Word 2007 files take forever to open in Vista (was: Will an SSD help?)

[CoffeeFiend]

3 min to reboot in safe mode, 1 min to open Word

That isn't what I mean. Not running Word from Windows running in safe mode but rather Word running in safe mode i.e. start > run

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office14\WINWORD.EXE" /a

(fix the path according to OS language, Office version, etc) This opens word without starting the addins which could be causing problems.

Although it is obviously recommended to have full backup

Completely pointless IMO. I can't see how swapping CPUs would corrupt the drive's contents or similar.

Swapping the CPU itself is trivial (ZIF socket), but the heatsink's pushpins are a bit flimsy so you have to be somewhat careful (and follow the instructions -- rotate to release, etc)

[BlouBul]

Shouldn't it be better to reboot in safe mode to ensure nothing else tries to scan the file as it is being opened? Or is it only the add-ins that will scan it?

I agree that the drive contents shouldn't get damaged (said so in my post). Just mentioned it as a sideline as JorgeA was very worried about his pc, but I agree, that is not really relevant in this case

[CoffeeFiend]

Shouldn't it be better to reboot in safe mode to ensure nothing else tries to scan the file as it is being opened? Or is it only the add-ins that will scan it?

Trying it with Windows in safe mode is another option. Why not I just wanted to check if some word addon slows it down (easy and quick way to rule something out)

[JorgeA]

That isn't what I mean. Not running Word from Windows running in safe mode but rather Word running in safe mode i.e. start > run

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office14\WINWORD.EXE" /a

(fix the path according to OS language, Office version, etc) This opens word without starting the addins which could be causing problems.

CoffeeFiend,

I, too, thought that you meant rebooting in Safe Mode.

I'm on Vista, and there's no "Run" option that I can see off the Start button. Closest I seem to be able to get to it is to type "winword.exe" in the Search window, then it finds it and I can click on it.

Did try that, and the loading time was no better.

Next I tried typing in the entire path in the Search box. The same search result appeared as the first time, but this time I hit Enter instead of clicking on the search result, and then tried loading the big file. Loading time: 2:59.

Maybe it's just a darned huge file that simply takes a while to process in its mixed text and graphical elements.

We may have to try the "full" Safe Mode route. I'll make time for this today.

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

BlouBul,

Thanks for the explanation about changing the CPU, this is reassuring. I love the excuse!!

Today I'll copy the file over to another machine, open the file, and see how long it takes there.

--JorgeA

[BlouBul]

Shortcut for Run is Windowskey +R

It will need the /a at the end, as CoffeeFiend suggested to run without Add-ons, without it, it will be the same as starting it normally

Edited September 29, 2010 by BlouBul

[dencorso]

The C2D E4400 is actually a hair slower than his existing E2200 (around 10%; not uprising as they're both allendale, and the E2200 is also clocked faster which more than makes up for the smaller L2 cache). Seeing how it has a fairly nice ICH9R chipset he can upgrade to just about anything that still uses Socket 775.

You're right, of course!

I had the E4500 in mind as I wrote that, as a bare minimum (larger cache, all the rest equal).

But I must point out that there may be some frequency restrictions for JorgeA's board...

This info is from HP's page on the Benicia:

Motherboard supports the following processor upgrades:
•Intel Core 2 Quad (Y) Q9xxxx
•Intel Core 2 Duo (W) E8xxx
•Intel Core 2 Quad (K) up to Q6600
•Core 2 Duo E6x00 (C) up to E6700
•Core 2 Duo E4x00 (C) up to E4400

But if it accepts the E6700, I don't see why it shouldn't accept anything above the E4400!

It must be a typo.

[puntoMX]

@PuntoMX: Sorry if I came out harsh! No offense was intended. Please do keep around, things are getting "curiouser and curiouser" just at this point.

Ow yes, I didn't take it negatively, but would like to see how this ends, in a positive way that is .

[JorgeA]

Shouldn't it be better to reboot in safe mode to ensure nothing else tries to scan the file as it is being opened? Or is it only the add-ins that will scan it?

Trying it with Windows in safe mode is another option. Why not I just wanted to check if some word addon slows it down (easy and quick way to rule something out)

CoffeeFiend,

O.K., I tried loading that Word file today two different ways: In "little" Safe Mode using the /a switch, and in "full" Safe Mode involving a reboot into the mode.

Load time for "little" Safe Mode was 3:47. This is longer than I've been averaging when loading the file the regular way.

Load time for "full" Safe Mode was 2:54. This is a bit less than I've been averaging the regular way, but not by much.

Neither value seems way out of the realm of possibility. One time it took me well over 4 minutes to load the file "normally," another time it took 2:59.

Hopefully we can glean something useful from this information!

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

Shortcut for Run is Windowskey +R

It will need the /a at the end, as CoffeeFiend suggested to run without Add-ons, without it, it will be the same as starting it normally

BlouBul,

Thanks for pointing out the /a switch, I did miss it the first time.

Oh, and thank you for the method to replicate the Run function. I used it to load Word in one of today's tests.

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

The Celeron E3300 is around $50, and it's about 35% faster (faster but probably not enough to see a big difference);

The Pentium Dual-Core E5500 is around $80 and it's almost 60% faster (not too shabby);

The Core2 Quad Q8300 is around $140 and it's almost 3x the speed of his existing CPU if you're using all cores (twice as many cores which are about 40% faster each -- so not as fast as The E5500 in single-threaded perf). That's just about the fastest CPU you can still throw on there to get a longer life out of it which doesn't happen to be horribly overpriced for what it is.

CoffeeFiend,

Very informative rundown on the various CPU options for my motherboard, thanks!

It sounds like the likeliest candidates would be the E5500 and the Q8300.

Single threading vs. multithreading is (yet another) one area where I'm fuzzy on the features and benefits. For example, how can I find out whether, given my customary PC usage, I could benefit from having four cores vs. the current two? I just don't know where or how the additional cores would come into play.

But speed I can understand, and either of those processors appears to be much faster than my current one!

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

It actually might be useful if the opening time is significantly less than 3 minutes on those machines, that will tell you something is interfering with it in your computer.

BlouBul,

I loaded the big Word file on my little Pentium-233 notebook.

The time on the stopwatch when the file finished loading was 2:21.

--JorgeA

[BlouBul]

It actually might be useful if the opening time is significantly less than 3 minutes on those machines, that will tell you something is interfering with it in your computer.

BlouBul,

I loaded the big Word file on my little Pentium-233 notebook.

The time on the stopwatch when the file finished loading was 2:21.

--JorgeA

WOW!!! That is a huge improvement. So changing the processor should not help. There must be someting else interfering. I will give it some more thought . (In the mean time, use the P-233, as that is the fastest ) Did you try it on your laptop yet? (even though it has Norton, maybe it is something else)

Edited September 30, 2010 by BlouBul

[JorgeA]

Did you try it on your laptop yet? (even though it has Norton, maybe it is something else)

BlouBul,

Good idea -- I'll try that and let you know what happens.

--JorgeA

[allen2]

Just my 2 cents but did you try to disable "repaginating" in word options (You need to be in normal mode to be able to disable it) ?