Should I buy Excel 2002 or 2003? And yes I already have 2010!

I run Excel 2010 at home and at work and I am usually happy with it. I even like the ribbon over the old user interface.

However, every now and then I get a interesting problem to analyze and I usually end up with a sheet full of calculations, charts AND ActiveX scrollbars. The scrollbars are for changing various parameters and as the charts are updated almost in realtime it helps me understand how things work together. Well, at least it used to be almost real time back in the 2003 days. Even though, as everyone knows, Excel 2010 was a huge step up from Excel 2007 it is still nowhere near the speed of Excel 2003 when it comes to updating charts affected by ActiveX scrollbars (despite that we now have so much multiple giga bla bla).

I'm considering buying Excel 2003 but a while ago I stumbled upon a old PC running XP and Excel 2002. How fast it started when double clicking a .xls file almost had me jump out of my chair.

Now for the question, is Excel 2002 noticeable faster than 2003 when it comes to charts and sheet calculations? Will either of them run on Win 7 on a 64 bit machine?

I'd suggest using a pirate copy of Excel pre 2007... If it works well and you're an honest person then pay for it.... If not - tell Microsoft

I run 2000 on a windows 8 machine 64 bit, I dont use it much, just for questions in here, it runs just fine. I cannot comment as far as speed comparison is concerned though

I still run 2003 in my W7 laptop. It is, IMO, the most stable version of Excel ever built, and Help is head and shoulders better than newer versions.

I run Excel 2010 64 bit on a capable machine (intel i7-3770) with 16 gig of ram and it is the fastest most stable version/computer combination that I have ever used. Unless you are testing for compatibility probems, I wouldn't bother with older versions.

Even my laptop running 64 bit Excel is very quick an hard to slow down.

NDM, that wouldnt happen to be an HP would it? coz thats pretty much what I'm running at home

Thanks for replies guys! I like what I hear.
I recall seeing some experienced guy here running Excel 2002. Was it Tony Valko?

That's entirely possible. Tony has (I think) just about any version of excel that came out.

OH 1 thing I just remembered. Im running W8 at home and it keeps reminding me to upgrade to 8.1. There is a compatability test from MS that you can run, and it said 2000 was not compatable with 8.1

@ FDibbins

I have a Dell. It has the Inter i7 3770 chip, 256GB SSD system drive, 3TB HD, 16 GB ram. I am running Windows 7 Home Premium X64 and Office Home and Student 2010 X64. The system cold boots (including password insertion) in 30 seconds.

I heard about the 8.1 compatibility problems with 2000....real pain for those running 2000 and Win 8.

@ NDM...well you and your SSD just suck space dust!! LOL

@ FDibbins

I cant stop laughing

If you don't have an SSD, you should try it. They are amazing.

@Jacc Can you describe the computer that you are using including the graphics adapter? The version of Windows (64 bit or not) etc. would help I think in rendering an opinion worth a little more than hot air. After all, we do want to give the best opinion possible.

At work it is a rather standard eeeh... is it a HP 8440p? I think so. Not sure about graphics adapter but it's not speced to run any CAD software or anything like that.

I tried switching on and off hardware acceleration and switching between running one or multiple processors. No noticeable difference. Do I need to restart when changing settings? Cause I didn't do that.

I'll get proper facts next time I swing by the office (in a day or a couple).

Here you go newdoverman.
It is a HP Elitebook 8440p with a modest spec. Windows 7 servicepack 1

Computer properties.JPG

Computer properties 2.JPG

I do find Excel 2003 to be faster than any subsequent version for all operations - on the same computer. I have never noticed a performance difference between 2002 (XP) and 2003. 2000 was still faster. But I always forget how ugly the default charts in 2003- are.

I can see nothing in your computer's basic specs that would indicate that it is not capable of delivering decent performance.

There can be an enormous difference in the efficiency of the new functions over the older functions. There is a series on Youtube where various functions are timed processing the same data. The first in the series is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2ulQwMmlmY

The last in the series compares functions on a large data set http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yolP3Bapc-w

There are 12 videos in the series and it is well worth the time to watch (IMO)