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