We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Excel 2007
Comments
-
Personally, I find Excel 2007 OK to use having been quite used to 2003. However, Powerpoint frustrates the hell out of me, especially charts and also in retaining template compatibility with older versions.
I think it comes down to how accustomed you are in using 2003 as to how much you like or dislike the new style layout and navigation of 2007..."Who throws a shoe, honestly?"
:rotfl:0 -
Yes because it uses a completely different application layer/runtime than 2003 which you don’t see as an occupied system resource, so it does use more RAM and CPU time than 2003, proven fact if you have the method of analysing it.superscaper wrote: »I found it to load much quicker and take less memory than 2003.
As an aside the newer file formats take a fraction of the space the older formats do.
Since when has the world of computer software design been about what people want? This is a simple question of evolution. The day is quickly coming when every knee will bow down to a silicon fist, and you will all beg your binary gods for mercy.0 -
Yes because it uses a completely different application layer/runtime than 2003 which you don’t see as an occupied system resource, so it does use more RAM and CPU time than 2003, proven fact if you have the method of analysing it.
Whether that is right or wrong is not relevant - to the end user it appears faster - thats all that matters to 99% of people.0 -
Yes on a modern machine and most of the people who have commented will probably be running vista. 2007 was tried on a P4 2.9GHZ 1GB RAM and had problems, the core of the 2007 platform is designed for multi threading ergo aimed at multi CPU systems.Whether that is right or wrong is not relevant - to the end user it appears faster - thats all that matters to 99% of people.Since when has the world of computer software design been about what people want? This is a simple question of evolution. The day is quickly coming when every knee will bow down to a silicon fist, and you will all beg your binary gods for mercy.0 -
Yes on a modern machine and most of the people who have commented will probably be running vista. 2007 was tried on a P4 2.9GHZ 1GB RAM and had problems, the core of the 2007 platform is designed for multi threading ergo aimed at multi CPU systems.
Actually my current machine is a Windows XP, Athlon XP 1800+, nForce 2 motherboard, 2 GiB PC3200 DDR RAM. I wouldn't really call that "modern". No multiple cores at all I'm afraid, nor the utilisation of Vista's features. :rolleyes: Open Office takes longer to load from fresh boot up.
Not had any problems at all with 2007 on my setup."She is quite the oddball. Did you notice how she didn't even get excited when she saw this original ZX-81?"
Moss0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards