If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Pls confirm 2007 chart redraw is up to 10 times slower than 20
Users of beta versions of Vista were appalled by the sluggishness of
the entire system... these builds were built for debugging. The RTM version surprised many people with its speed, even on lower end systems. I would expect the same to be true of Excel, if not most software Microsoft produces. Read: Wait until the RTM before you're ready to judge the speed of the product. David Com wrote: Nick, I am only a hobby user, so I am sure there will be far more demanding users than me. I use Excel to research ideas for my hobby, and charts help me visualise what is going on. As an example, I have 27K rows, and about 30 columns of raw data. A macro then creates another 30 rows. I may then sum various columns. I then create a new column with: average (d2:d101) and fill down the 27K rows, and display this single column as a chart. Excel2007 is VERY slow. Excel 2000 does it fine, and much faster. Obviously the average calculation could be optimised, but I want a tool that is easy to use, without having to think too hard (and possibly make mistakes). I believe I am using about 2 million cells, so if we assume 20bytes/cell, that gives 40MB. That doesn't sound excessive. If I open a chart (as above), it's slow to open in 2007. I can't right click the chart (or if I can the delay is about 20 secs). Sometimes (I don't know what I have done) I get a menu flash on the screen for about 1/2 sec, and it's gone again. It's impossible to use! I would describe it as "Not fit for purpose". I often like to delete sheets and move other sheets in to replace them. Excel 2007 won't allow this. It allows the command but then complains that the source (or is it destination) had too many rows or columns. WHY! I accept your comment about databases. However Excel is good for a quick experiment & chart. A database requires too much planning. I have done a bit of reading in the last day, and have discovered that Excel 2000 is only supposed to be able to have about 80MB of cells. My PC has about 700MB, but Excel 2000 appeared to be using it all. Is this correct? (I just kept filling cells with 1, and then looked at the Task Manager). Excel 2007 seemed to have similar limits (just more rows, and less columns). Both seemed to allow about 33 milion cells. Am I correct in assuming it is max row X max column which determines memory use? There are some scenarios where Excel 2000 does really struggle, and I had hoped 2007 would solve all my problems. I was hoping that with 1 million rows/16K columns, it would need much better internal algorithms. From what you are saying, it sounds like that wasn't possible. Is my best option to simply buy more RAM and/or a faster PC? My experiments suggest Excel 2003 won't help me. For my hobby, it's disappointing, but I'm sure I can find workarounds. However, serious professional users may be rather more upset. Most users have no idea how things like vlookup work, so they won't understand when the performance is poor. However, I think Microsoft could have helped themselves by adding an option which uses a sorted list, but requires an exact match. It would be a simply tweak to the existing algorithm, but allow users to use sorted lists more easily (I always want exact matches. I know you can do it using two sorted vlookups, but it should not be necessary!) David |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Pls confirm 2007 chart redraw is up to 10 times slower than 20
Er, nevermind. I didn't realize it had already been released to
retail. Matthew Cavagnaro wrote: Users of beta versions of Vista were appalled by the sluggishness of the entire system... these builds were built for debugging. The RTM version surprised many people with its speed, even on lower end systems. I would expect the same to be true of Excel, if not most software Microsoft produces. Read: Wait until the RTM before you're ready to judge the speed of the product. David Com wrote: Nick, I am only a hobby user, so I am sure there will be far more demanding users than me. I use Excel to research ideas for my hobby, and charts help me visualise what is going on. As an example, I have 27K rows, and about 30 columns of raw data. A macro then creates another 30 rows. I may then sum various columns. I then create a new column with: average (d2:d101) and fill down the 27K rows, and display this single column as a chart. Excel2007 is VERY slow. Excel 2000 does it fine, and much faster. Obviously the average calculation could be optimised, but I want a tool that is easy to use, without having to think too hard (and possibly make mistakes). I believe I am using about 2 million cells, so if we assume 20bytes/cell, that gives 40MB. That doesn't sound excessive. If I open a chart (as above), it's slow to open in 2007. I can't right click the chart (or if I can the delay is about 20 secs). Sometimes (I don't know what I have done) I get a menu flash on the screen for about 1/2 sec, and it's gone again. It's impossible to use! I would describe it as "Not fit for purpose". I often like to