I have complex charts, with many data points. The redraw time on my machine
in Excel 2003 (all updates for office and wxp installed) is 2-3 sec, which I
consider extremely slow, so I was looking forward to an new chart engine with
better speed from 2007, but am flabergasted at how slow 2007 is.
Try this...create a line chart, 12 columns of 5000 points each. Put it
imbeded in a worksheet. Tab to another worksheet, tab back, time the redraw.
On my machine (3 ghz, 2gig ram), redraw time is 2-3 sec for all the lines to
show up on the graph. In 2007, it takes a full minute! the graph looks
better (lines are more clear), but wow, this redraw time is crazy! I created
the graph in 2003, pulled it into 2007 and saved it as 2007.xlsm file type.

I also have a graph with ~ 50 5k point lines, of which I hide most of them
at any one time. This chart redraw in 2007 can go on for 5 minutes!
(compared to 10-15 sec in 2003)

Am I unaware of some setting to speed things up, or did MS realy make charts
10X slower to redraw?
Best regards
Larry

Larry -

Keep in mind that you are not using Excel 2007. Unless you have been able to
time-transport yourself into the future, you are actually using Excel 2007
Beta 2. And you should not expect that a Beta version is optimized for
speed.

- Mike
www.mikemiddleton.com

"larry godfrey" wrote in message
...
I have complex charts, with many data points. The redraw time on my
machine
in Excel 2003 (all updates for office and wxp installed) is 2-3 sec, which
I
consider extremely slow, so I was looking forward to an new chart engine
with
better speed from 2007, but am flabergasted at how slow 2007 is.
Try this...create a line chart, 12 columns of 5000 points each. Put it
imbeded in a worksheet. Tab to another worksheet, tab back, time the
redraw.
On my machine (3 ghz, 2gig ram), redraw time is 2-3 sec for all the lines
to
show up on the graph. In 2007, it takes a full minute! the graph looks
better (lines are more clear), but wow, this redraw time is crazy! I
created
the graph in 2003, pulled it into 2007 and saved it as 2007.xlsm file
type.

I also have a graph with ~ 50 5k point lines, of which I hide most of them
at any one time. This chart redraw in 2007 can go on for 5 minutes!
(compared to 10-15 sec in 2003)

Am I unaware of some setting to speed things up, or did MS realy make
charts
10X slower to redraw?
Best regards
Larry

Sorry for being too casual about the beta part...
However, I would not expect optimization for speed to handle a 10X slow down.
I have run some additional tests using VBA for sheet calculations. If I
calculate a singele row in a complex sheet inside vba, it takes 15! times
longer in the 2007 beta vs 2003.

The only time I see 2007 beta any better in speed compared to 2003 is in a
workbook where 2003 dependency limit has been exceeded so 2003 has to do a
full recalc while 2007 beta only does a "changed" recalc.

Has anyone else done some speed tests?

Best Regards
Larry


"Mike Middleton" wrote:

Larry -

Keep in mind that you are not using Excel 2007. Unless you have been able to
time-transport yourself into the future, you are actually using Excel 2007
Beta 2. And you should not expect that a Beta version is optimized for
speed.

- Mike
www.mikemiddleton.com

It's not just optimization. If you've used the various charting and graphics
modules much in 2007 Beta 2, you will have noticed that a lot of things are
still a bit off. It's a combination of correcting the glitches, optimizing
the internal processes, and who knows what else, that will improve the
performance of the program.

- Jon
-------
Jon Peltier, Microsoft Excel MVP
Tutorials and Custom Solutions
http://PeltierTech.com
_______


"larry godfrey" wrote in message
...
Sorry for being too casual about the beta part...
However, I would not expect optimization for speed to handle a 10X slow
down.
I have run some additional tests using VBA for sheet calculations. If I
calculate a singele row in a complex sheet inside vba, it takes 15! times
longer in the 2007 beta vs 2003.

The only time I see 2007 beta any better in speed compared to 2003 is in a
workbook where 2003 dependency limit has been exceeded so 2003 has to do a
full recalc while 2007 beta only does a "changed" recalc.

