Pls confirm 2007 chart redraw is up to 10 times slower than 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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