delete sheets and move other sheets in to replace them. Excel 2007 won't allow this. It allows the command but then complains that the source (or is it destination) had too many rows or columns. WHY! I accept your comment about databases. However Excel is good for a quick experiment & chart. A database requires too much planning. I have done a bit of reading in the last day, and have discovered that Excel 2000 is only supposed to be able to have about 80MB of cells. My PC has about 700MB, but Excel 2000 appeared to be using it all. Is this correct? (I just kept filling cells with 1, and then looked at the Task Manager). Excel 2007 seemed to have similar limits (just more rows, and less columns). Both seemed to allow about 33 milion cells. Am I correct in assuming it is max row X max column which determines memory use? There are some scenarios where Excel 2000 does really struggle, and I had hoped 2007 would solve all my problems. I was hoping that with 1 million rows/16K columns, it would need much better internal algorithms. From what you are saying, it sounds like that wasn't possible. Is my best option to simply buy more RAM and/or a faster PC? My experiments suggest Excel 2003 won't help me. For my hobby, it's disappointing, but I'm sure I can find workarounds. However, serious professional users may be rather more upset. Most users have no idea how things like vlookup work, so they won't understand when the performance is poor. However, I think Microsoft could have helped themselves by adding an option which uses a sorted list, but requires an exact match. It would be a simply tweak to the existing algorithm, but allow users to use sorted lists more easily (I always want exact matches. I know you can do it using two sorted vlookups, but it should not be necessary!) David |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Pls confirm 2007 chart redraw is up to 10 times slower than 20
David
I was not defending the speed, far from it. The charting in this release has undergone radical change and was not 'fully cooked' when a line had to be drawn in the sand to release it. I suspect service packs will address some major issues, but the real 'upgrade' will probably happen in v.next Memory usage has gradually been improved over versions where more of the 'pool' can be used and 2007 is no different here. 2007 is also the first version to allow multi-threaded calculations using multiple processors. VLOOKUP does not have to be sorted if you need an exact match, just use FALSE as the last parameter. This finds only an exact match, irrespective of sort or returns #N/A -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "David Com" wrote in message ... Nick, I am only a hobby user, so I am sure there will be far more demanding users than me. I use Excel to research ideas for my hobby, and charts help me visualise what is going on. As an example, I have 27K rows, and about 30 columns of raw data. A macro then creates another 30 rows. I may then sum various columns. I then create a new column with: average (d2:d101) and fill down the 27K rows, and display this single column as a chart. Excel2007 is VERY slow. Excel 2000 does it fine, and much faster. Obviously the average calculation could be optimised, but I want a tool that is easy to use, without having to think too hard (and possibly make mistakes). I believe I am using about 2 million cells, so if we assume 20bytes/cell, that gives 40MB. That doesn't sound excessive. If I open a chart (as above), it's slow to open in 2007. I can't right click the chart (or if I can the delay is about 20 secs). Sometimes (I don't know what I have done) I get a menu flash on the screen for about 1/2 sec, and it's gone again. It's impossible to use! I would describe it as "Not fit for purpose". I often like to delete sheets and move other sheets in to replace them. Excel 2007 won't allow this. It allows the command but then complains that the source (or is it destination) had too many rows or columns. WHY! I accept your comment about databases. However Excel is good for a quick experiment & chart. A database requires too much planning. I have done a bit of reading in the last day, and have discovered that Excel 2000 is only supposed to be able to have about 80MB of cells. My PC has about 700MB, but Excel 2000 appeared to be using it all. Is this correct? (I just kept filling cells with 1, and then looked at the Task Manager). Excel 2007 seemed to have similar limits (just more rows, and less columns). Both seemed to allow about 33 milion cells. Am I correct in assuming it is max row X max column which determines memory use? There are some scenarios where Excel 2000 does really struggle, and I had hoped 2007 would solve all my problems. I was hoping that with 1 million rows/16K columns, it would need much better internal algorithms. From what you are saying, it sounds like that wasn't possible. Is my best option to simply buy more RAM and/or a faster PC? My experiments suggest Excel 2003 won't help me. For my hobby, it's disappointing, but I'm sure I can find workarounds. However, serious professional users may be rather more upset. Most users have no idea how things like vlookup work, so they won't understand when the performance is poor. However, I think Microsoft could have helped themselves by adding an option which uses a sorted list, but requires an exact match. It would be a simply tweak to the existing algorithm, but allow users to use sorted lists more easily (I always want exact matches. I know you can do it using two sorted vlookups, but it should not be necessary!) David |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Pls confirm 2007 chart redraw is up to 10 times slower than 20