Has anyone else done some speed tests?

Best Regards
Larry


"Mike Middleton" wrote:

Larry -

Keep in mind that you are not using Excel 2007. Unless you have been able
to
time-transport yourself into the future, you are actually using Excel
2007
Beta 2. And you should not expect that a Beta version is optimized for
speed.

- Mike
www.mikemiddleton.com

Scott Rubble of microsoft was able to recreate my slow graphing with beta 2,
but has encouraging comments regarding optimization process: "With our recent
performance improvements in charting, it renders much faster than in Beta 2.
The upcoming release of Beta 2 TR should be a good indication of the actual
performance you will see at RTM."
So I am in "wait and see" mode! :o)
Heeeeres hoping!
Larry

I have downloaded Office 2007 (Home & Student edition) today, and am appalled
at the very slow performance. It is so slow, it's unuseable. For example, if
I try to delete a graph (to help speed Excel up), it delays by at least 20
secs, and a menu appears for about 1/2 second and then disappears again.

Useless.

David

"David Com" wrote:

I have downloaded Office 2007 (Home & Student edition) today, and am appalled at the very slow performance. It is so slow, it's unuseable.

David

Thanks for confirming my findings, David. Even the new release, though
faster, is unuseable for me too. Just make a graph with 50k data points and
you will see what we mean.

I had high hopes because of the optimization done for multiprocessors for
speed enhancement, and I could use the larger number of available columns
too, but once you add a large graph it slows to a crawl, even when just
chnanging from tab with the graph to one without. My graphs take MINUTES to
get their view generated in 2007, and only seconds in 2003.

I have always thought of the graphics package for Excel to be a poorly
executed add on, almost an after thought, awkward, limited, and slow.
(Immagine having hide non-visible data points option in the tools/options,
not in any menu list directly related to graphing for instance!). There are
lots of non-excel scientific graphing packages that have much more
flexibility and are much faster, but no good add-ins that I know of that use
there own code rather than just using the Excel commands in fancy macros. I
need to combine the flexibility of excel worksheets and vba with the graphing
power of these scientific graphing packages.

If any one knows of an add-in, even if I have to pay for it, that by-passes
Excel graphics I would appreciate knowing about it.

Happy New Year
Larry

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

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
...
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

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

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
...
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
...
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

On Nov 5, 11:14 am, Steen T. wrote:
Hello

I have just upgraded from Office pro 2003 to2007and have exactly the same
experience as mentioned in the above threads inExcelbut 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. In2007it 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?

Do you really need to ask?

Is there
anything I can do to improve performance or will Microsoft do something about
it ? What happened to the dual processor feature?

You could beg for the hotfix. That makes it slightly more bearable, or
alternatively if you are in the UK you could try rejecting the product
as not fit for purpose. It is about time somebody took up the cudgels
on this one.

XL2007 was not ready for release and still isn't. It might get better
after SP1 if we are lucky.
Numeric formatting problems with the simple calculation =77.1*850 does
not inspire confidence.

And I have seen a few larger complex graphs where it is quite a bit
more than an order of magnitude slower.

"Mike Barlow" wrote:
Hello

I believe that ANY Office2007program that runsslowerthan 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.

A 10% slowdown to have more rows or columns would be worthwhile, maybe
even 50%. That level of overhead can be absorbed in a hardware upgrade
or by adding extra ram. But what we have here is a 1000% slowdown for
daring to have user defined axis scaling on graphs with modest amounts
of data.

It works OK if all you ever plot is sales figures by quarter. But it
is dead in the water at present for many scientific users with
datasets of a few thousand points which used to work perfectly in
versions 2000 through 2003.

I believe that Office2007will not gain wide public acceptance if it is
perceived to be excessively slow as indicated by some of the previous posts
here.

I wish I had your confidence. It seems most users are as dumb as
Microsoft thinks they are.

Perhaps more effort should be devoted to optimizingExcelfor
math-intensive, high-speed processing of large data arrays.

Some slowdown in the larger more capable model was inevitable, but I
don't believe this particular problem with the graphics is related to
the grid size. It looks more like daft cosmetic display features
trumping functionality.

