To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Actually, Office is now very light on system resources -- principally because its actually resource usage has NOT grown at anywhere near the rate that hardware has improved.
Ten years ago, I might've launched Character Map to grab some symbol that I didn't know how to type. These days, I just launch Word. It's just as fast -- in fact, it's faster, because I've probably got that character on my MRU list in Insert --> Symbol.
The thing you have to remember is that the stated "System requirements" are very different from actual resource consumption.
It may "require" 1 GB of RAM, but that's with the OS loaded. Excel 2013 (x86) uses 18 MB at launch. Word 2013 (x86) uses 25 MB. PowerPoint 2013 (x86) uses 27 MB.
It may "require" 3 GB of disk space fully-loaded, but that's if you install the fully-loaded everything-bundle. Install Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, and you'll use around 1 GB. And if you really want, you can delete other components that you don't need.
It does require a 1 GHz CPU -- but probably not because it needs 4x the clock speed. No, it's because they've decided to turn on the SSE2 compiler optimizations. What would be the point of requiring a 233 MHz CPU with SSE2? They don't exist.
The reason that Microsoft Office "requires" more system specs than it actually uses is simple: Because it can. Because PC specs have gotten so good that you'd be very hard-pressed to find one that could not meet the specs. Because it's better to overspecify the requirements than to underspecify. Because it costs more to support someone running a system more ancient than that.
If you install Office 2013 in a Windows 7 VM, turned off most system services, reduced the RAM below 1 GB, and then restricted CPU utilization to, say, 10%, I bet you it'd still run.
Just like running Windows RT on an HTC HD2.
Edited 2012-12-27 23:37 UTC
To expand on the previous comment a bit, the reason the specs call for a 1Ghz CPU and 1GB of RAM are that the minimum OS requirement is Windows 7 - and the minimum requirements for Windows 7 call for a 1Ghz CPU and 1GB of RAM...
Yes, it needs 3GB of disk space, but that is mostly because of the way the installer works (it puts the entire install image on your harddrive - even if you never really install any of the optional components). The "core" parts of all the Office apps probably only take up about 350MB at the most.
The requirements are simply a side-effect of the minimum OS required. They can't state lower requirements than the OS itself calls for...
The only thing special is they chose to require SSE2, which seems reasonable since it is available in all AMD/Intel processors made since 2003. Windows 8 requires SSE2 as well...
Don't want to sound like I'm piling on, I agree completely with you overall point. Its just that Office is a bad example of software bloat - its actually quite lightweight relative to most Office Suites (OpenOffice I'm talking about you).
http://www.hostcult.com/2012/08/libreoffice-36-vs-openoffice34-vs-m...
Edited 2012-12-28 01:49 UTC
Agree, Office might not have been the best example, just something off the top of my head. In any case, as for the RAM requirements, I think you're way too optimistic there - the measures you gave most probably don't include shared libraries and a host of other resources (OSes like to lie about such things). As for disk resources, I see no reason for them to inflate 8x, even with added functionality - I mean, we're talking nearly a full DVD's worth of data, the equivalent of some 100000 full-PAL JPEG images.
As for OOo/LibreOffice, again, fully agree, that thing needs an intense diet, real bad.
And folks wondered why I have Office 2K7 on my desktop but run Office 2K on my netbook ;-)
But I would say in some ways you are right, in some you are wrong. take browsers for instance, IE and all the Chromium variants run in low rights mode, run tabs and plugins in separate processes and all that takes memory and cycles, but the trade of gets you better security and less likely to crash. Compare this to FF where i don't know how many times I had managed to crash even the latest version, all it takes is one misbehaving web page to knock the whole thing down.
And I don't know about everybody else but personally if it comes down to using some of my memory or using swap, please use the memory! One of the things I love about Win 7 is how its superfetch learns all the programs I use and when I use them and has them all loaded and ready to go, so much nicer than launching and waiting on the program to load from disk.
Finally when it comes to Office? frankly they have added a LOT of features in that time, whether you use them or not is another matter but they have added a lot. Personally I just wish everyone wrote a "lite edition" for your tablet/cellphone/netbooks and a "deluxe" edition for your laptops and desktops so we'd have the right tool for the job. If you wanna use a little more CPU to give me more features on my hexacore desktop hey, no problem, but when I'm on my AMD Bobcat netbook I'd really prefer if you didn't suck my battery dry.





Member since:
2007-04-18
Contrary to popular belief and the ever lasting senseless GHz-GB march, a 1 gig CPU with half a gig of RAM is plenty enough to run almost any modern OS. The problem isn't that the system is too weak, it's that software developers are so inundated with an embarrassment of riches that is modern hardware performance, that they've become complacent and instead of writing software properly, they succumb to the "meh just get more powerful hardware" mentality.
The examples of this are abound all over the software landscape. Take for instance Office, a suite who's core functionality has remained unchanged for essentially two decades, yet compare the system requirements for Office 2003 and Office 2013 (10 year difference):
Office 2003:
CPU: 233 MHz+
RAM: 128 MB
HDD: 400 MB
Office 2013:
CPU: 1GHz+ with SSE2
RAM: 1GB
HDD: 3GB
Each of those specs has increased 4-8 fold and yet, most changes in functionality were largely under the hood and nothing that would justify the absolute ballooning in sysreq's.