Finally!! someone else with this problem. I just purchased office enterprise
and found that Excel 2007 is EXTREMELY slow....unuseable for my work! This is criminal!! Can I leave the rest of enterprise on and reload my old excel (2003) or do I need to blow the entire enterprise away and reload my old office version. This is insane....very poor....microsoft does it again with customer service "Nick Hodge" wrote: David I was not defending the speed, far from it. The charting in this release has undergone radical change and was not 'fully cooked' when a line had to be drawn in the sand to release it. I suspect service packs will address some major issues, but the real 'upgrade' will probably happen in v.next Memory usage has gradually been improved over versions where more of the 'pool' can be used and 2007 is no different here. 2007 is also the first version to allow multi-threaded calculations using multiple processors. VLOOKUP does not have to be sorted if you need an exact match, just use FALSE as the last parameter. This finds only an exact match, irrespective of sort or returns #N/A -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "David Com" wrote in message ... Nick, I am only a hobby user, so I am sure there will be far more demanding users than me. I use Excel to research ideas for my hobby, and charts help me visualise what is going on. As an example, I have 27K rows, and about 30 columns of raw data. A macro then creates another 30 rows. I may then sum various columns. I then create a new column with: average (d2:d101) and fill down the 27K rows, and display this single column as a chart. Excel2007 is VERY slow. Excel 2000 does it fine, and much faster. Obviously the average calculation could be optimised, but I want a tool that is easy to use, without having to think too hard (and possibly make mistakes). I believe I am using about 2 million cells, so if we assume 20bytes/cell, that gives 40MB. That doesn't sound excessive. If I open a chart (as above), it's slow to open in 2007. I can't right click the chart (or if I can the delay is about 20 secs). Sometimes (I don't know what I have done) I get a menu flash on the screen for about 1/2 sec, and it's gone again. It's impossible to use! I would describe it as "Not fit for purpose". I often like to delete sheets and move other sheets in to replace them. Excel 2007 won't allow this. It allows the command but then complains that the source (or is it destination) had too many rows or columns. WHY! I accept your comment about databases. However Excel is good for a quick experiment & chart. A database requires too much planning. I have done a bit of reading in the last day, and have discovered that Excel 2000 is only supposed to be able to have about 80MB of cells. My PC has about 700MB, but Excel 2000 appeared to be using it all. Is this correct? (I just kept filling cells with 1, and then looked at the Task Manager). Excel 2007 seemed to have similar limits (just more rows, and less columns). Both seemed to allow about 33 milion cells. Am I correct in assuming it is max row X max column which determines memory use? There are some scenarios where Excel 2000 does really struggle, and I had hoped 2007 would solve all my problems. I was hoping that with 1 million rows/16K columns, it would need much better internal algorithms. From what you are saying, it sounds like that wasn't possible. Is my best option to simply buy more RAM and/or a faster PC? My experiments suggest Excel 2003 won't help me. For my hobby, it's disappointing, but I'm sure I can find workarounds. However, serious professional users may be rather more upset. Most users have no idea how things like vlookup work, so they won't understand when the performance is poor. However, I think Microsoft could have helped themselves by adding an option which uses a sorted list, but requires an exact match. It would be a simply tweak to the existing algorithm, but allow users to use sorted lists more easily (I always want exact matches. I know you can do it using two sorted vlookups, but it should not be necessary!) David |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Pls confirm 2007 chart redraw is up to 10 times slower than 20
Barry
