Discussion:
Random
(too old to reply)
Harlan Grove
2007-04-27 00:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Since I don't blog, and since this newsgroup is underused, I thought
I'd try a bit of advocacy to see who still checks it.

Now that Excel 2007 has been out for a few months, it's time to for an
early reaction to it. Notable for me is the dearth of Excel (as in
microsoft.public.excel...) newsgroup postings specifically about Excel
2007. Either the ribbon is the true answer to all of Excel's problems,
or Excel 2007 is mostly used by people who don't know about newsgroups
or who already know Excel well enough that they don't have questions.

I don't like the ribbon. To some extent that's due to irrational
resistance to change, but as someone who has used (in order) Lotus
Symphony, VP-Planner, Lotus 123, Excel, 20/20 (mainframe), Quattro
Pro, StarOffice (version 5.0 registered user), OpenOffice, Applix
Spreadsheet, Xess and gnumeric, I'd have thought I qualified as a
relatively adaptable spreadsheet user. While I understand the
rationale for the ribbon - exposing more functionality - it fails to
do that for long-time Excel users precisely because it changes where
commands are located.

I could be accused of being a reactionary on the subject of
spreadsheet UIs. I still prefer the 123 classic menu (DOS versions, in
which pressing the [F3] key would fill 20 rows of 5 columns of defined
names or files or whatever the item was you wanted to select) for the
simple reason that it took up NO screen space while I was 'composing'
- writing formulas.

Now that I use Excel 2003 exclusively at work (the company
discontinued 123R97 last year), I've been doing a bit more
customization of the UI. Mostly adding OnKey keystroke shortcuts for
simple macros. I have OpenOffice-like Paste Special and Clear dialogs
(checkboxes rather than radio buttons for what to paste/clear) that I
run using [Shift]+[Ctrl]+V and [Ctrl]+[Delete], respectively, and
another dialog providing multiple selection of hidden worksheets to
unhide. Basic stuff which MSFT should have implemented. [OK, radio
buttons for Paste Special and Clear may be a design decision, but
OpenOffice's approach is more efficient for me. There's no good reason
to be able to unhide only one worksheet at a time.] Fortunately, these
would survive a move to Excel 2007 & later, though I don't have to
face that for years.

Anyway, having tinkered with the public beta and the online trial
version, I have to wonder whether those who claim to find the ribbon
more efficient do so for the ribbon itself or for the improved
dialogs. Without a doubt managing names, conditional formatting and
sorting have been substantially improved (kudos to gnumeric - the new
Excel 2007 Define Name and Sort dialogs look suspiciously like those
gnumeric has had for a few years). Pity they didn't also copy
OpenOffice's Format > Print Ranges. As for gallery submenus, they
could have been added to standard pre-ribbon menus. For that matter,
the same could be said for the improved dialogs.

I grant that the ribbon may be better for some people, but it won't
be, at least not in the short term, for many long-time users. MSFT
could have included alternative ribbons that contained tabs named
File, Edit, View, Insert, Format, Tools, Data, and Window each
containing the pre-Excel 2007 standard menu commands. They could even
have put those commands in the top row of 3, and put equivalent
buttons/submenus for the Standard and Formatting toolbars underneath
the menu commands on each tab. MSFT provided an Excel 4 menu with
Excel 5, which was the last time they made radical changes to the
menus in all Office apps at the same time. They didn't this time. None
of the reasons they didn't this time around reflect well on them.
[Though I can hear others chanting, "Just learn the ribbon - it's good
for you."]

Then there's the lack of floating and left/right/bottom-docked
toolbars.

So much for the UI.

MSFT added only a few built-in functions, of which IFERROR is probably
the most useful. SUMIFS and COUNTIFS are the most pointless because
they only handle multiple AND criteria, not OR criteria. [Yes,
logicians out there, OR conditions could be accomplished using
NOT(NOT(A) AND NOT(B)), which would mean COUNT(r)-
COUNTIFS(r,NOT(A),r,NOT(B)) or SUM(y)-SUMIFS(r,NOT(A),r,NOT(B),y), but
that's not clearly easier to understand than the SUMPRODUCT work-
arounds of old.] But it'd be a whole lot better if they'd just make
SQL.REQUEST a built-in function (without memory leak, please). And
they still haven't fixed MOD. [Anti-kudos to gnumeric, which
reproduces Excel's artificially limited function domain, though, FWIW,
OpenOffice Calc and 123 have no problem with, e.g., MOD(2^28,3).]

Bigger grid - many asked for this, even though it's almost certainly a
bad thing. [Well, 512 columns would have been good, but 18K columns
and 1MM rows will cause more trouble than they're worth.] Still, can't
fault them for that. Tables as replacement for lists - a very good
thing, but needs a row selection mechanism, ideally, the ability to
select based on criteria with the result being either a multiple area
range or an array. [Better still if they'd add a built-in function
that does nothing more than convert its arguments into a 1D array of
the values contained in those arguments - NPV's iteration order
acceptable - and have it accept 3D references. Array slicing and
reshaping functions would be nice too.] Themes, OTOH, are pernicious.
All eye candy is meant to DISTRACT from the REAL content. I know there
are people who believe otherwise, but most of them don't understand
real content.

