Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:2545 comp.sys.mac.apps:1274
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!world!boris
From: boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: Norton Utils and Excel
Message-ID: <1990Aug24.054918.15169@world.std.com>
Date: 24 Aug 90 05:49:18 GMT
References: <1538@ntmtv.UUCP> <679@dbase.A-T.COM> <1990Aug23.070322.9301@world.std.com> <48037@brunix.UUCP>
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Lines: 73

man@vali.cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine) writes:
>In article <1990Aug23.070322.9301@world.std.com>, boris@world.std.com
>(Boris Levitin) writes:
>|>Aside from the practicalities of this particular issue, I wonder why certain
>|>users refuse to upgrade to current versions of their software.  I understand
>|>upgrading is sometimes expensive, but it's the only way the publisher can 
>|>fix bugs, compatibility problems and design flaws, and to add new features.
>|>The computer industry is all about progress; it doesn't make sense to try to
>|>freeze its development by refusing to take advantage of its new offerings.
>That's easy.  I'm still using Excel 1.5 because
> (1) It's too expensive for me to upgrade to 2.2

$99 is expensive? Not compared to what Excel retails for (~$249 mail-order).

> (2) Excel 1.5 does everything I need done

There is in fact a problem with rampant featuritis in Mac software, where
programs undertake functionalities that arguably are the proper domain of
other classes of software (eg, worksheets and word-processors with drawing
tools).  The consensus among serious users of Excel 1.5, myself included,
was that it was not afflicted by that disease, and is in fact quite limited
(every time I had to do a string replace or import data from other systems
I was reminded of the mindless failure to include a replace or a parse
function, respectively).  Functions that did exist worked s-l-o-w-l-y.
Version 2.2 fixed all that; the major problem area remaining is the dreadful
charting facility, and that will be fixed in the next release.

> (3) The _only_ features of 2.2 that I would find at all useful are the
>file-handling functions (I read the whole manual which is more than
>probably most owners of 2.2 can say).

Well, these are your specific needs.  There are users who never exchange
data with other types of machines, who don't need to make their work
presentable, and who wouldn't miss even a single feature added/
improved in Excel 2.2.  Microsoft cannot engineer a separate version for
every user, and with Excel's having a 90% market share it wasn't about
to direct its product towards the low end (for one thing, virtually all users
in need of a serious worksheet/database owned it because until a year ago
it was the only real choice in that category).

> (4) There were reports that 2.2 did some things very slowly with
>databases.  I use databases a lot and things are already slow enough,
>thank you.

I am not aware of that.  The database part of Excel was significantly
enhanced in 2.2.  Maybe you are right about the speed of *certain* functions,
but my observations show the general tendency to be the reverse.

> (5) If and when MS comes out with another release of Excel that either
>has things I want or that I'm sure won't set me back, I'll consider
>buying another upgrade.  In my experience, most companies charge the
>same amount for an upgrade no matter what previous version you're
>upgrading from, so it's probably cheaper to leapfrog 2.2.

3.0 will take full advantage of System 7 and have full charting capabilities.
By the way, were you aware that Excel 2.2 and Word 4.0 have a rudimentary
interapplication link ("QuickSwitch") already in place?

>BTW, I've been using Excel 1.5 under MF with no problems.  I just always
>start it first if I'm going to use it.

If you're running little else while Excel is active, you might just get
away with it (you'll still be limited to 1MB though).  Try running QuickMail
in the background, though, and you'll be crashing daily -- I garrrontee it,
as Justin Wilson would say.

Boris Levitin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston                         boris@world.std.com
Audience & Marketing Research              wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide 
with those of my employer or anyone else.  The WGBH tag is for ID only.)