You can load both versions at the same time. You may be better to load them in version order though. 2003,then 2007. There is an option to keep previous versions in Office 2007, just be careful you don't skip over it -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "barry" wrote in message ... Finally!! someone else with this problem. I just purchased office enterprise and found that Excel 2007 is EXTREMELY slow....unuseable for my work! This is criminal!! Can I leave the rest of enterprise on and reload my old excel (2003) or do I need to blow the entire enterprise away and reload my old office version. This is insane....very poor....microsoft does it again with customer service "Nick Hodge" wrote: David I was not defending the speed, far from it. The charting in this release has undergone radical change and was not 'fully cooked' when a line had to be drawn in the sand to release it. I suspect service packs will address some major issues, but the real 'upgrade' will probably happen in v.next Memory usage has gradually been improved over versions where more of the 'pool' can be used and 2007 is no different here. 2007 is also the first version to allow multi-threaded calculations using multiple processors. VLOOKUP does not have to be sorted if you need an exact match, just use FALSE as the last parameter. This finds only an exact match, irrespective of sort or returns #N/A -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "David Com" wrote in message ... Nick, I am only a hobby user, so I am sure there will be far more demanding users than me. I use Excel to research ideas for my hobby, and charts help me visualise what is going on. As an example, I have 27K rows, and about 30 columns of raw data. A macro then creates another 30 rows. I may then sum various columns. I then create a new column with: average (d2:d101) and fill down the 27K rows, and display this single column as a chart. Excel2007 is VERY slow. Excel 2000 does it fine, and much faster. Obviously the average calculation could be optimised, but I want a tool that is easy to use, without having to think too hard (and possibly make mistakes). I believe I am using about 2 million cells, so if we assume 20bytes/cell, that gives 40MB. That doesn't sound excessive. If I open a chart (as above), it's slow to open in 2007. I can't right click the chart (or if I can the delay is about 20 secs). Sometimes (I don't know what I have done) I get a menu flash on the screen for about 1/2 sec, and it's gone again. It's impossible to use! I would describe it as "Not fit for purpose". I often like to delete sheets and move other sheets in to replace them. Excel 2007 won't allow this. It allows the command but then complains that the source (or is it destination) had too many rows or columns. WHY! I accept your comment about databases. However Excel is good for a quick experiment & chart. A database requires too much planning. I have done a bit of reading in the last day, and have discovered that Excel 2000 is only supposed to be able to have about 80MB of cells. My PC has about 700MB, but Excel 2000 appeared to be using it all. Is this correct? (I just kept filling cells with 1, and then looked at the Task Manager). Excel 2007 seemed to have similar limits (just more rows, and less columns). Both seemed to allow about 33 milion cells. Am I correct in assuming it is max row X max column which determines memory use? There are some scenarios where Excel 2000 does really struggle, and I had hoped 2007 would solve all my problems. I was hoping that with 1 million rows/16K columns, it would need much better internal algorithms. From what you are saying, it sounds like that wasn't possible. Is my best option to simply buy more RAM and/or a faster PC? My experiments suggest Excel 2003 won't help me. For my hobby, it's disappointing, but I'm sure I can find workarounds. However, serious professional users may be rather more upset. Most users have no idea how things like vlookup work, so they won't understand when the performance is poor. However, I think Microsoft could have helped themselves by adding an option which uses a sorted list, but requires an exact match. It would be a simply tweak to the existing algorithm, but allow users to use sorted lists more easily (I always want exact matches. I know you can do it using two sorted vlookups, but it should not be necessary!) David |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Pls confirm 2007 chart redraw is up to 10 times slower than 20
Nick, any idea on how to make 2003 the default one when you have both loaded
and click on an xls file? Bob Flanagan Macro Systems http://www.add-ins.com Productivity add-ins and downloadable books on VB macros for Excel Bob Flanagan Macro Systems http://www.add-ins.com Productivity add-ins and downloadable books on VB macros for Excel "Nick Hodge" wrote in message ... Barry You can load both versions at the same time. You may be better to load them in version order though. 