El 2013-11-05 05:51 p.m., Pedro escribió:
krackedpress wrote
The next thing people will insist on is LO being designed to run on all
2, 4, 6, or even 8 cores of the CPU at the same time to make it even
faster.
Do you really think it makes sense that Calc and Base are not prepared to
use all the computing power available?
Why do you think TDF and AMD are trying to bring GPU calculation to LO?
Because Calc (I haven't even tried Base...) is absurdly slow!
A heavy calculation spreadsheet I have takes 50 "seconds" to open in Excel
2010 and takes more than 10 *minutes* to open in Calc! (both 32bit versions)
No wonder Kohei Yoshida (one of, if not *the* main Calc developer) said
recently (August 2013): " You can’t compare Calc with Excel yet. They are
still miles ahead of us."
When Calc is able to use all cores and threads and eventually 64bit
operations then it might be on par...
Why do you assume the OP isn't doing number crunching?
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/64-bit-tp4081444p4081605.html
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I won't insist on 64 bits, because I use machines that work on 32 bits,
but the affirmation that Excel is more faster than Calc is true. I have
been working the last six weeks with databases from a census, and can
confirm the following:
-- Calc is really slow with lots of data. When the book requires more
than 384 MB of memory, it slows down to an impractical speed. Days ago,
I spent the whole day building a crosstab.
Open/Save is really slow and does not help a different file format to
speed up things.
Another difficult thing, is with sorting and filtering. Is slow too.
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
