Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Why is Office XP so LAME!!!

Why is Office XP so LAME!!!

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
question
12 Posts 7 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • C Offline
    C Offline
    Chris Maunder
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    ARRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I just upgraded from Office 2000 to XP. OMG. Can they make Outlook any slower? Have they heard of multithreading? Is it truly possible to make a spreadsheet program have a 150Mb footprint yet not allow it to open two files simulataneously that have the same name? Do they, to put it bluntly, use this stuff before they send it out? I went from Office 2000 on a PIII 450 with 128Mb with 500Mb free drive space. It was slow, but totally useable. I now have Office XP on a P4 1.8GHz, 512MB, and there's 50Gb of swap space if it wants it. XP is *slower* on my new machine than 2000 was on my old machine. <pant, pant, pant> ARRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    P D L S J 6 Replies Last reply
    0
    • C Chris Maunder

      ARRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I just upgraded from Office 2000 to XP. OMG. Can they make Outlook any slower? Have they heard of multithreading? Is it truly possible to make a spreadsheet program have a 150Mb footprint yet not allow it to open two files simulataneously that have the same name? Do they, to put it bluntly, use this stuff before they send it out? I went from Office 2000 on a PIII 450 with 128Mb with 500Mb free drive space. It was slow, but totally useable. I now have Office XP on a P4 1.8GHz, 512MB, and there's 50Gb of swap space if it wants it. XP is *slower* on my new machine than 2000 was on my old machine. <pant, pant, pant> ARRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

      P Offline
      P Offline
      Paul Watson
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      You should have typed this post in word, imported it to Excel, emailed it to yourself and then made a power point presentation of just to prove a point... not sure what point but it would have at least made a good story to tell your kids one day. FYI I realise Nelson Email Organizer[^] is extra dosh but is absolutely, 100% worth the money. Yes it runs on top of Outlook (Outlook is in the background, no taskbar or anything though) but it is damned fast, the search is incredible (if I had to name one feature of Office that is the worst, the Outlook mail search would be it) and it really helps in organising your email. The only time I use Outlook directly now is to access Public Folders, which hopefully NEO will support soon. p.s. Isn't your post breaking some kind of contract you might have signed with MS? ;) Thou shalt not diss our products, om.

      Paul Watson
      Bluegrass
      Cape Town, South Africa

      Colin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !

      C 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • P Paul Watson

        You should have typed this post in word, imported it to Excel, emailed it to yourself and then made a power point presentation of just to prove a point... not sure what point but it would have at least made a good story to tell your kids one day. FYI I realise Nelson Email Organizer[^] is extra dosh but is absolutely, 100% worth the money. Yes it runs on top of Outlook (Outlook is in the background, no taskbar or anything though) but it is damned fast, the search is incredible (if I had to name one feature of Office that is the worst, the Outlook mail search would be it) and it really helps in organising your email. The only time I use Outlook directly now is to access Public Folders, which hopefully NEO will support soon. p.s. Isn't your post breaking some kind of contract you might have signed with MS? ;) Thou shalt not diss our products, om.

        Paul Watson
        Bluegrass
        Cape Town, South Africa

        Colin Davies wrote: ...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !

        C Offline
        C Offline
        Chris Maunder
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        Paul Watson wrote: Isn't your post breaking some kind of contract you might have signed with MS? Thou shalt not diss our products, om. No - I'm not allowed to dis MS products before they are released. Once they are released they are fair game. Did I mention how cool VS.NET 2003 was? :cool: cheers, Chris Maunder

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • C Chris Maunder

          ARRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I just upgraded from Office 2000 to XP. OMG. Can they make Outlook any slower? Have they heard of multithreading? Is it truly possible to make a spreadsheet program have a 150Mb footprint yet not allow it to open two files simulataneously that have the same name? Do they, to put it bluntly, use this stuff before they send it out? I went from Office 2000 on a PIII 450 with 128Mb with 500Mb free drive space. It was slow, but totally useable. I now have Office XP on a P4 1.8GHz, 512MB, and there's 50Gb of swap space if it wants it. XP is *slower* on my new machine than 2000 was on my old machine. <pant, pant, pant> ARRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

