jeff@drexel.UUCP (Jeff White) (07/26/88)
I've been testing an upgrade of a XT clone, trying to add a 10 MHz 8086
board and 8087, and have been using Multiplan and 123 (both version 2.0, I
think) as benchmark programs, since that is what the systems run most of the
time. My results have raised a couple of questions I hope can be answered.
1. The test for Multiplan with the 8087 gave really no improvement. I saw
a review of Multiplan version 3.0 which explicity says it supports the
8087. I therefore get the impression that version 2.0 doesn't support it.
Is this true?
2. The article says that Microsoft claims it is twice as fast as version 2.0.
Is this a real or valid claim?
3. In working with just a couple files (the same files, converted to the
appropriate formats (.mp, .wks, etc.)), I've noticed that 123 is
significantly slower than Multiplan, mostly obvious in file operations.
For example, a 25k file took 12 sec. to load into 123 in WK1 format while
only 5.6 seconds in Mutliplan format. A 227k file took 8 minutes to load
into 123 (.WK1), over 21 minutes in Multiplan with the .WKS format, but
only 28 seconds in the Multiplan format. I should mention that the
conversion from .WK1 to .WKS gave some errors (the message, "Some cells
couldn't be converted"), but I don't think that would cause such the
dramatic difference (8 minutes vs 30 seconds).
4. There are a lot of other spreadsheets on the market, which are supposed
to be compatible and similar to 123 and/or Multiplan, but which are
advertised as being much quicker and less expensive. Can anyone vouch for
these claims and/or recommend any?
Much thanks to everyone.
Jeff White
Drexel University - ECE Dept.
rutgers!bpa!drexel!jeff