GD.SAR@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sandy Rockowitz) (04/02/91)
Has anyone had experience using the OS/2 version of Excel? Is it as mindless a port as Word appears to be, or does it actually take advantage OS/2? Sandy Rockowitz gd.sar@forsythe.stanford.edu
meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer) (04/02/91)
GD.SAR@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sandy Rockowitz) writes: >Has anyone had experience using the OS/2 version of Excel? >Is it as mindless a port as Word appears to be, or does it actually >take advantage OS/2? Excel for OS/2 would seem to be an application that is actually ported to PM, rather than recompiled with that infernal SMK. It works quite well -- I use it exclusively over Lotus 123. However, I've found that our favorite Microsoft programmers still haven't mastered the "art" of using more than one thread -- the hourglass still appears during recalc. (This is version 2.2, not 3.0. Who knows? they might have fixed it in 3.0.) Don +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Don Meyer internet: dlmeyer@uiuc.edu "He who restricts another's right to self-defense is accomplice to any crime committed because of the lack of self defense."
edwardj@microsoft.UUCP (Edward JUNG) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr1.232008.17288@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer) writes: [...] >However, I've found that our favorite Microsoft programmers still haven't >mastered the "art" of using more than one thread -- the hourglass still appears >during recalc. > You are correct: Excel for OS/2 is not multi-threaded. -- Edward Jung Microsoft Corp. My opinions do not reflect any policy of my employer.
rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr1.211419.17076@morrow.stanford.edu> GD.SAR@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sandy Rockowitz) writes: >Has anyone had experience using the OS/2 version of Excel? >Is it as mindless a port as Word appears to be, or does it actually >take advantage OS/2? I use Excel frequently. It works like the Windows version. I don't feel much of OS/2 specific extensions (multithreading) but it has some extra features over the Windows version and Excel is not as big an application as Word is, so the drawbacks from not using multiple threads are not as big as with Word. I think as long as we don't have that much applications for OS/2 it is better to have this one than no version of Excel. And it seems more stable than the Windows version. I never had any errors. Kai Uwe Rommel
colin@la.excelan.com (Colin Goldstein) (04/06/91)
The News Manager) Nntp-Posting-Host: la Reply-To: colin@la.novell.com (Colin Goldstein) Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Ca References: <1991Apr1.211419.17076@morrow.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1991 02:05:13 GMT In article <1991Apr1.211419.17076@morrow.stanford.edu> GD.SAR@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sandy Rockowitz) writes: >Has anyone had experience using the OS/2 version of Excel? >Is it as mindless a port as Word appears to be, or does it actually >take advantage OS/2? > I've used it and it's a mindless port. What else would you expect in light of recent events??? Colin -- /-------------------------------------------------------------------\ | The views expressed here are my own. | Norm, what are you | | They do not necessarily represent | up too??? | | the views expressed by my employer. | | | ---------------| My ideal weight if I | | colin@novell.com | Novell Inc., | were 11 feet tall. | | uunet!novell!colin | San Jose | - Cheers | \-------------------------------------------------------------------/
ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) (04/06/91)
In article <1991Apr1.211419.17076@morrow.stanford.edu> GD.SAR@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sandy Rockowitz) writes: >Has anyone had experience using the OS/2 version of Excel? >Is it as mindless a port as Word appears to be, or does it actually >take advantage OS/2? The currently released version (2.2) is a genuine conversion(i.e., it doesn't use the SMK/WLO porting library), but it isn't a very good adaptation -- no use of threads, and poor use of virtual memory. My understanding is that the new version (3.0) is supposed to be out in a few months (MS said "within six months of the release of the Windows version). I've also heard that it *IS* a mindless/SMK/WLO port, so will perform even worse than 2.2. I hope this is wrong. Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-822-3074 Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1Z2 | Fax: 604-822-5116
tshea@vax1.mankato.msus.edu (04/08/91)
In article <1991Apr6.060154.4056@unixg.ubc.ca>, ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) writes: > In article <1991Apr1.211419.17076@morrow.stanford.edu> GD.SAR@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sandy Rockowitz) writes: >>Has anyone had experience using the OS/2 version of Excel? >>Is it as mindless a port as Word appears to be, or does it actually >>take advantage OS/2? > The currently released version (2.2) is a genuine conversion(i.e., it doesn't > use the SMK/WLO porting library), but it isn't a very good adaptation -- > no use of threads, and poor use of virtual memory. > > My understanding is that the new version (3.0) is supposed to be out in a > few months (MS said "within six months of the release of the Windows version). > I've also heard that it *IS* a mindless/SMK/WLO port, so will perform > even worse than 2.2. > I hope this is wrong. > > Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca > University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG > University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-822-3074 > Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1Z2 | Fax: 604-822-5116 For the usual managers and secretaries, Excel 3.0 is a gift from god. For people who actually do something serious with spreadsheets, Excel 3.0 (from my tests of the beta version we have) is still a 'mindless' port but it performs a lot better then 2.2. tim shea International IS&DP 3M, Inc. my opinions are my own...
ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr6.060154.4056@unixg.ubc.ca> I wrote: >My understanding is that the new version (3.0) is supposed to be out in a >few months (MS said "within six months of the release of the Windows version). >I've also heard that it *IS* a mindless/SMK/WLO port, so will perform >even worse than 2.2. >I hope this is wrong. I've since been told by somebody within Microsoft that Excel 3.0 uses the same "layer" technique as the previous 2.x version, and that it won't be just an SMK port. Still no multi-threading, but it's supposed to be more responsive than before. The same contact at MS also suggests the release version of WLO will perform a lot better than the pre-release versions -- there's been further work on Window creation and DC creation which were slow points in the pre-release versions. I remain personally skeptical about WLO as an approach to creating high-quality PM apps. Alan Ballard | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-822-3074 Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1Z2 | Fax: 604-822-5116