2003,then 2007. There is an option to keep previous versions in Office 2007, just be careful you don't skip over it -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "barry" wrote in message ... Finally!! someone else with this problem. I just purchased office enterprise and found that Excel 2007 is EXTREMELY slow....unuseable for my work! This is criminal!! Can I leave the rest of enterprise on and reload my old excel (2003) or do I need to blow the entire enterprise away and reload my old office version. This is insane....very poor....microsoft does it again with customer service "Nick Hodge" wrote: David I was not defending the speed, far from it. The charting in this release has undergone radical change and was not 'fully cooked' when a line had to be drawn in the sand to release it. I suspect service packs will address some major issues, but the real 'upgrade' will probably happen in v.next Memory usage has gradually been improved over versions where more of the 'pool' can be used and 2007 is no different here. 2007 is also the first version to allow multi-threaded calculations using multiple processors. VLOOKUP does not have to be sorted if you need an exact match, just use FALSE as the last parameter. This finds only an exact match, irrespective of sort or returns #N/A -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "David Com" wrote in message ... Nick, I am only a hobby user, so I am sure there will be far more demanding users than me. I use Excel to research ideas for my hobby, and charts help me visualise what is going on. As an example, I have 27K rows, and about 30 columns of raw data. A macro then creates another 30 rows. I may then sum various columns. I then create a new column with: average (d2:d101) and fill down the 27K rows, and display this single column as a chart. Excel2007 is VERY slow. Excel 2000 does it fine, and much faster. Obviously the average calculation could be optimised, but I want a tool that is easy to use, without having to think too hard (and possibly make mistakes). I believe I am using about 2 million cells, so if we assume 20bytes/cell, that gives 40MB. That doesn't sound excessive. If I open a chart (as above), it's slow to open in 2007. I can't right click the chart (or if I can the delay is about 20 secs). Sometimes (I don't know what I have done) I get a menu flash on the screen for about 1/2 sec, and it's gone again. It's impossible to use! I would describe it as "Not fit for purpose". I often like to delete sheets and move other sheets in to replace them. Excel 2007 won't allow this. It allows the command but then complains that the source (or is it destination) had too many rows or columns. WHY! I accept your comment about databases. However Excel is good for a quick experiment & chart. A database requires too much planning. I have done a bit of reading in the last day, and have discovered that Excel 2000 is only supposed to be able to have about 80MB of cells. My PC has about 700MB, but Excel 2000 appeared to be using it all. Is this correct? (I just kept filling cells with 1, and then looked at the Task Manager). Excel 2007 seemed to have similar limits (just more rows, and less columns). Both seemed to allow about 33 milion cells. Am I correct in assuming it is max row X max column which determines memory use? There are some scenarios where Excel 2000 does really struggle, and I had hoped 2007 would solve all my problems. I was hoping that with 1 million rows/16K columns, it would need much better internal algorithms. From what you are saying, it sounds like that wasn't possible. Is my best option to simply buy more RAM and/or a faster PC? My experiments suggest Excel 2003 won't help me. For my hobby, it's disappointing, but I'm sure I can find workarounds. However, serious professional users may be rather more upset. Most users have no idea how things like vlookup work, so they won't understand when the performance is poor. However, I think Microsoft could have helped themselves by adding an option which uses a sorted list, but requires an exact match. It would be a simply tweak to the existing algorithm, but allow users to use sorted lists more easily (I always want exact matches. I know you can do it using two sorted vlookups, but it should not be necessary!) David |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Pls confirm 2007 chart redraw is up to 10 times slower than 20
Bob
Can't test at the minute but try holding down the shift key and right-clicking an xlS. Then select open with... and don't just select Excel from the list, take browse and then navigate to the Office 11 folder and select Excel.exe from there. Check the always use this program for files of this type checkbox and that should work. Let me know if it doesn't and I'll take a look in the registry. One other thing you may try is to run Detect and Repair (Under Help in 2003) and then ask it to reset shortcuts in the dialog -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "Bob Flanagan" wrote in message ... Nick, any idea on how to make 2003 the default one when you have both loaded and click on an xls file? Bob Flanagan Macro Systems http://www.add-ins.com Productivity add-ins and downloadable books on VB macros for Excel Bob Flanagan Macro Systems http://www.add-ins.com Productivity add-ins and downloadable books on VB macros for Excel "Nick Hodge" wrote in message ... Barry You can load both versions at the same time. You may be better to load them in version order though. 