Re: Impossibly Slow Load-Time for Cross-Reference Window Items

From: fizzicist (fizzicist_at_mac.com)
Date: 11/01/04 

Date: 1 Nov 2004 13:10:29 -0800

Hi Daiya:

As promised, here are the results of my findings on the Office 2004
SP1 installation, and my tryout of Clive's Word 2001 workaround.

Office 2004 SP 1:
I installed it and tested it on a volume that was identical to my
normal working volume. In testing the cross-reference insertion
process, I determined that SP1 does not affect the stability or
persistence of the "reloads-the-list-every-time" bug, which functions
just as reliably as ever. However, it runs more quickly since I
installed SP1. The list loading time was approximately 30 seconds
before SP1; after SP1 it's down to approximately 12 seconds. That's
still an unacceptably long wait, but at least it suggests that
whatever is the cause of the bug is affected by something that was
fixed in SP1.

Clive's Word 2001 Workaround:
I tried it, and it works. In a separate post to John McGhie in which I
described my own workaround, I explained why I believe using Word 2001
is not practical in my application -- the tiny size of the referents
list pane and the primitive scrolling function are the principal
culprits -- so I won't repeat those details here. I mentioned it in
today's production meeting, whereupon it was met with a response I
would characterize as "not exactly receptive".

Predictably, there is a certain amount of indignation over the fact
that a great deal of effort is being expended by a number of users in
the development of a workaround, yet a similar level of concern and
remedial effort apparently is not forthcoming from Microsoft. I
pointed out that there is something suggestive in a remark that I
recalled in one of John McGhie's earlier posts:

> Microsoft is planning the next version of Mac Word. One of the changes
> being debated may fix this as a side-effect.

I've thought about that comment some more, especially in context with
the evidence that SP1 did not eliminate the "reload bug", but it DID
have an effect on it. I'm in hypothesizing mode here, so take it with
a grain of salt, but I'm inferring that there is a much bigger problem
with MacWord than the reload bug itself. I'm inferring that the reload
bug is a consequence of something else that is broken in the porting
from WinWord to MacWord, and it's such a formidable task to repair it
or redesign it that MBU is balking at the commitment of resources that
effort would require.

At least, that's the only kind of explanation that makes any sense to
me. It certainly doesn't make any sense that a bug this serious could
be allowed to persist for so long if it were a relatively simple or
easy matter to fix it. Methinks there are deep waters here.

This has been a pretty interesting thread. It has certainly stretched
me quite a bit as a Word user. Thanks again for your inputs as a part
of that process, Daiya.

Best regards,

Vito

fizzicist@mac.com (fizzicist) wrote in message news:<136542ef.0410292223.bf4281b@posting.google.com>...
> Hi Daiya:
>
> I haven't installed SP1 yet. There's a whole security procedure I have
> to go through before I can clear an update for installation on the
> project workstations, running them on a test bed volume that's a
> precise clone of the working volume to check for incompatibilities
> with other software. I'm not griping about it...the procedure makes
> sense from a process workflow standpoint. Nothing gets installed until
> it's been cleared by the Resources CM System Manager. That'd be yours
> truly. I'll probably make time to do it on Saturday, after which I'll
> post back here and let you know whether it makes any difference. I
> doubt it will, though; I don't recall seeing it listed as one of the
> things SP1 fixed, and it has evidently been such a big nuisance for so
> long that I would think MS would be pleased to crow about having fixed
> it.
>
> As for Clive Huggan's workaround, that presents problems of its own.
> I've already found incompatibilities running Word 2004 docs back
> through Word X; so, the opportunity for even greater
> backward-incompatibility mischief probably skyrockets going back yet
> another version to Word 2001...not to mention whatever gremlins might
> materialize in bridging the gap from OS X back to Classic. The mind
> reels...
>
> ...ah, well...as long as I'll be running the test bed volume for SP1,
> I might as well launch Classic and fire up Word 2001 while I'm at it.
> It can't hurt to check it out. Then all I have to do is sell it at the
> next Project Change Board meeting. "Well, folks...I realize that we've
> spec'd all this state of the art hardware & software, but we have to
> port the documents back to Word 2001 in Classic to insert the
> cross-references. The good news is that...(ahem)...there are
> surprisingly few incompatibilities. I've prepared a list of the things
> that won't survive the journey -- things we'll need to accommodate in
> our workflow procedures..."
>
> I can hear the groans already. It certainly will make for an
> interesting proposal...in approximately the same sense that the word
> "interesting" is used in that venerable old Chinese curse, "May you
> live in interesting times." ;-)
>
> Thanks much for your response, Daiya. I hope my
> skepticism-cum-borderline-grumbly response above doesn't appear as
> though I'm ungrateful. Believe it or not, there is some solace in
> having a sympathetic ear, and I really do sincerely appreciate your
> taking the time to post a reply to my original posts. I'll let you
> know what happens in the test bed trials.
>
> Vito DiLuminoso

(previous content snipped by Vito)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Impossibly Slow Load-Time for Cross-Reference Window Items
    ... > fixed in SP1. ... > Clive's Word 2001 Workaround: ... > with MacWord than the reload bug itself. ... >> to go through before I can clear an update for installation on the ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)
  • Re: Received fax errors after running SFC.exe
    ... Have just tried via the Microsoft Website but the ... You should be able to download or get CDs of a trial version of SBS 2003 ... slipstreamed media the best I can think of is to extract the Win2003 SP1 ... installation CD3 has 5/12/05 folder dates and fax files with version ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • RE: Cannot create user accounts with Server Management | Users
    ... I did not install Sharepoint, so likely SP1 for it was not installed, ... reversed the order of installation for ISA and SQL server (and installed ISA ... > Thanks for using the SBS newsgroup! ... your computer must be running Microsoft Windows XP with Service ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: FT index doesnt auto populate
    ... behaviour between RTM and SP1. ... tracking -- Auto, Manual, and None. ... a very vanilla installation of SQL on Windows 2003. ... off after you create your full-text index the way it would occur in RTM. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.fulltext)
  • RE: SBS2003 Standard Edition SP1 Upgrade SharePoint Sites and comp
    ... followed your instructions yet for reinstallation of sharepoint. ... However, if you configure Companyweb ... please let me know whether the SP1 installation ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
Loading