"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 believeExcelusers, 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 tasksExcelis 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.

A polite way of saying almost useless. It would be difficult to make
charting any worse :(

Regards,
Martin Brown

Hello

You are right. If nobody has done anything about the problem since your post
in March - a good 7 months should allow something - I hope my post has added
some fuel to the fire.
--
Steen


"Martin Brown" wrote:

On Nov 5, 11:14 am, Steen T. wrote:
Hello

I have just upgraded from Office pro 2003 to2007and have exactly the same
experience as mentioned in the above threads inExcelbut 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. In2007it 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?

Do you really need to ask?

Is there
anything I can do to improve performance or will Microsoft do something about
it ? What happened to the dual processor feature?

You could beg for the hotfix. That makes it slightly more bearable, or
alternatively if you are in the UK you could try rejecting the product
as not fit for purpose. It is about time somebody took up the cudgels
on this one.

XL2007 was not ready for release and still isn't. It might get better
after SP1 if we are lucky.
Numeric formatting problems with the simple calculation =77.1*850 does
not inspire confidence.

And I have seen a few larger complex graphs where it is quite a bit
more than an order of magnitude slower.

"Mike Barlow" wrote:
Hello

I believe that ANY Office2007program that runsslowerthan 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.

A 10% slowdown to have more rows or columns would be worthwhile, maybe
even 50%. That level of overhead can be absorbed in a hardware upgrade
or by adding extra ram. But what we have here is a 1000% slowdown for
daring to have user defined axis scaling on graphs with modest amounts
of data.

It works OK if all you ever plot is sales figures by quarter. But it
is dead in the water at present for many scientific users with
datasets of a few thousand points which used to work perfectly in
versions 2000 through 2003.

I believe that Office2007will not gain wide public acceptance if it is
perceived to be excessively slow as indicated by some of the previous posts
here.

I wish I had your confidence. It seems most users are as dumb as
Microsoft thinks they are.

Perhaps more effort should be devoted to optimizingExcelfor
math-intensive, high-speed processing of large data arrays.

Some slowdown in the larger more capable model was inevitable, but I
don't believe this particular problem with the graphics is related to
the grid size. It looks more like daft cosmetic display features
trumping functionality.

"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 believeExcelusers, 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 tasksExcelis 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.

A polite way of saying almost useless. It would be difficult to make
charting any worse :(

Regards,
Martin Brown

Hello,

We are an R&D facility and we use excel almost all the time to plot scatter
charts (x,y) with 10000+ datapoints and we have the sluggish unberable
performace. I 'begged' for the fix and installed SP1 afterwards and I still
have the same slow performance. Actually I dont notice any difference.

Has there been any improvement in this matter ??

Thanks

Juan



"Steen T." wrote:

Hello

You are right. If nobody has done anything about the problem since your post
in March - a good 7 months should allow something - I hope my post has added
some fuel to the fire.
--
Steen


"Martin Brown" wrote:

On Nov 5, 11:14 am, Steen T. wrote:
Hello

I have just upgraded from Office pro 2003 to2007and have exactly the same
experience as mentioned in the above threads inExcelbut 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. In2007it 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?

Do you really need to ask?

Is there
anything I can do to improve performance or will Microsoft do something about
it ? What happened to the dual processor feature?

You could beg for the hotfix. That makes it slightly more bearable, or
alternatively if you are in the UK you could try rejecting the product
as not fit for purpose. It is about time somebody took up the cudgels
on this one.

XL2007 was not ready for release and still isn't. It might get better
after SP1 if we are lucky.
Numeric formatting problems with the simple calculation =77.1*850 does
not inspire confidence.

And I have seen a few larger complex graphs where it is quite a bit
more than an order of magnitude slower.

"Mike Barlow" wrote:
Hello

I believe that ANY Office2007program that runsslowerthan 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.

A 10% slowdown to have more rows or columns would be worthwhile, maybe
even 50%. That level of overhead can be absorbed in a hardware upgrade
or by adding extra ram. But what we have here is a 1000% slowdown for
daring to have user defined axis scaling on graphs with modest amounts
of data.

