Article View: comp.sys.mac
Article #7803Re: Why is Excel 2.2 is a magnitude (or two) slower than Excel 1.5
From: Paul McJones
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1989 00:57
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1989 00:57
47 lines
2684 bytes
2684 bytes
In <7940@ditmela.oz>, Hans Eriksson (hans@ditmela.oz.au) says he's
found that Excel 2.2 runs much more slowly than Excel 1.5 on his
Mac Plus with 2.5MB RAM and an HD20SC. He conjectures:
Maybe 2.2 is not good at handling a lot of =DSUM(), maybe it's
something else.
In <4016@ur-cc.UUCP>, Eric Carleen (mpip@uhura.cc.rochester.edu)
replies that his spreadsheets, which all involve datbase commands,
take about twice as long with version 2.2 as with version 1.5. He
too has a Mac Plus with 2.5MB of RAM.
Back in July I observed similar slowdowns with Excel 2.2 on a Mac
Plus. I sent queries both to comp.sys.mac and to the internet Info-Mac
Digest. I only got back a few responses, but they all fit into this
pattern:
1. Excel 2.2 running on a Mac Plus or SE (both of which have
a 68000 processor) performs many operations (including starting
the application, opening, saving, and print-previewing a document)
about two or three times more slowly than Excel 1.5.
2. Excel 2.2 has substantially less space available for open
documents on a 1MB machine, and thrashes much more noticeably
when memory is low. (I've since upgraded to 2.5MB, so at least
*that* isn't a problem.)
Personally, I'm quite mad at Microsoft for not warning Macintosh
Plus users of these performance problems before encouraging us to
fork over $100 for the upgrade. In fact, I think if they can't tune
version 2.2, they should keep version 1.5 on the market for those
of us with "entry level" machines. I've complained about this to
a friend of mine who is highly placed in Microsoft development; he
promised to look into it but never replied. Perhaps if all of us
who are affected would write letters and send copies to Microsoft
customer service, to Microsoft's One-to-One newsletter, to MacWEEK,
MacWorld, etc., we could get Microsoft's attention.
Has anyone compared the performance of versions 1.5 and 2.2 on a
Macintosh Portable, which also uses the 68000 processor (but at a
higher clock rate)?
Paul McJones
mcjones@src.dec.com
decwrl!mcjones
(415) 853-2255
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<14211@jumbo.dec.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!lll-winken!decwrl!jumbo!mcjonesReferences:
<7940@ditmela.oz> <4016@ur-cc.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!lll-winken!decwrl!jumbo!mcjones From: mcjones@jumbo.dec.com (Paul McJones) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Why is Excel 2.2 is a magnitude (or two) slower than Excel 1.5 Summary: Excel 2.2 is slow on 68000-based Macintoshes Message-ID: <14211@jumbo.dec.com> Date: 15 Nov 89 00:57:28 GMT References: <7940@ditmela.oz> <4016@ur-cc.UUCP> Reply-To: mcjones@srcf0a.UUCP (Paul McJones) Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto Lines: 47