          D Offline
          D Offline
          David Wulff
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          Outlook has always been the dog of Office for me, but I noticed quite a dramatic improvement in loading time and response time for operations like new messages, sending messages, etc, when I upgraded to Office XP. That said, it does seem to slow down considerably when my *.pst file gets over 500MB. Maybe it's time to clear out all your CP messages Chris? :suss: As to Excel, nowadays I only use it to keep shopping lists of CDs I've got to buy in the comming weeks. If it wasn't included with the rest of Office I wouldn't bother buying it at all. But you're right though, that could be very annoying - it must have a reason though, surely? What about the other programs? Well okay I mean Word, Access and Visio only, seeing as I have not installed PowerPoint since Office 97 and my Frontpage 2002 trial was uninstalled on day 29.5 of 30. Visio doesn't noticeably operate any faster (or slower), and I use that a lot, and Access is as quick as it ever was, but Word, well Word 2002 has slowed right down for me. The start up time from cold is about ten seconds (even Outlook will load and be responsive in about five). I can't see why, but it has always been slow on whichever machine I have ever used it on. :confused: :((


          David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

          David Wulff Born and Bred.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • C Chris Maunder

            ARRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I just upgraded from Office 2000 to XP. OMG. Can they make Outlook any slower? Have they heard of multithreading? Is it truly possible to make a spreadsheet program have a 150Mb footprint yet not allow it to open two files simulataneously that have the same name? Do they, to put it bluntly, use this stuff before they send it out? I went from Office 2000 on a PIII 450 with 128Mb with 500Mb free drive space. It was slow, but totally useable. I now have Office XP on a P4 1.8GHz, 512MB, and there's 50Gb of swap space if it wants it. XP is *slower* on my new machine than 2000 was on my old machine. <pant, pant, pant> ARRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Lost User
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            I knew there was a reason I moved to Win2k etc. instead of eXtra Problems.... OK, loads of them :suss: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?

            A 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • C Chris Maunder

              ARRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I just upgraded from Office 2000 to XP. OMG. Can they make Outlook any slower? Have they heard of multithreading? Is it truly possible to make a spreadsheet program have a 150Mb footprint yet not allow it to open two files simulataneously that have the same name? Do they, to put it bluntly, use this stuff before they send it out? I went from Office 2000 on a PIII 450 with 128Mb with 500Mb free drive space. It was slow, but totally useable. I now have Office XP on a P4 1.8GHz, 512MB, and there's 50Gb of swap space if it wants it. XP is *slower* on my new machine than 2000 was on my old machine. <pant, pant, pant> ARRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

              S Offline
              S Offline
              Sean Cundiff
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              Outlook XP is SLOW! Especially when sending email. That was my original complaint many moons ago. As for the speed issue, I've noticed that my PIII 650, 512MB PC100, 30GB HD, XP Pro computer at home is often FASTER at performing various tasks than my P4 2.2GHz, 512MB PC800 RAMBUS, 80GB HD, XP pro computer at work. My theory is that it has something to do with the P4's longer pipeline. -Sean ---- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Albert Einstein. I saw a woman wearing a sweatshirt with 'Guess' on it. I said, "Thyroid problem?" -- Emo Philips. Love is two minutes, 52 seconds of squishing noises. -- Johnny Rotten.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • C Chris Maunder

                ARRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I just upgraded from Office 2000 to XP. OMG. Can they make Outlook any slower? Have they heard of multithreading? Is it truly possible to make a spreadsheet program have a 150Mb footprint yet not allow it to open two files simulataneously that have the same name? Do they, to put it bluntly, use this stuff before they send it out? I went from Office 2000 on a PIII 450 with 128Mb with 500Mb free drive space. It was slow, but totally useable. I now have Office XP on a P4 1.8GHz, 512MB, and there's 50Gb of swap space if it wants it. XP is *slower* on my new machine than 2000 was on my old machine. <pant, pant, pant> ARRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

                J Offline
                J Offline
                Jorgen Sigvardsson
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                Weird.. Office XP runs flawlessly on my machine. Actually, I think Outlook XP is faster now than Outlook 2k. Did you mess something up perhaps? :rolleyes: -- standing so tall, the ground behind no trespassers, on every floor a garden swing, and another door she makes it clear, that everything is hers A place of abode, not far from here, Ms. Van de Veer

                C 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • L Lost User

                  I knew there was a reason I moved to Win2k etc. instead of eXtra Problems.... OK, loads of them :suss: Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?

