Is Word 2004 really this slow?

[Elliott Roper]

An article at http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html dated 20-May-2004
entitled:- Is MS Word 2004 for Mac faster than MS Word X for Mac?
indicates that Word 2004 is even more of a slug than v.X as if that
were possible.
Anyone who has tried 2004 care to comment on their results.

I really don't want to pay *that* much for Unicode

 

[JE McGimpsey]

An article at http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html dated 20-May-2004
entitled:- Is MS Word 2004 for Mac faster than MS Word X for Mac?
indicates that Word 2004 is even more of a slug than v.X as if that
were possible.
Anyone who has tried 2004 care to comment on their results.

I really don't want to pay *that* much for Unicode

Without having some idea what their "three typical WP tests" consist of,
I can't say that there might not be some situation where 2004 is slower
than X, but my tests with a 250 page document, 1.33 GHz PB were:

Find/Replace (18,800 replacements)
Word X : 8 seconds
Word 04: 10 seconds

compared to the site's 7 vs 30 seconds.

Spell Check (169,000 words)
Word X: 11 seconds
Word 04: 22 seconds

compared to the site's 14 vs 21 seconds.

I don't know what they meant by "scroll through", but 04 is slower than
X when continuously scrolling. However, it's quite snappy when scrolling
using the scroll bar.

Subjectively, Word 04 seems just as fast in most areas as Word X.

Note that this wasn't a good benchmark - my 04 tests were with several
other apps running, and I use quite a few customizations.

 

[Elliott Roper]

Without having some idea what their "three typical WP tests" consist of,
I can't say that there might not be some situation where 2004 is slower
than X, but my tests with a 250 page document, 1.33 GHz PB were:

Find/Replace (18,800 replacements)
Word X : 8 seconds
Word 04: 10 seconds That's all right.

compared to the site's 7 vs 30 seconds.

Spell Check (169,000 words)
Word X: 11 seconds
Word 04: 22 seconds

Oh well. I can spell pretty good. As you can see, I never done used
grammar check in my life.

compared to the site's 14 vs 21 seconds.

I don't know what they meant by "scroll through", but 04 is slower than
X when continuously scrolling. However, it's quite snappy when scrolling
using the scroll bar.

Does it still have those repagination hiatuses in page view?

Subjectively, Word 04 seems just as fast in most areas as Word X.

Note that this wasn't a good benchmark - my 04 tests were with several
other apps running, and I use quite a few customizations.

No, that's real life. Thanks.

Looks like all my whining about ripping out bloat had only a minor
effect. ;-)

 

[JE McGimpsey]

Does it still have those repagination hiatuses in page view?

Not in my test document, but in my experience, the hiatuses were most
pronounced in rather long and complex documents. My test document, while
long, didn't have any graphics or tables, so I can't really say. Again,
from previous documents I've been working on, 04 is not perceptibly
slower than v.X, and may be a bit faster, but most of my recent work has
been 50 pages or less.

OTOH, I always work in Normal view, until the doc's done. My work
involves content, not layout.

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word]]

Hi Elliot:

This responds to article <210520040027089840%[email protected]>, from
"Elliott Roper" <[email protected]> on 21/5/04 9:27 AM:

I am surprised that anyone is noticing Word 2004 as slower than Word X.
Maybe I am forgetful, but I would say that Word 2004 is quite a bit faster
on this machine.

That's partly because Word likes a big feed of memory. I have a gig of
memory on this box, with only Word and Entourage operating (and maybe
Safari).

I heave long documents around: 560 A4 pages in a file is my stock in trade.
That finds most systems out: Word 2004 runs very nicely with that document.
My impression is that the OS and Application task and thread priority tuning
is greatly improved in Word 2004.

Yes, Word tends to use a bit more CPU: TiBooks are real nut roasters, and
Word 2004 makes this one even worse But the annoying beachball pauses
are rare and much shorter in 04.

Word on the Mac is not at all bloated: The full install of Office is about
350 megs, same as it is on the PC. But you have to remember that PowerPC
code is twice the size of CISC code, and on MacOS X Microsoft Office has to
include a few widgets in its own code that are provided by the OS on
Windows. So Office 2004 is actually about half the size of PC Office 2003:
I don't think you can accuse them of bloat

Elliot, you are just trying to avoid putting your hand in your pocket!
Typical tight-a* Skippy: go spend yer money

Cheers

Oh well. I can spell pretty good. As you can see, I never done used
grammar check in my life.

Does it still have those repagination hiatuses in page view?
No, that's real life. Thanks.

Looks like all my whining about ripping out bloat had only a minor
effect. ;-)

--

Please respond only to the newsgroup to preserve the thread.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. GMT + 10 Hrs
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Elliott Roper]

Hi Elliot:

This responds to article <210520040027089840%[email protected]>, from
"Elliott Roper" <[email protected]> on 21/5/04 9:27 AM:

I am surprised that anyone is noticing Word 2004 as slower than Word X.
Maybe I am forgetful, but I would say that Word 2004 is quite a bit faster
on this machine.

Elliot, you are just trying to avoid putting your hand in your pocket!
Typical tight-a* Skippy: go spend yer money

Damn! I been found out!

I'll be getting it I reckon. Credit card is in the freezer in a turkey!
Those fish-hooks just weren't working any more.