2003,then 2007. There is an option to keep previous versions in Office 2007, just be careful you don't skip over it -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "barry" wrote in message ... Finally!! someone else with this problem. I just purchased office enterprise and found that Excel 2007 is EXTREMELY slow....unuseable for my work! This is criminal!! Can I leave the rest of enterprise on and reload my old excel (2003) or do I need to blow the entire enterprise away and reload my old office version. This is insane....very poor....microsoft does it again with customer service "Nick Hodge" wrote: David I was not defending the speed, far from it. The charting in this release has undergone radical change and was not 'fully cooked' when a line had to be drawn in the sand to release it. I suspect service packs will address some major issues, but the real 'upgrade' will probably happen in v.next Memory usage has gradually been improved over versions where more of the 'pool' can be used and 2007 is no different here. 2007 is also the first version to allow multi-threaded calculations using multiple processors. VLOOKUP does not have to be sorted if you need an exact match, just use FALSE as the last parameter. This finds only an exact match, irrespective of sort or returns #N/A -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "David Com" wrote in message ... Nick, I am only a hobby user, so I am sure there will be far more demanding users than me. I use Excel to research ideas for my hobby, and charts help me visualise what is going on. As an example, I have 27K rows, and about 30 columns of raw data. A macro then creates another 30 rows. I may then sum various columns. I then create a new column with: average (d2:d101) and fill down the 27K rows, and display this single column as a chart. Excel2007 is VERY slow. Excel 2000 does it fine, and much faster. Obviously the average calculation could be optimised, but I want a tool that is easy to use, without having to think too hard (and possibly make mistakes). I believe I am using about 2 million cells, so if we assume 20bytes/cell, that gives 40MB. That doesn't sound excessive. If I open a chart (as above), it's slow to open in 2007. I can't right click the chart (or if I can the delay is about 20 secs). Sometimes (I don't know what I have done) I get a menu flash on the screen for about 1/2 sec, and it's gone again. It's impossible to use! I would describe it as "Not fit for purpose". I often like to delete sheets and move other sheets in to replace them. Excel 2007 won't allow this. It allows the command but then complains that the source (or is it destination) had too many rows or columns. WHY! I accept your comment about databases. However Excel is good for a quick experiment & chart. A database requires too much planning. I have done a bit of reading in the last day, and have discovered that Excel 2000 is only supposed to be able to have about 80MB of cells. My PC has about 700MB, but Excel 2000 appeared to be using it all. Is this correct? (I just kept filling cells with 1, and then looked at the Task Manager). Excel 2007 seemed to have similar limits (just more rows, and less columns). Both seemed to allow about 33 milion cells. Am I correct in assuming it is max row X max column which determines memory use? There are some scenarios where Excel 2000 does really struggle, and I had hoped 2007 would solve all my problems. I was hoping that with 1 million rows/16K columns, it would need much better internal algorithms. From what you are saying, it sounds like that wasn't possible. Is my best option to simply buy more RAM and/or a faster PC? My experiments suggest Excel 2003 won't help me. For my hobby, it's disappointing, but I'm sure I can find workarounds. However, serious professional users may be rather more upset. Most users have no idea how things like vlookup work, so they won't understand when the performance is poor. However, I think Microsoft could have helped themselves by adding an option which uses a sorted list, but requires an exact match. It would be a simply tweak to the existing algorithm, but allow users to use sorted lists more easily (I always want exact matches. I know you can do it using two sorted vlookups, but it should not be necessary!) David |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Pls confirm 2007 chart redraw is up to 10 times slower than 20
Nick, I found that if I did a /regserver on the Excel 2003 exe that it
changed the default for me. Painful typing in the path... Bob "Nick Hodge" wrote in message ... Bob Can't test at the minute but try holding down the shift key and right-clicking an xlS. Then select open with... and don't just select Excel from the list, take browse and then navigate to the Office 11 folder and select Excel.exe from there. Check the always use this program for files of this type checkbox and that should work. Let me know if it doesn't and I'll take a look in the registry. One other thing you may try is to run Detect and Repair (Under Help in 2003) and then ask it to reset shortcuts in the dialog -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "Bob Flanagan" wrote in message ... Nick, any idea on how to make 2003 the default one when you have both loaded and click on an xls file? Bob Flanagan Macro Systems http://www.add-ins.com Productivity add-ins and downloadable books on VB macros for Excel Bob Flanagan Macro Systems http://www.add-ins.com Productivity add-ins and downloadable books on VB macros for Excel "Nick Hodge" wrote in message ... Barry You can load both versions at the same time. You may be better to load them in version order though. 