It works OK if all you ever plot is sales figures by quarter. But it
is dead in the water at present for many scientific users with
datasets of a few thousand points which used to work perfectly in
versions 2000 through 2003.

I believe that Office2007will not gain wide public acceptance if it is
perceived to be excessively slow as indicated by some of the previous posts
here.

I wish I had your confidence. It seems most users are as dumb as
Microsoft thinks they are.

Perhaps more effort should be devoted to optimizingExcelfor
math-intensive, high-speed processing of large data arrays.

Some slowdown in the larger more capable model was inevitable, but I
don't believe this particular problem with the graphics is related to
the grid size. It looks more like daft cosmetic display features
trumping functionality.

"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 believeExcelusers, 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 tasksExcelis 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.

A polite way of saying almost useless. It would be difficult to make
charting any worse :(

Regards,
Martin Brown

You may have to upgrade to Excel 2003. The Excel 2007 SP1 fixed a limited
number of performance issues, and only by a limited amount.

- Jon
-------
Jon Peltier, Microsoft Excel MVP
Tutorials and Custom Solutions
Peltier Technical Services, Inc. - http://PeltierTech.com
_______


"Juan M. Russo" <Juan M. wrote in message
...
Hello,

We are an R&D facility and we use excel almost all the time to plot
scatter
charts (x,y) with 10000+ datapoints and we have the sluggish unberable
performace. I 'begged' for the fix and installed SP1 afterwards and I
still
have the same slow performance. Actually I dont notice any difference.

Has there been any improvement in this matter ??

Thanks

Juan



"Steen T." wrote:

Hello

You are right. If nobody has done anything about the problem since your
post
in March - a good 7 months should allow something - I hope my post has
added
some fuel to the fire.
--
Steen


"Martin Brown" wrote:

On Nov 5, 11:14 am, Steen T. wrote:
Hello

I have just upgraded from Office pro 2003 to2007and have exactly the
same
experience as mentioned in the above threads inExcelbut 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. In2007it
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?

Do you really need to ask?

Is there
anything I can do to improve performance or will Microsoft do
something about
it ? What happened to the dual processor feature?

You could beg for the hotfix. That makes it slightly more bearable, or
alternatively if you are in the UK you could try rejecting the product
as not fit for purpose. It is about time somebody took up the cudgels
on this one.

XL2007 was not ready for release and still isn't. It might get better
after SP1 if we are lucky.
Numeric formatting problems with the simple calculation =77.1*850 does
not inspire confidence.

And I have seen a few larger complex graphs where it is quite a bit
more than an order of magnitude slower.

"Mike Barlow" wrote:
Hello

I believe that ANY Office2007program that runsslowerthan 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.

A 10% slowdown to have more rows or columns would be worthwhile, maybe
even 50%. That level of overhead can be absorbed in a hardware upgrade
or by adding extra ram. But what we have here is a 1000% slowdown for
daring to have user defined axis scaling on graphs with modest amounts
of data.

It works OK if all you ever plot is sales figures by quarter. But it
is dead in the water at present for many scientific users with
datasets of a few thousand points which used to work perfectly in
versions 2000 through 2003.

I believe that Office2007will not gain wide public acceptance
if it is
perceived to be excessively slow as indicated by some of the
previous posts
here.

I wish I had your confidence. It seems most users are as dumb as
Microsoft thinks they are.

Perhaps more effort should be devoted to optimizingExcelfor
math-intensive, high-speed processing of large data arrays.

Some slowdown in the larger more capable model was inevitable, but I
don't believe this particular problem with the graphics is related to
the grid size. It looks more like daft cosmetic display features
trumping functionality.

"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 believeExcelusers, 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 tasksExcelis 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.

A polite way of saying almost useless. It would be difficult to make
charting any worse :(

Regards,
Martin Brown

I experienced the same issue on my new laptop which has US Vista and
Excel2007. My old one operates on Dutch Vista and Dutch Excel 2007, and is
much faster than both 2003 and 2007 in US version. Clearly there is a bug in
the US version that has been fixed in the Dutch version. I will now install
Dutch 2007 on my new laptop.