I gave up knee-jerk software upgrading when my first kid was born.
[Good thing that was a few months AFTER Excel 5 came out.] Will I
eventually use a beribboned version of Excel? Maybe in a few years at
work, and as long as I can access the company's terminal server farm
through Citrix clients (making it possible to have Excel et al
available on my Linux machine at home) I have no reason to upgrade my
own copy. Office 2000 still running quite well on my wife's PC and
Office 97 acceptably on my ancient PII machine. If they'd fix certain
existing functions and add some USEFUL ones, I might be tempted, but
ever closer UI uniformity with Word and PPT ain't gonna move me.
b***@yahoo.com
2007-04-27 03:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Haven't seen the new version. Appreciate the comments. Still using
97 on one computer and 03 on the main machine. They are so compatable
I seldom notice the difference (except for help files).

WINGZ was the real precursor (in my view) to Excel 97 which was the
segment killer for MS. Or was it 95 - the one that introduced VBA.

Did they do anything with the charts so they look better? Always
thought they could be upgraded some.

Does VBA code still run? Has it changed much?

Thanks for the comments,
Brian
Jerry W. Lewis
2007-05-15 00:23:43 UTC
Permalink
It depends on what you mean by "look better". By and large the
direction seems to be toward more of what Tufte calls "chart junk", with
little of substance added. I haven't worked with the production
version, but
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.excel.charting/browse_thread/thread/acd1e49ef8772cf4/
is disturbing as far as "improvements" go.

I agree with Harlan re. the learning curve for "old dogs" trying to use
the ribbon. Things I could do without thinking in previous versions
took a great deal of time trying to figure out where commands had gone.
Hopefully the production version supports old keyboard shortcuts to
ease the transition.

VBA is still supported, and my legacy code did run. The new file types
take some getting used to. Beware of saving a workbook with VBA as a
file type that cannot store VBA.

I would have been more likely to accept the steep learning curve if it
were the price of improved numerics (Harlan barely scratched the
surface), but alas that is not the choice we were given.

Jerry
Post by b***@yahoo.com
Haven't seen the new version. Appreciate the comments. Still using
97 on one computer and 03 on the main machine. They are so compatable
I seldom notice the difference (except for help files).
WINGZ was the real precursor (in my view) to Excel 97 which was the
segment killer for MS. Or was it 95 - the one that introduced VBA.
Did they do anything with the charts so they look better? Always
thought they could be upgraded some.
Does VBA code still run? Has it changed much?
Thanks for the comments,
Brian
Jerry W. Lewis
2007-05-15 00:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com
Haven't seen the new version. Appreciate the comments. Still using
97 on one computer and 03 on the main machine. They are so compatable
I seldom notice the difference (except for help files).
While changes from 97 to 2003 are more evolutionary than revolutionary,
there are some noticeable improvements. Depending on what you are
doing, you may find 2003 less likely to crash, and more likely to
recover your work if it does crash. You can lock your formulas without
locking the user out of search/replace, formatting, etc. There are lots
of other handy little differences here and there as well.

Follow the links from
http://www.j-walk.com/ss/excel/index.htm
for more on what was new in 2002 and 2003.

Jerry
m***@gmail.com
2007-04-27 13:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harlan Grove
they still haven't fixed MOD. [Anti-kudos to gnumeric, which
reproduces Excel's artificially limited function domain, though, FWIW,
OpenOffice Calc and 123 have no problem with, e.g., MOD(2^28,3).]
I get 1 with Gnumeric 1.7.9. (A recent development version.)
Depending
on compilation flags, integers up to 14-33 digits should be handled
exactly.

We are not aiming at reproducing Excel's limited domains of FACT,
IMPOWER, etc. It is conceivable that a previous version was buggy,
though. A bug report for an item like this would normally be handled
in very short order.

Morten Welinder
***@gnome.org
d***@gmail.com
2007-06-19 06:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harlan Grove
I gave up knee-jerk software upgrading when my first kid was born.
Unfortunately I still suffer from this affilction, and I have Excel
2007 installed as my production spreadsheet.

On the whole I agree with comments about the UI.

I have found few problems with VBA. The only problem of note was due
to a bug in my code which only resulted in a crash about 1% of the
time in earlier versions, but 100% of the time in 2007. Now it's
fixed the macro runs 100% of the time rather than 99%, so that's a
plus.

The big issue for me is slow performance. The program seems to run
between 2 and 10 times slower than earlier versions. This is with a
dual core processor and 2 GB RAM. There is a limited amount of
comment to similar effect on the Web, along with a fair amount of guff
from MS about how they have made it quicker (surely they must know
that it is slow!).

The other big reason for keeping an earlier version installed is
recording macros. Many actions on objects are simply not recorded in
2007 (manipulating shapes for instance).

For the time being I am saving everything in 97-2003 format so that I
can work in XL 2000 if need be. I suspect I'll be doing that for
quite some time to come.

Loading...