> -Original Message-
> From: Will Kramer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:37 AM
>
> Is it practical to have a spreadsheet with more than say a
> million cells (on a fast computer with 256 mb of ram)? I have
> 3 rows by 40 columns of data that I want to
Hi!
I have the same experience with large spreadsheets. If it comes close to
1 Mb (some 50 Mb in .xls), than it's impossible to work with calc. I'm
linux user at work, so my solution is to break large spreadsheets into
smaller ones and connect them with links, and of course delete every
piece
Is it practical to have a spreadsheet with more than
say a million cells (on a fast computer with 256 mb of
ram)? I have 3 rows by 40 columns of data that I
want to do a couple of calculations for on each row
and then sort the rows. Is one of calc, gnumeric,
excel more efficient at this?
Kirill S. Palagin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Will Kramer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:37 AM
Is it practical to have a spreadsheet with more than say a
million cells (on a fast computer with 256 mb of ram)? I have
3 rows by 40 columns of data t
In my experience, apart from load/save times, I've not found a _large_
difference between calc and Excel (I've not used gnumeric).
I've just tried a 39000R x 40C spreadsheet and time differences
between sorting and calculations (on all rows) wasn't that great. I
must say however that the PC used
