Click to expand.Beside the fact that exactly this reaching the 65536th row in almost no time while I wanted to get only to the 256th row was the reason for many f-words coming out of my mouth some time ago, I do agree that it is noticeably slower on the Mac. But, hey, it's a Microsoft product. Would you expect them to make it 'as good' and 'as fast' on the Mac as on The Only One? One may also wonder why e.g. OSX version of ms word (being idle) takes five times that much of a CPU power as the Windows version running on an active emulator on the very same machine. Plus there is probably more quirks like that but I checked and found the ms excel perfectly usable on the OS X, even if somewhat slower. At least I wouldn't judge the MacOS X by that fact.;-) As for the reasons, I may guess that ms guyz made their own custom classes for many ui elements of their X version, where the suboptimal performance might be blamed on.
The one on the left, Date Test Windows.xlsx, was created in Excel 2007 (Windows) and the one on the right, Date Date Test Mac.xlsx, was created using Excel for Mac 2008. In column A of both worksheets I entered a series of dates from 1/1/2010 to 1/15/2010.
![]()
But who would care? Bill (AFAIR) once said that 'chipmakers will eventually make it for our performance issues'.
Click to expand.Hear hear. It's a common misconception though - made stronger by Intel's ads for the Pentium II and later CPUs, which were claimed to make web browsing faster. It was as silly then as it is now. Every machine I have ever had on a network could easily saturate it. Even my 33 MHz 486 ten years ago could pull data over 10 MBit ethernet (i.e.
10x faster than the fastest current Broadband services) at full speed. CPU speed has almost nothing to do with downloading web pages. Since about 1996, the two biggest factors have been either your modem or bandwidth contention well outside your local network. Click to expand.I agree - it's not in Microsoft's interest to make Office v.X fast. Everything MS ever does is geared ultimately to getting sales of Windows. That's why they have done everything in their power to destroy anything which could become an alternative application platform (Java, RealAudio, etc).
This is all well documented in the DoJ finding against them a couple of years back. Personally I don't know why they don't just play to their strengths and market their application software on every platform that's out there. They used to do that - remember when MS BASIC was on virtually every 8-bit computer you could buy? If Office is faster on Windows than it is on OS X, and you absolutely have to lightning speed in it (who really needs that, anyway?! A 65,000 row spreadsheet sounds more like a database to me, and probably shouldn't be in Excel) then of course you buy a Windows machine. Office is much more pleasant to use on that platform, and cheaper to boot.
For those of us who merely use Office because we have to have a compatibility layer with the rest of the world, the lack of blistering performance just isn't as in issue. I bought Office with my machine, and I'm beginning to wonder why - I scarcely use it. Occasionally a bit of Excel, but I don't use Word at all, and am drifting towards Keynote for presentations.
Comments are closed.
|
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |