Office 2004 absolutely does not work on stock macbook, period.

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by drewfasa, Jul 21, 2006.

  1. drewfasa macrumors newbie

    drewfasa

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    #1
    Hi, I'm not sure if anyone else is as frustrated as I am (or if anyone else actually has a stock macbook 1.8Ghz: it seems like everyone has already upgraded to 2gb RAM but me) but I feel that Microsoft, on their 'Mactopia' website, are not totally honest about the performance of office 2004 under Rosetta.

    I bought office with my iBook G4, on which it ran just fine, but when I returned my faulty (warped) iBook, and replaced it with a new Macbook, I have found office to run painfully, awfully, and ridiculously slow. The worst is when it runs a notification. The first thing you notice is that whatever program you were using at the time stops responding. Then a blank icon appears in the dock. A minute or so later you hear a very distorted chime, and after about 3 more minutes the notification finally shows itself. Not only does Office run slower than molasses under Rosetta, but it eats up all your RAM so that none of your programs work properly!
    Users should not need 1GB of RAM to run an office suite!:mad:

    I must say that switching from an iBook G4 (which I returned because it was warped and didn't sit flat) to a stock Macbook 1.8GHz has been a catch 22.

    On the one hand, I can now run windows and mac os on the same computer. I also have a webcam, a widescreen aspect ratio, a 20GB bigger hard drive, and a supposedly faster proccessor.

    The downside is that I also have a computer that runs like a Windows XP computer with 64MB RAM and a 300MHz processor. I mean it is sloooooow.

    I can sometimes wait for up to a minute to load my widgets (it used to be instantaneous on my iBook), and I now spend large amounts of time watching a spinning beachball while I wait to finish typing a sentence (in fact I just had to wait about 20 seconds for that reason before I started that last sentence.) Add this to the fact that the £100 pound MS Office 2004 (student license) is basically useless and you have a rather annoyed and jaded Macbook owner (only recently converted to mac too).

    I was trying to show my Windows-based brother in law how great mac os X is and lost his attention and seriously embarrassed myself while waiting for my computer to get out of a stall and load my widgets.

    I'm hoping that by buying a GB more RAM (I can only afford 1 stick right now) that things will get better, but the thing is that I am poor and wasn't planning on shelling out an extra £100 on a laptop that already cost me £750.

    When selling the Macbook 1.8GHz, Apple should either warn buyers that they are buying the computer equivalent of a Ford KA (a car slower than a Geo Metro for you non-Euros who've never seen the heinous contraption that is the KA), or else raise the price and put in what appears to be the minimum required about of RAM (+1GB):mad:
     
  2. ChrisBrightwell macrumors 68020

    ChrisBrightwell

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    #2
    I suspect there's something actually wrong w/ your laptop ... No reason for there to be these sorts of problems on a brand new MacBook.

    Try calling AppleCare.
     
  3. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #3
    make sure that your apps are Up to date and are Universal and not PowerPC
    Rosetta is a Ram and Resource hog and could likely be causing the slowdown.
     
  4. aristobrat macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #4
    On my stock 512MB 1.83GHz MacBook, if I had Mail + Firefox + iTunes opened and then tried to additonally open ANYTHING that used Rosetta, the whole MacBook ran so slowly that it was pointless.

    Closing everything except the Rosetta application helped.

    Now that my MB has 2GB in it, I don't have to worry about that. I can have as many Rosetta applications opened as I want, along with Mail, Firefox, iTunes, iPhoto, and everything flies.

    I totally agree with you on that, but that's the nature of the beast during the conversion to Intel. Once Microsoft releases a Universal binary, then you won't need the additional RAM, but until then, the choices are (A) it runs in Rosetta and uses a lot of RAM or (B) there is no Microsoft Office suite until next year.
     
  5. Subiklim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Location:
    Manhattan, New York
    #5
    Something wrong with it. I've since upgraded my macbook to 1.25gb of ram, but with 512 in windows it was still the fastest windows machine I've used (my iMac not included ;-)) Bring it back, this laptop should be a world of difference from your iBook.
     
  6. drewfasa thread starter macrumors newbie

    drewfasa

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    #6
    Nope.

    I've run hardware test and everything is fine. The only thing is to do as the above user mentioned and close Rosetta apps which helps alot. Still, even if I open more than 3 Universal apps it still isn't brilliant. Also, I have checked every app, and actually, beside Sim City which is also totally pointless due to slow emulation, Office 2004 is the only PPC program on my Mac.

    On my iBook I could have entourage on always, and have all sorts of other apps open as well. I know it is due to the RAM usage because my RAM is always maxed out. It seriously sucks though, even the dock animation stalls frequently. Office definitely seems to be the main culprit. I would use Mail.app if I could, but unfortunately I'm bound to my lousy hotmail account. FYI I've already tried the HTTPmail plugin for mail.app but it doesn't seem to work properly, after much troubleshooting and manual reading.
     
  7. Subiklim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Location:
    Manhattan, New York
    #7
    I find that office has always run slowly, even on PPC. once you load it, and all you're doing is typing, it's fine (with 512)

    You shouldn't have 512mb of RAM. Upgrade.
     
  8. killuminati macrumors 68020

    killuminati

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    #8
    Yea, it's pretty pathetic.

    I just bought a 1.83 1GB RAM, MB and I'm nervous about how office will perform. THis thread isn't making me feel any better.
     
  9. condor macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    #9
    I know exactly what you are talking about. I convinced my wife to sell her 1.33 GHz iBook and use the money to help pay for for a stock 1.83 GHz MacBook (well we got the 80 GB HD upgrade, but no more RAM). This MacBook is slow, we see beachballs all the time too. Unfortunately the apps she uses most, (Office and Quicken) are not yet universal. Even opening iPhoto, Safari and pretty much having more than 2 apps open give us the beachball, for 30 seconds to a minute sometimes. Luckily my wife has more patience than I do. Two days ago I ordered 2GB of RAM, so once that arrives I hope it solves the issue. My 12" PB with 768 MB of RAM is way faster than the MacBook. Kind of sad. All our hardware test on the MacBook come back fine too. I think it's just a RAM hog.
     
  10. drewfasa thread starter macrumors newbie

    drewfasa

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    #10
    Sure, could you lend me £100 or so? Alternatively, for just 50 pence a day, you can make sure a poor final year student has enough RAM to run a program that really shouldn't need more than 256MB.
     
  11. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #11
    I definitely agree that you need more RAM, but I'm still very surprised. I used my macbook (2 Ghz) for a while with the stock RAM before upgrading, and although going from 512 to 1 GB made a HUGE difference, I still found the macbook very quick and usable with 512. Additionally, my gf's sister has a stock 1.83 macbook and almost returned the 3rd party RAM she bought because she found the macbook so quick with 512 (and she also has a 1.8 Ghz G5 tower).

    So in short, yes RAM is an issue, but methinks there might be something else going on as well. Minutes to load widgets or a 20 sec wait to type a sentence is NOT normal, even with base RAM.
     
  12. milo macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #12
    It's not a slow computer, it just absolutely needs more ram.

    There have probably been a dozen threads on this exact topic. Guy complains his mac is slow, the solution is bump ram to a gig or more.

    My mini had the exact same issues, performance went from glacial to blazing just by adding ram.
     
  13. xfiftyfour macrumors 68030

    xfiftyfour

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Location:
    Clemson, SC
    #13
    wow, my MB (2.0 GHz, 1.25 gig RAM) is loads faster than even my 1.67GHz, 1 gig RAM PB before it.

    i've yet to use it with only the stock RAM, but surely that must be your problem (that or other issues that need to be addressed by Applecare) - there's no WAY your brand new MB isn't leaps and bounds above your old ibook.
     
  14. milo macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #14
    Regardless of what anyone thinks a computer "should" do, the intel macs do need a gig or more of ram for most use. Especially when you're running rosetta since the machine is doing emulation.

    Not sure why you felt like you needed to post two threads with the same basic message, but I'll give you the same response as the other thread.

    You need more ram. Go to a gig or more. This has been widely discussed on this board.

    And realize that apps that aren't universal will be a bit slower than other apps. Native versions will be out at some point.
     
  15. drewfasa thread starter macrumors newbie

    drewfasa

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    #15
    Ya, but seriously, I only use the thing for email, word processing or web, and I posted it in the hardware section because I had 2 gripes: 1)with Apple, because the computer is advertised as being able to do at least those three things (email, web, Word) and 'so much more' in its stock condition 'right out of the box...I'm a PC; I'm a Mac..' and all that rubbish - which the iBook did! With only 512MB. And 2) my second gripe was a software one with Microsoft because I looked on Mactopia before I switched to Macbook and it said that Office runs 'as good or better' on Rosetta, which isn't true unless you have an amount of RAM which, whatever you might think, is higher than most non-computer people are used to using for such basic functions.
     