Paul Buijs

"Jon Peltier" wrote:

You may have to upgrade to Excel 2003. The Excel 2007 SP1 fixed a limited
number of performance issues, and only by a limited amount.

- Jon
-------
Jon Peltier, Microsoft Excel MVP
Tutorials and Custom Solutions
Peltier Technical Services, Inc. - http://PeltierTech.com
_______


"Juan M. Russo" <Juan M. wrote in message
...
Hello,

We are an R&D facility and we use excel almost all the time to plot
scatter
charts (x,y) with 10000+ datapoints and we have the sluggish unberable
performace. I 'begged' for the fix and installed SP1 afterwards and I
still
have the same slow performance. Actually I dont notice any difference.

Has there been any improvement in this matter ??

Thanks

Juan



"Steen T." wrote:

Hello

You are right. If nobody has done anything about the problem since your
post
in March - a good 7 months should allow something - I hope my post has
added
some fuel to the fire.
--
Steen


"Martin Brown" wrote:

On Nov 5, 11:14 am, Steen T. wrote:
Hello

I have just upgraded from Office pro 2003 to2007and have exactly the
same
experience as mentioned in the above threads inExcelbut 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. In2007it
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?

Do you really need to ask?

Is there
anything I can do to improve performance or will Microsoft do
something about
it ? What happened to the dual processor feature?

You could beg for the hotfix. That makes it slightly more bearable, or
alternatively if you are in the UK you could try rejecting the product
as not fit for purpose. It is about time somebody took up the cudgels
on this one.

XL2007 was not ready for release and still isn't. It might get better
after SP1 if we are lucky.
Numeric formatting problems with the simple calculation =77.1*850 does
not inspire confidence.

And I have seen a few larger complex graphs where it is quite a bit
more than an order of magnitude slower.

"Mike Barlow" wrote:
Hello

I believe that ANY Office2007program that runsslowerthan 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.

A 10% slowdown to have more rows or columns would be worthwhile, maybe
even 50%. That level of overhead can be absorbed in a hardware upgrade
or by adding extra ram. But what we have here is a 1000% slowdown for
daring to have user defined axis scaling on graphs with modest amounts
of data.

It works OK if all you ever plot is sales figures by quarter. But it
is dead in the water at present for many scientific users with
datasets of a few thousand points which used to work perfectly in
versions 2000 through 2003.

I believe that Office2007will not gain wide public acceptance
if it is
perceived to be excessively slow as indicated by some of the
previous posts
here.

I wish I had your confidence. It seems most users are as dumb as
Microsoft thinks they are.

Perhaps more effort should be devoted to optimizingExcelfor
math-intensive, high-speed processing of large data arrays.

Some slowdown in the larger more capable model was inevitable, but I
don't believe this particular problem with the graphics is related to
the grid size. It looks more like daft cosmetic display features
trumping functionality.

"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 believeExcelusers, 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 tasksExcelis 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.

A polite way of saying almost useless. It would be difficult to make
charting any worse :(

Regards,
Martin Brown

Hi Paul

Do you have a test file?
If you have one send it to me private so I can test it in Dutch/English on my machines

Heb je een bestand dat ik kan gebruiken om te testen
Deze pagina heb ik gemaakt over een ander probleem
http://www.rondebruin.nl/shape.htm

Groeten Ron



--

Regards Ron de Bruin
http://www.rondebruin.nl/tips.htm


"Paul Buijs" <Paul wrote in message ...
I experienced the same issue on my new laptop which has US Vista and
Excel2007. My old one operates on Dutch Vista and Dutch Excel 2007, and is
much faster than both 2003 and 2007 in US version. Clearly there is a bug in
the US version that has been fixed in the Dutch version. I will now install
Dutch 2007 on my new laptop.

Paul Buijs

"Jon Peltier" wrote:

You may have to upgrade to Excel 2003. The Excel 2007 SP1 fixed a limited
number of performance issues, and only by a limited amount.

