Office 2004 on C2D MBP

Jump to First Reply
ys2003ys2003
Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
I noticed Office 2004 (mostly Word and Excel) runs sluggishly on CD MBP/MB when I tried them at the Apple Stores. Can someone tell me if Office 2004 apps are running decently on C2D MBP? I know Office 2004 is non UB app and there would be the Rosetta penalty on Intel Mac; but, if C2D's faster speed can compensate for the slow-down by Rosetta, that would make it more tolerable for daily use.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    I doubt it. People said the same thing about G5s and Virtual PC. Emulation/binary translation whatever is slow. The only way to go is native. Suitable alternatives are NeoOffice or Windows Office under Parallels or Crossover. I quite like NeoOffice now and it has the advantage of being able to use Mac fonts.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 7
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    There's no reason the C2D MacBook Pro would run Rosetta faster than the original MBP. It's only a small speed bump.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 7
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    So, is anyone else seeing Office run slow on Intel Macs? I'm getting one soon, most likely the next MacBook, and this will be one of my most used and important applications. This guy sounds like he has a unique problem--I thought Office was supposed run at least as fast as it does on a fast G4? And that Rosetta only had a 10 or 20% speed reduction, something negligible on a dual processor Intel Mac?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 7
    bacillusbacillus Posts: 313member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by YS2003


    I noticed Office 2004 (mostly Word and Excel) runs sluggishly on CD MBP/MB when I tried them at the Apple Stores. Can someone tell me if Office 2004 apps are running decently on C2D MBP? I know Office 2004 is non UB app and there would be the Rosetta penalty on Intel Mac; but, if C2D's faster speed can compensate for the slow-down by Rosetta, that would make it more tolerable for daily use.



    Did you look to see the amount of memory on the demo unit? Could it had been 512 MB? Since the upgrade, new MBP come with 1 gig of RAM, not a lame 512 MB they used to (in most base configs) - so it likely does run somewhat faster on the new C2D 'base' MBP, but for another reason other then CPU.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 7
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aquatic


    Rosetta only had a 10 or 20% speed reduction, something negligible on a dual processor Intel Mac?



    My experience shows more like 40-50% speed reduction but it's hard to say exactly - that reduction should be roughly G4 speed. I think Rosetta's biggest problem is memory allocation. Programs take absolutely ages to load. I've seen the likes of Indesign take around 30 seconds to open one file. Even my TV guide widget seems to have a PPC element to it and it takes ages to load in - I thought widgets were universal.



    Once you're up and running, it might be ok but I agree 100% that 512MB Ram is not enough so 1GB minimum.



    I just tested Office 2004 and the first launch to make a new document took around 40 seconds. After it's cached, on average it takes around 15-20 seconds. This is on a Mini Solo with 512MB Ram. With Duo + 1GB, it should be better and I've seen it run ok on an iMac with 2GB. I think if you turn off the stupid fading panel and spelling/grammar checking, it will help.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 7
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Geez that's extremely slow. Not at all the picture Steve Jobs was painting in the demo. Ouch.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 7
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aquatic


    Geez that's extremely slow. Not at all the picture Steve Jobs was painting in the demo. Ouch.



    Yeah, I don't even use the smallest of apps under Rosetta. The delay annoys me so much. There is a small image viewing program called Xee and all it does is open pictures but at first launch, it would take about 5-10 seconds. Because it was open source, I compiled it myself for Intel and it opens instantly.



    It annoys me that the bigger companies are taking so long to get their products universal. Even the recent Maya 8 is PPC. Maya for Mac sucks as it is without it being crippled when Macs are faster. When an application costs into the thousands of dollars, it's just not acceptable for it to be running the way it does.



    Other people have more positive experiences of Rosetta:



    http://www.mactech.com/articles/mact...2004Benchmark/



    but someone I know who switched from a PC to a Macbook actually cried at the state of Word on the Mac. She thought she had wasted her money on a machine that didn't do what she wanted. She now uses NeoOffice and is quite happy with the Mac overall but it can be a deal breaker for some and it really needs resolved.



    Apple may have the innovations but when Adobe and Microsoft etc control the software that people need, if their products aren't working then Apple is dead in the water.



    It's not all bad news though because thanks to the Intel chips, you have more options. I can run Photoshop under Parallels and it is twice as fast as Photoshop under Rosetta. Office for Windows flies along in Parallels. It opens almost instantly whereas even native NeoOffice takes about 5-10 seconds.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.