  16. drewfasa thread starter macrumors newbie

    drewfasa

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    #16
    Yes, but my gripe is this: the ads for the new macbook said it would do everything I want out of the box: it didn't. I did not know that 'a dozen guys' posted about this, because until I spent £750 on a laptop that was slower than my wifes old PC, I had never before looked at a tech-forum (you will notice my status is 'newbie'.)

    Bottom line - RAM is expensive, I am a Unviersity student and went into debt to replace my Sony laptop that died because I abolutely need a computer. I simply don't have enough money to upgrade my RAM right away, because I have other concerns like eating. I think alot of non-techie people will be disappointed when they find that they need to buy what amounts to a £100+ add-on before their laptop will be fit for the purpose for which it was intended. I mean dang man, if you can't run MS office with the stock system, what can you do with it?!
     
  17. Zman5225 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Location:
    Tacoma WA
    #17
    I have the 1.33 iBook, and a friend of mine purchased a 1.83 macbook last weekend and had it over at my house for 2 days. We played around with them doing all sorts of things and his just did everything that we threw at it a boat load faster then mine. His was stock with 512mb ram as is mine. Rosetta programs or not, his was still faster.

    I really can't even fathom where you're coming from with this, but all I know having used both, that macbook is fantastically fast compared to the iBooks.
     
  18. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #18
    Compared with my iBook the stock 1.83GHz MacBook I've used feels like it's almost anticipating my requests - much, much faster.

    I'd take it back - hardware test is total bollocks, take it back and show them what's going on.
     
  19. AlBDamned macrumors 68030

    AlBDamned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    #19
    Agreed. it could also be a corrupt factory install though. They're cropping up more and more.

    Try a fresh, fresh install, as in wipe everything and start again using your OS X install discs.

    If this doesn't work, then send it back. The symptoms your experiencing don't reflect the general view that the 2.0GHz MacBook is pretty damn quick. It should - without question - be faster than an old PC so something is rotten in Denmark at the moment.

    It's a shame it's not perfect though.
     
  20. ITASOR macrumors 601

    ITASOR

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Location:
    Oneida, NY
  21. JBot macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Location:
    Calgary.Alberta.Canada
    #21
    The ram advised for each procedure is as follows:
    # OSX, Office: 640mb
    # Gaming: 768mb
    # Audio Production: 1Gig
    # Graphic Design: 2Gigs
    # Video Editing: 4-8Gigs
     
  22. Mackilroy macrumors 68040

    Mackilroy

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    #22
    I went from a 1.0 GHz iBook to a 2.0 GHz MacBook (dad has the iBook for trips) and it's INCREDIBLY fast. So much faster than the iBook, indeed. The iBook also had more RAM (768 MiB compared to 512 MiB). Something's wrong with your MacBook, because I can use MS Office great (takes a few seconds to load, but then it's smooth).
     
  23. aristobrat macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #23
    Well, now that you have the griping out of your system, get some more RAM and enjoy your new MacBook! :)
     
  24. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #24
    consensus seems to be: Yes you'd benefit from more RAM, but there's something wrong beyond that. A stock macbook might beachball once in a while, but it should still be faster than an ibook, and absolutely should not be so slow as to be "useless."

    There is something WRONG, not just a lack of RAM. Exchange it.
     
  25. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #25
    Is there anything you really need Office for (until you save enough for more RAM)?

    If it's just Word, Powerpoint and Excel, try NeoOffice - it's based on OpenOffice, and is Universal Binary. Although OpenOffice tends to require more RAM than MS Office normally, you may be better off with NeoOffice. And you have nothing to lose trying it out. Admittedly, although I use OpenOffice on my Linux machine, I prefer Office even in Windows, but it's a good stopgap. Of course, if you need Entourage, that's not an option, but if another email application like ThunderBird would work with your email server, try that.

    As for memory, I would recommend you get two matched 512MB RAM sticks rather than a single 1GB RAM module. The MacBooks and Mac Minis work better with matched RAM. Crucial UK has this for 43 pounds each.

    My wife's MacBook has 1GB RAM and runs anything we throw at it. Although it does take Word twice as long to open as on my iMac with 2GB RAM, that's only six bounces of the icon in the Dock compared to three. But once it's running, it's fine - no slow downs at all with any application.
     

Share This Page