                  A Offline
                  A Offline
                  Anders Molin
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  Trollslayer wrote: I knew there was a reason I moved to Win2k etc. He is talking about Office not Windows. WinXP is actually a bit better than Win2k :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • C Chris Maunder

                    ARRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I just upgraded from Office 2000 to XP. OMG. Can they make Outlook any slower? Have they heard of multithreading? Is it truly possible to make a spreadsheet program have a 150Mb footprint yet not allow it to open two files simulataneously that have the same name? Do they, to put it bluntly, use this stuff before they send it out? I went from Office 2000 on a PIII 450 with 128Mb with 500Mb free drive space. It was slow, but totally useable. I now have Office XP on a P4 1.8GHz, 512MB, and there's 50Gb of swap space if it wants it. XP is *slower* on my new machine than 2000 was on my old machine. <pant, pant, pant> ARRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

                    A Offline
                    A Offline
                    Anders Molin
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #9

                    Outlook XP without any updates/servicepacks is really slow it you let it "integrate" with messenger. If you turn off that feature, it's actually kinda fast :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • J Jorgen Sigvardsson

                      Weird.. Office XP runs flawlessly on my machine. Actually, I think Outlook XP is faster now than Outlook 2k. Did you mess something up perhaps? :rolleyes: -- standing so tall, the ground behind no trespassers, on every floor a garden swing, and another door she makes it clear, that everything is hers A place of abode, not far from here, Ms. Van de Veer

                      C Offline
                      C Offline
                      Chris Maunder
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #10

                      I think it's the rules processing. I have about 30 rules to filter out submissions, ads, personal, bounces, biz, spam and junk and it takes about 1 second to process each message. While it's doing this the UI is completely locked. Add in 10,000 emails and you have a bad, bad situation. I'd added all patches, disabled IM integration. I found the solution though: delete XP and install OFfice2K. It now works like a dream ;) cheers, Chris Maunder

                      J 2 Replies Last reply
                      0
                      • C Chris Maunder

                        I think it's the rules processing. I have about 30 rules to filter out submissions, ads, personal, bounces, biz, spam and junk and it takes about 1 second to process each message. While it's doing this the UI is completely locked. Add in 10,000 emails and you have a bad, bad situation. I'd added all patches, disabled IM integration. I found the solution though: delete XP and install OFfice2K. It now works like a dream ;) cheers, Chris Maunder

                        J Offline
                        J Offline
                        Jorgen Sigvardsson
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #11

                        Aha.. I have 20-30 rules myself, but I don't get 10k emails a day. More like 50, maybe 100 a really really busy day. -- standing so tall, the ground behind no trespassers, on every floor a garden swing, and another door she makes it clear, that everything is hers A place of abode, not far from here, Ms. Van de Veer

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • C Chris Maunder

                          I think it's the rules processing. I have about 30 rules to filter out submissions, ads, personal, bounces, biz, spam and junk and it takes about 1 second to process each message. While it's doing this the UI is completely locked. Add in 10,000 emails and you have a bad, bad situation. I'd added all patches, disabled IM integration. I found the solution though: delete XP and install OFfice2K. It now works like a dream ;) cheers, Chris Maunder

                          J Offline
                          J Offline
                          Jorgen Sigvardsson
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #12

                          Actually, when I think about it, Outlook XP is pretty darn STUPID when it comes to rules. I've found that rules never work first thing in the morning - everything ends up in Inbox. Very annoying indeed. I've also noticed that if I get too many emails at once, the rules filter isn't fast enough and "forgets" some emails. :wtf: -- standing so tall, the ground behind no trespassers, on every floor a garden swing, and another door she makes it clear, that everything is hers A place of abode, not far from here, Ms. Van de Veer

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Don't have an account? Register

                          • Login or register to search.
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • World
                          • Users
                          • Groups