hans@ditmela.oz (Hans Eriksson) (11/13/89)
I was getting nearer the upper limit of my Excel 1.5 for each day. I have a big bookkeeping spreadsheat which take around 30 minutes to recalculate. I had started looking into WingZ when I saw Excel 2.2 My first go was just importing my old 1.5 files into Excel 2.2 and run them as they were. BUT IT WAS S L O W E R ! I have never heard of a new version that was slower than its predecesssor, so I wondered what I had done wrong. Maybe I haven't? According to the ads, 2.2. should be ~40% faster than 1.5. But not for me. I have a Plus with 2.5 MB and a HD20SC. Maybe 2.2 is not good at handling a lot of =DSUM(), maybe it's something else. Anyone that has the same experience? Anyone that is happier with 2.2? /hans -- Hans Eriksson (hans@ditmela.oz.au) CSIRO/DIT, 55 Barry Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia (we are GMT+11) Tel: +61 3 347-8644 Fax: +61 3 347-8987 Home: +61 3 534-5188 On a years leave from Swedish Institute of Computer Science (hans@sics.se)
mpip@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Annechiarico) (11/14/89)
In article <7940@ditmela.oz> hans@ditmela.UUCP (Hans Eriksson) writes: > >My first go was just importing my old 1.5 files into Excel 2.2 and run them >as they were. > >BUT IT WAS S L O W E R ! > >According to the >ads, 2.2. should be ~40% faster than 1.5. But not for me. I have a Plus >with 2.5 MB and a HD20SC. > >Maybe 2.2 is not good at handling a lot of =DSUM(), maybe it's something >else. I've found the same thing on a similar system: Mac Plus, 2.5MB. All the spreadsheets that I happen to use involve database commands. The calculations take about twice as long. It's a shame; I would very much like to use the new features of 2.2, but I can't take the performance hit. Eric Carleen University of Rochester Medical Center (716)-275-5391 Bitnet: heartedc@uorhbv Internet: mpip@uhura.cc.rochester.edu "The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away". - Tom Waits
mcjones@jumbo.dec.com (Paul McJones) (11/15/89)
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) 853-2255hans@ditmela.oz (Hans Eriksson) (11/15/89)
In article <14211@jumbo.dec.com> mcjones@srcf0a.UUCP (Paul McJones) writes: > 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 ... > 1. Excel 2.2 running on a Mac Plus or SE (both of which have > a 68000 processor) performs many operations (including starting ... > 2. Excel 2.2 has substantially less space available for open > documents on a 1MB machine, and thrashes much more noticeably ... > 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 Seems like you are saying that Excel 2.2 is faster than 1.5 on the faster machines. I tried 2.2 on our MacII and SE/30 and it was slow as a dead dog also on those machines. Has ANYONE run faster with 2.2 than 1.5, or at least at comparable speed? /hans -- Hans Eriksson (hans@ditmela.oz.au) CSIRO/DIT, 55 Barry Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia (we are GMT+11) Tel: +61 3 347-8644 Fax: +61 3 347-8987 Home: +61 3 534-5188 On a years leave from Swedish Institute of Computer Science (hans@sics.se)
oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (11/15/89)
Note the title of this post. Guys, an order of magnitude is a factor of 10. Two orders of magnitude is a factor of 100. A factor of two is not an order of magnitude (or two).
engber@thylacine.CS.WISC.EDU (Mike Engber) (11/16/89)
>Seems like you are saying that Excel 2.2 is faster >than 1.5 on the faster machines. > >I tried 2.2 on our MacII and SE/30 and it was slow >as a dead dog also on those machines. > >Has ANYONE run faster with 2.2 than 1.5, or at >least at comparable speed? I have a spreadsheet that runs much faster on my SE/30 with v2.2 than it did with v1.5. I believe it's because v2.2 only recalculates the cells that have changed rather than everything. I used to have to keep autocalculate turned off - now it's fast enough that I don't have to. -ME
housen@ssc-vax.UUCP (Kevin Housen) (11/16/89)
Several people have noted the slowness of Excel 2.2, principally on 68000 based machines. Well, the same is true for the 68020 (at least the MacII and accelerated MacPluses). We have been using both 1.5 and 2.2 and have been thoroughly disgusted with the performance of Excel 2.2. Contrary to the advertisements, version 2.2 runs significantly slower than 1.5 (a factor of 2 to 3 slower in the tests we ran). We found some cases where both versions ran at about the same speed, but these were rare. As an example, one of our typical applications of Excel uses a worksheet with, say, a couple hundred rows and 20 to 30 columns. This sheet may use some information from another (very small) worksheet. This runs about a factor of 2 slower in 2.2 compared with 1.5. Version 2.2 is slower not only because it recalculates slower, but also because it recalculates more often than 1.5. It also seems to be slower in opening files at times. If it werent for the fact that version 2.2 lets you print with thin lines on the Laserwriter, it would be Frisbee time for my Excel 2.2 disk. Kevin Housen
hans@ditmela.oz (Hans Eriksson) (11/16/89)
