Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!mtunk!io!granjon!edsel!arrow!pierce!cbdkc1!jph
From: jph@cbdkc1.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Borland Quattro Review Wanted
Message-ID: <2619@cbdkc1.ATT.COM>
Date: 16 Dec 87 13:28:06 GMT
References: <5989@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: jph@cbdkc1.UUCP (J. P. Holtman #3B370 CB x2214 JPH)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 18

In article <5989@j.cc.purdue.edu> agv@j.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Murrell) writes:
>I'm considering the purchase of Borland's new Quattro --
>a Lotus 1-2-3 clone/enhancement. I'd enjoy hearing from
>.....................

I just received a copy of Quattro and installed it. My initial
impression is that I will stick to LOTUS. There are nice features such
as the customization of the menus, the improved graphs, and some
additional "@" functions. It did read in my current LOTUS files, but I
found at least a couple of cases where I had to change some macros to
make it work. Also it had the same (or slower) speed in doing the
recalculations of the worksheet. (Now I know all the  arguments about
which 'benchmark' is used). The LOTUS compatible mode is slower in
responding to command than 1-2-3 and the macros executed slower.

Overall, if you don't already use 1-2-3, then Quattro is a good
investment. If you already have a large investment in exising
worksheets, you might want to stick with 1-2-3.