- Jon
-------
Jon Peltier, Microsoft Excel MVP
Tutorials and Custom Solutions
Peltier Technical Services, Inc. - http://PeltierTech.com
_______


"Juan M. Russo" <Juan M. wrote in message
...
Hello,

We are an R&D facility and we use excel almost all the time to plot
scatter
charts (x,y) with 10000+ datapoints and we have the sluggish unberable
performace. I 'begged' for the fix and installed SP1 afterwards and I
still
have the same slow performance. Actually I dont notice any difference.

Has there been any improvement in this matter ??

Thanks

Juan



"Steen T." wrote:

Hello

You are right. If nobody has done anything about the problem since your
post
in March - a good 7 months should allow something - I hope my post has
added
some fuel to the fire.
--
Steen


"Martin Brown" wrote:

On Nov 5, 11:14 am, Steen T. wrote:
Hello

I have just upgraded from Office pro 2003 to2007and have exactly the
same
experience as mentioned in the above threads inExcelbut 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. In2007it
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?

Do you really need to ask?

Is there
anything I can do to improve performance or will Microsoft do
something about
it ? What happened to the dual processor feature?

You could beg for the hotfix. That makes it slightly more bearable, or
alternatively if you are in the UK you could try rejecting the product
as not fit for purpose. It is about time somebody took up the cudgels
on this one.

XL2007 was not ready for release and still isn't. It might get better
after SP1 if we are lucky.
Numeric formatting problems with the simple calculation =77.1*850 does
not inspire confidence.

And I have seen a few larger complex graphs where it is quite a bit
more than an order of magnitude slower.

"Mike Barlow" wrote:
Hello

I believe that ANY Office2007program that runsslowerthan 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.

A 10% slowdown to have more rows or columns would be worthwhile, maybe
even 50%. That level of overhead can be absorbed in a hardware upgrade
or by adding extra ram. But what we have here is a 1000% slowdown for
daring to have user defined axis scaling on graphs with modest amounts
of data.

It works OK if all you ever plot is sales figures by quarter. But it
is dead in the water at present for many scientific users with
datasets of a few thousand points which used to work perfectly in
versions 2000 through 2003.

I believe that Office2007will not gain wide public acceptance
if it is
perceived to be excessively slow as indicated by some of the
previous posts
here.

I wish I had your confidence. It seems most users are as dumb as
Microsoft thinks they are.

Perhaps more effort should be devoted to optimizingExcelfor
math-intensive, high-speed processing of large data arrays.

Some slowdown in the larger more capable model was inevitable, but I
don't believe this particular problem with the graphics is related to
the grid size. It looks more like daft cosmetic display features
trumping functionality.

"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 believeExcelusers, 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 tasksExcelis 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.

A polite way of saying almost useless. It would be difficult to make
charting any worse :(

Regards,
Martin Brown

Looks like my spelling when I type too fast!

- Jon

"Ron de Bruin" wrote in message
...
Hi Paul

Do you have a test file?
If you have one send it to me private so I can test it in Dutch/English on
my machines

Heb je een bestand dat ik kan gebruiken om te testen
Deze pagina heb ik gemaakt over een ander probleem
http://www.rondebruin.nl/shape.htm

Groeten Ron



--

Regards Ron de Bruin
http://www.rondebruin.nl/tips.htm


"Paul Buijs" <Paul wrote in message
...
I experienced the same issue on my new laptop which has US Vista and
Excel2007. My old one operates on Dutch Vista and Dutch Excel 2007, and is
much faster than both 2003 and 2007 in US version. Clearly there is a bug
in the US version that has been fixed in the Dutch version. I will now
install Dutch 2007 on my new laptop.

Paul Buijs

"Jon Peltier" wrote:

You may have to upgrade to Excel 2003. The Excel 2007 SP1 fixed a
limited number of performance issues, and only by a limited amount.

