LOL... Memory Size is certainly not my problem. With 512MB and paging to a
max of 1.5GB on a fast disk, that side of it is Ok (though I still appreciate
the inputs). And anyway, indirectly, you did think of it - as the link you
provided goes into memory size, usage drains and memory leaks in some depth.

It is these latter issues I focused on yesterday (i.e. what is using the
memory). This, together with ripping out "nice-to-have-but-probably-wont-use"
office 2003 features, improved things dramatically. I still have concerns
over a few things (identified the linked article) but the system is now
performing well enough to go back into production. (I was seriously
considering taking the system back to Office 2000 and ironing out the
performance issues on an alternate system. But that is no longer necessary -
so thank you again.)

Cheers,
Spinner


"David McRitchie" wrote:

I guess memory is the obvious problem, and I didn't think of it, even
though that is the reason I've not upgraded my system or my version
of Excel. I think you want to see if you have a lot of paging going on
which as I understand it you would see if the red line is right up there
with the CPU usage line on the Performance graph. When looking at
your System Task Manager
within the Task Manager, View (menu), show kernel times

I have 128 MB RAM and am showing 252MB Usage, it really
slows down when Outlook Express is reading in postings and
Excel is up. I have Excel 2000 and Windows 2000 myself.


"Spinner" wrote ...
Always nice to get help... so thanks... I was getting by on 128MB RAM and
a[relatively] slow disk with the WIN 98 / Office 2000 combo. As part of the
upgrade, though I took the system up to 512MB put in a newer, faster, Disk.