldn't be noticeable in a larger file.
That's what I figure! 