2003,then 2007. There is an option to keep previous versions in Office 2007, just be careful you don't skip over it -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "barry" wrote in message ... Finally!! someone else with this problem. I just purchased office enterprise and found that Excel 2007 is EXTREMELY slow....unuseable for my work! This is criminal!! Can I leave the rest of enterprise on and reload my old excel (2003) or do I need to blow the entire enterprise away and reload my old office version. This is insane....very poor....microsoft does it again with customer service "Nick Hodge" wrote: David I was not defending the speed, far from it. The charting in this release has undergone radical change and was not 'fully cooked' when a line had to be drawn in the sand to release it. I suspect service packs will address some major issues, but the real 'upgrade' will probably happen in v.next Memory usage has gradually been improved over versions where more of the 'pool' can be used and 2007 is no different here. 2007 is also the first version to allow multi-threaded calculations using multiple processors. VLOOKUP does not have to be sorted if you need an exact match, just use FALSE as the last parameter. This finds only an exact match, irrespective of sort or returns #N/A -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "David Com" wrote in message ... Nick, I am only a hobby user, so I am sure there will be far more demanding users than me. I use Excel to research ideas for my hobby, and charts help me visualise what is going on. As an example, I have 27K rows, and about 30 columns of raw data. A macro then creates another 30 rows. I may then sum various columns. I then create a new column with: average (d2:d101) and fill down the 27K rows, and display this single column as a chart. Excel2007 is VERY slow. Excel 2000 does it fine, and much faster. Obviously the average calculation could be optimised, but I want a tool that is easy to use, without having to think too hard (and possibly make mistakes). I believe I am using about 2 million cells, so if we assume 20bytes/cell, that gives 40MB. That doesn't sound excessive. If I open a chart (as above), it's slow to open in 2007. I can't right click the chart (or if I can the delay is about 20 secs). Sometimes (I don't know what I have done) I get a menu flash on the screen for about 1/2 sec, and it's gone again. It's impossible to use! I would describe it as "Not fit for purpose". I often like to delete sheets and move other sheets in to replace them. Excel 2007 won't allow this. It allows the command but then complains that the source (or is it destination) had too many rows or columns. WHY! I accept your comment about databases. However Excel is good for a quick experiment & chart. A database requires too much planning. I have done a bit of reading in the last day, and have discovered that Excel 2000 is only supposed to be able to have about 80MB of cells. My PC has about 700MB, but Excel 2000 appeared to be using it all. Is this correct? (I just kept filling cells with 1, and then looked at the Task Manager). Excel 2007 seemed to have similar limits (just more rows, and less columns). Both seemed to allow about 33 milion cells. Am I correct in assuming it is max row X max column which determines memory use? There are some scenarios where Excel 2000 does really struggle, and I had hoped 2007 would solve all my problems. I was hoping that with 1 million rows/16K columns, it would need much better internal algorithms. From what you are saying, it sounds like that wasn't possible. Is my best option to simply buy more RAM and/or a faster PC? My experiments suggest Excel 2003 won't help me. For my hobby, it's disappointing, but I'm sure I can find workarounds. However, serious professional users may be rather more upset. Most users have no idea how things like vlookup work, so they won't understand when the performance is poor. However, I think Microsoft could have helped themselves by adding an option which uses a sorted list, but requires an exact match. It would be a simply tweak to the existing algorithm, but allow users to use sorted lists more easily (I always want exact matches. I know you can do it using two sorted vlookups, but it should not be necessary!) David |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Pls confirm 2007 chart redraw is up to 10 times slower than 20
Hello