In article <32578@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes: > Note the title of this post. Guys, an order of magnitude is a factor of > 10. Two orders of magnitude is a factor of 100. A factor of two is not an > order of magnitude (or two). Yup, that is exactly what I meant! I finally left my MacPlus runing with my big spreadsheet (2100 rows and 24 columns (my personal bookkeeping for the last 12 months)) which took 20mins to recompute. I left that runing with Excel 2.2 over the night and it was still running at breakfast. When I stopped 2.2, it was still at 'Table:1' and had 2 more to go, so it sure was a magnitude by then (~24 times) and was heading towards two magnitudes. Maybe I have a very heavy sheet as I reach magnitudes of difference, whereas other people suffer 2-3 times. But I still have 18% memory left in Excel 1.5 so I can survive until 2.3-5 arrives with hopefully something better. /hans -- Hans Eriksson (hans@ditmela.oz.au) CSIRO/DIT, 55 Barry Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia (we are GMT+11) Tel: +61 3 347-8644 Fax: +61 3 347-8987 Home: +61 3 534-5188 On a years leave from Swedish Institute of Computer Science (hans@sics.se)
shino@qip.UUCP (Rei Shinozuka) (11/16/89)
In article <32578@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes: >Note the title of this post. Guys, an order of magnitude is a factor of >10. Two orders of magnitude is a factor of 100. A factor of two is not an >order of magnitude (or two). Actually, the more normal use of the term "order of magnitude" with respect to computer algorithms is O(n). If 2.2 runs 10 or even 100 times slower than 1.5 for an arbitrary n, it may still run in the same order of magnitude, with a constant of 10 or 100, respectively. To empirically determine the complexity of 2.2 vs 1.5, one would have to determine running time for a large range of n for both (and this does not even take into account data types and layout, machine configurations, etc) If the running times remain relatively proportional for both versions for all n (2.2 is consistently x slower than 1.5) then the programs are linear with respect to each other. -rei p.s. It's coming up on 10 years since I took my first college computer course, so the above may be a trifle rusty.
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (11/18/89)
In article <1415@qip.UUCP> shino@qip.UUCP (Rei Shinozuka) writes: > Actually, the more normal use of the term "order of magnitude" with respect > to computer algorithms is O(n). If 2.2 runs 10 or even 100 times slower > than 1.5 for an arbitrary n, it may still run in the same order of magnitude, > with a constant of 10 or 100, respectively. We're going to quickly sink into a debate about semantics almost as bad as the "how do you pronounce vi" crap the supposed unix wizards are arguing about, but I think your usage in incorrect. What you are describing (linear vs. quadratic vs. exponential vs. etc.) is what I would call just plain "order". Once you add the "of magnitude" you are talking about a different concept, i.e. powers of ten. Nobody talks about, for example, a "third order of magnitude differential equation". -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"
jim@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU (Jim Providakes) (11/18/89)
Try WingZ. I had used Excel 1.5 and decided to try WingZ. I would never go back to Excel. WingZ is an excellent spread sheet for engineering applications.It has the kind of graphics that engineering requires, i.e., contour and surface plots. These plots are extremely easy to generate and the quality is excellent. I understand that Version 2.0 will allow combination of surface and contour plots. In addition, WingZ has excellent array of advanced math functions which are e a s y to use (matrix operators, stats, etc...). Plus the hyperscript language is wonderful to use. Unlike Excel which is just darn to cryptic (ie assembly language like). I have nothing to do with the company that makes WingZ.
benw@microsoft.UUCP (Benjamin Waldman) (11/21/89)
In article <14211@jumbo.dec.com> mcjones@srcf0a.UUCP (Paul McJones) writes: >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. There is a bug in Excel 2.2 that causes some database functions to take a long time to recalculate. This bug is fixed in Excel 2.2a, an upgrade which is available free to all registered users of Excel 2.2. Other than this (and contrary to what others have written on the net), Excel 2.2 recalculates FASTER than Excel 1.5. Ben Waldman Software Design Engineer Microsoft Corporation Applications Division uunet!microsoft!benw
6sigma@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (11/25/89)
In article <9110@microsoft.UUCP> benw@microsoft.UUCP (Benjamin Waldman) writes: |There is a bug in Excel 2.2 that causes some database functions to take |a long time to recalculate. This bug is fixed in Excel 2.2a, an |upgrade which is available free to all registered users of Excel 2.2. | |Other than this (and contrary to what others have written on the net), |Excel 2.2 recalculates FASTER than Excel 1.5. Sorry, but my experience is just the opposite. I have some fairly large linked worksheets. None of them use database functions. In fact the only functions they use are IF() and SUM(). However, they loaded and recalculated significantly (2 to 3 times) slower under Excel 2.2 than 1.5. Needless to say, I didn't send for the update (I took my worksheets to a local dealer to try 2.2 before I sent for the update.)