Excel 2007

Discussion in 'Trading Software' started by Grant, Apr 2, 2007.

  1. Grant


    I'm running Excel 2007 with Windows XP Pro on AMD 64 x2 dual core 4800, 2 GB ram.

    Occasionally I get the "Not responding" message. I'm probably pushing performance with my sheets but I would like to know where the bottleneck may be.

    Please refer to the attached Word.doc for a shot of the Task Manager at the time of "Not responding" (scroll up the page). The only aspect which is recognisable is cpu usage - the rest is meaningless. Maybe the clue lies in these unknowns.

    The Task manager shows cpu usage at around 50%. Is near 100% not possible?

    Excel is set to run dual core.

  2. Do you have DDE link?
  3. Mine typically runs at 80%, and I have no problems. I am running 800 symbols through DDE and make alot of multipage calcs and strategy evals with it, runs great...in fact I am a big fan of 07'.

    Maybe try reinstalling the software and see if that helps.

    I am running XP pro.
  4. Do you find it running faster with 07 version compared to the old version? With less than 100 DDE links, my system runs very slow under Excel XP. I am planning to upgrade to 07' but don't know about the benefit and the stability of the product. Are there a lot of work to upgrade (I have a lot of custom VBA code)?
  5. Grant



    Re the example sheet I’m referring to, there are no dde’s. However, there are thousands of (simple) calcs over numerous time periods – 5- to 60-minute from 7 month’s intra-day data (high, low, close). For 5-minute data this equates to approx 17,000 prices x 3 (high, low, close) = 51,000. Then there are 8 different calcs applied to each line of prices (high, low, close). And there are 13 additional time periods.

    But to return to the main point of my question, is there (where) a possible bottleneck if the cpu is running at 50%?

    Regarding performance of Excel 2007, any increase in speed is not apparent to myself. However, I would suggest you could reckon on the same performance with 2007 on a sheet twice the size of your existing largest 2003 sheet.

    One sheet I run downloads – via vba – the price of the Bund, DAX, SMI and Stoxx futures every second, resulting in around 50,000 prices per instrument over a 12-hour (EUREX hours) period. From these numerous calculations are performed over various time periods. Basically, the same as above (but with less data). This is currently running but I am also running a separate sheet under Excel 2002 – real-time download, etc; plus a real-time quote/charting programme. According to Task manager, cpu peaks at around 20%, which doesn’t seem too bad.

    There is no problem running old sheets with VBA in Excel 2007.

  6. So far, I really like 07'. My calculation speed is noticeably improved what use to take about 2 seconds, now happens instantaneously, or near that fast.

    The added rows and columns where an absolute necessity for me, and was my inital attraction. I like to use excel as a database, and track trading strategy results. No shortage of ideas, it seems.

    I really like the multiple conditional formats, the previoius number of 3 limited what i could do.

    The added sorting capabilities are nice.

    Even better, the size the workbook has been cut to 1/3. When converted and saved.

    As for your VBA code, mine has translated over with no problems, I run about 10 different macros, though they do relatively simple processes. The process is easy, just choose convert the file, and then save it as .xlsm

    So far, no problems, I am very happy. Adapting to there new ribbon has been pretty easy as well. Little frustrating at first, but a weekend or two playing with it, and you'll find all the things you are use to doing with excel...and perhaps find a few new tricks as well.
  7. gbos


  8. Whenever mine is saved, whether manually by me, or using the auto save function, the program goes into non responding mode, lasts about 30 seconds, until the save is complete, then starts functioning normally again.
  9. i started using excel 2007 this week...

    i have close to 2000 dde links and it runs great...

    so far so good...still playing with all the buttons

    ibm zpro 9228 dual 5160 3ghz 4 gb ram winxp x64
  10. Prez


    Can your Excel 2007 multiply?
    To amplify on the earlier post, consider this from AppScout.com:

    Tuesday September 25, 2007
    Excel Can't Multiply


    News & Events

    Bug, Excel, Microsoft
    Excel Can't Multiply

    We all learned how to multiply with pencil and paper, even great big numbers and decimals. But when it comes to something important like a blueprint or a scientific formula we reach for a calculator - or a spreadsheet. That's much more reliable, right? Well, not if the spreadsheet is Excel 2007. Over the weekend a member of the microsoft.public.excel newsgroup revealed that Excel 2007 thinks that 850*77.1 is 100,000. What's the correct answer? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Anybody? Right, it should be 65,535. Other members verified that the error carries over into some (but not all) calculations based on the incorrect result. Microsoft has been informed of the bug, but hasn't yet formulated a response.

    UPDATE: Microsoft recognizes the problem and assures us that Excel Will Learn to Multiply.

    If it were just 850*77.1 that gave a wrong answer, we could probably work around that. But there are tons of other problem numbers, as I discovered for myself. I set up a spreadsheet to divide 65,535 by every number from 1 to 65,535 itself, then multiply the number by that result. So, for example, it divided 65,535 by 26 to get 2,520.577. Then it multiplied 26 by 2,520.577 to get... 100,000?! Over ten thousand of these simple calculations gave the wrong answer.

    We won't know just why the problem comes up until Microsoft speaks out, but there is one thing about 65535 - it's the very largest 16-bit number. In binary it's a string of 16 ones. In hexadecimal (the programmer's friend) it's FFFF. But converting the "problem" results to hexadecimal in Excel yields FFFE. That's surely a clue. Meanwhile, if you have any spreadsheets where some results hit the range around 65535, it might be a good idea to double-check with your trusty calculator... or a pencil.
    #10     Sep 25, 2007