I believe that ANY Office 2007 program that runs slower than Office 2003 on the *same* problem or application is a defacto software downgrade. Some of these problems may be due to new features that have not been fully optimized yet, but I regard any new feature that slows down software execution to be a mistake -- a mistake that should be fixed. Software slowdown due to larger problem size is natural, but delays due to cosmetic new-features should not be allowed. I believe that Office 2007 will not gain wide public acceptance if it is perceived to be excessively slow as indicated by some of the previous posts here. Perhaps more effort should be devoted to optimizing Excel for math-intensive, high-speed processing of large data arrays. "Nick Hodge" wrote: David RTM charting is a 'little' better, but very much still to be improved (I am sure in v.next). Quoting the 1000000 rows (You didn't mention 16k columns) is something I believe Excel users, for it is they who demanded them, will rue the day they did. It's a limitation of current machine power (Generally available) and the tasks Excel is put to that make me very sceptical. Anything approaching the old limit of 65k, should IMHO, be in a database. Charting *will* get improved but is disappointing in this version. 1,000,000 rows with VLOOKUPs, SUMIFs, etc, I say... Be careful what you ask for.... (Not you specifically, just a sentiment) -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "David Com" wrote in message news Larry, To get Excel to have 1 million rows rather than 65K, they will have had to rewrite everything. My impression is that they have made a terrible job of it. Graphing is very important. I guess there is a remote possibility that the final release improves things. Microsoft will get a tremendous amount of bad press if it remains as it is now. I certainly wouldn't consider buying Office 2007 if it stays in it's current state. What is the point of 1 millions rows if Excel can't cope with 25K rows in a single axis Graph? (which is what I have, and it crawls) David |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Pls confirm 2007 chart redraw is up to 10 times slower than 20
Hello
I have just upgraded from Office pro 2003 to 2007 and have exactly the same experience as mentioned in the above threads in Excel but even worse - my worksheet calculates a graph from a simple 4 columns by 1200 rows section with no formulas only numbers - it was working well in 2003. In 2007 it takes UNBEARABLY longer to the point of being useless !!! . I am using 2.2 GHz AMD 64x2 dual core, 2.0 GB Ram Have I wasted my money on the upgrade? Is there anything I can do to improve performance or will Microsoft do something about it ? What happened to the dual processor feature? -- Steen "Mike Barlow" wrote: Hello I believe that ANY Office 2007 program that runs slower than Office 2003 on the *same* problem or application is a defacto software downgrade. Some of these problems may be due to new features that have not been fully optimized yet, but I regard any new feature that slows down software execution to be a mistake -- a mistake that should be fixed. Software slowdown due to larger problem size is natural, but delays due to cosmetic new-features should not be allowed. I believe that Office 2007 will not gain wide public acceptance if it is perceived to be excessively slow as indicated by some of the previous posts here. Perhaps more effort should be devoted to optimizing Excel for math-intensive, high-speed processing of large data arrays. "Nick Hodge" wrote: David RTM charting is a 'little' better, but very much still to be improved (I am sure in v.next). Quoting the 1000000 rows (You didn't mention 16k columns) is something I believe Excel users, for it is they who demanded them, will rue the day they did. It's a limitation of current machine power (Generally available) and the tasks Excel is put to that make me very sceptical. Anything approaching the old limit of 65k, should IMHO, be in a database. Charting *will* get improved but is disappointing in this version. 1,000,000 rows with VLOOKUPs, SUMIFs, etc, I say... Be careful what you ask for.... (Not you specifically, just a sentiment) -- HTH Nick Hodge Microsoft MVP - Excel Southampton, England DTHIS www.nickhodge.co.uk "David Com" wrote in message news Larry, To get Excel to have 1 million rows rather than 65K, they will have had to rewrite everything. My impression is that they have made a terrible job of it. Graphing is very important. I guess there is a remote possibility that the final release improves things. Microsoft will get a tremendous amount of bad press if it remains as it is now. I certainly wouldn't consider buying Office 2007 if it stays in it's current state. What is the point of 1 millions rows if Excel can't cope with 25K rows in a single axis Graph? (which is what I have, and it crawls) David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
QuickParts not a substitute for AutocorrectAutotext | Greg Gates | General Discussion | 16 | July 26th, 2006 05:24 PM |
Fan charts | Dean | Charts and Charting | 7 | May 30th, 2005 11:51 AM |
Productkey problem when installing office 2003 on network | Stefan Schreurs | Setup, Installing & Configuration | 1 | June 1st, 2004 11:16 PM |
Chart menu visible property | Sandy V | Charts and Charting | 8 | May 17th, 2004 01:39 PM |
Styles for chart | Debra Dalgleish | Charts and Charting | 1 | October 3rd, 2003 12:27 PM |