- Jon
-------
Jon Peltier, Microsoft Excel MVP
Tutorials and Custom Solutions
Peltier Technical Services, Inc. - http://PeltierTech.com
_______


"Juan M. Russo" <Juan M. wrote in
message ...
Hello,

We are an R&D facility and we use excel almost all the time to plot
scatter
charts (x,y) with 10000+ datapoints and we have the sluggish unberable
performace. I 'begged' for the fix and installed SP1 afterwards and I
still
have the same slow performance. Actually I dont notice any
difference.

Has there been any improvement in this matter ??

Thanks

Juan



"Steen T." wrote:

Hello

You are right. If nobody has done anything about the problem since
your post
in March - a good 7 months should allow something - I hope my post
has added
some fuel to the fire.
--
Steen


"Martin Brown" wrote:

On Nov 5, 11:14 am, Steen T.
wrote:
Hello

I have just upgraded from Office pro 2003 to2007and have exactly
the same
experience as mentioned in the above threads inExcelbut 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.
In2007it 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?

Do you really need to ask?

Is there
anything I can do to improve performance or will Microsoft do
something about
it ? What happened to the dual processor feature?

You could beg for the hotfix. That makes it slightly more bearable,
or
alternatively if you are in the UK you could try rejecting the
product
as not fit for purpose. It is about time somebody took up the
cudgels
on this one.

XL2007 was not ready for release and still isn't. It might get
better
after SP1 if we are lucky.
Numeric formatting problems with the simple calculation =77.1*850
does
not inspire confidence.

And I have seen a few larger complex graphs where it is quite a bit
more than an order of magnitude slower.

"Mike Barlow" wrote:
Hello

I believe that ANY Office2007program that runsslowerthan
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.

A 10% slowdown to have more rows or columns would be worthwhile,
maybe
even 50%. That level of overhead can be absorbed in a hardware
upgrade
or by adding extra ram. But what we have here is a 1000% slowdown
for
daring to have user defined axis scaling on graphs with modest
amounts
of data.

It works OK if all you ever plot is sales figures by quarter. But
it
is dead in the water at present for many scientific users with
datasets of a few thousand points which used to work perfectly in
versions 2000 through 2003.

I believe that Office2007will not gain wide public
acceptance if it is
perceived to be excessively slow as indicated by some of the
previous posts
here.

I wish I had your confidence. It seems most users are as dumb as
Microsoft thinks they are.

Perhaps more effort should be devoted to optimizingExcelfor
math-intensive, high-speed processing of large data arrays.

Some slowdown in the larger more capable model was inevitable, but
I
don't believe this particular problem with the graphics is related
to
the grid size. It looks more like daft cosmetic display features
trumping functionality.

"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 believeExcelusers, 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 tasksExcelis 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.

A polite way of saying almost useless. It would be difficult to
make
charting any worse :(

Regards,
Martin Brown

Nice to see that the Problem that I am currently seeing in Office 2007
enterprise dates back to the beta. I have 10 curves for one chart each easly
could have upto 2000 points, redraw will eat up 100% of one core for a good
half minute before an update, and mean while excel is useless. (2.00Ghz,
Intel P7350, 4.00 GB of RAM, with vista x64)

"larry godfrey" wrote:

I have complex charts, with many data points. The redraw time on my machine
in Excel 2003 (all updates for office and wxp installed) is 2-3 sec, which I
consider extremely slow, so I was looking forward to an new chart engine with
better speed from 2007, but am flabergasted at how slow 2007 is.
Try this...create a line chart, 12 columns of 5000 points each. Put it
imbeded in a worksheet. Tab to another worksheet, tab back, time the redraw.
On my machine (3 ghz, 2gig ram), redraw time is 2-3 sec for all the lines to
show up on the graph. In 2007, it takes a full minute! the graph looks
better (lines are more clear), but wow, this redraw time is crazy! I created
the graph in 2003, pulled it into 2007 and saved it as 2007.xlsm file type.

I also have a graph with ~ 50 5k point lines, of which I hide most of them
at any one time. This chart redraw in 2007 can go on for 5 minutes!
(compared to 10-15 sec in 2003)

Am I unaware of some setting to speed things up, or did MS realy make charts
10X slower to redraw?
Best regards
Larry