I'm at my first company that uses Google apps and it's been a bad experience. There's so much about email and calendaring that Outlook/Exchange got right that it's hard to be without it after taking it for granted.
Using a native rich application is always going to be superior to building a web app on top of a browser. Once you're used to real applications, Gmail and the other apps aren't suitable for anything more than light usage. It's not just the features that are missing, it's UI responsiveness and usability. Hosting an application inside a browser is so awkward in ways that real applications aren't. I can't assume I can right click and get anything useful, I don't know if I'm going to get the browser's menu or the app's. The concept of a consistent menu bar you can access with hotkeys is gone. Online/offline will never be seamless and consistent across apps. And the input lag is intolerable.
Having all of my documents stored centrally is a real, but small, convenience to get in exchange for everything that's given up. And as far as cost goes, I'd prefer that any money my company might be saving be deducted from my paycheck if it would mean they'd get off of Google apps.
I recently went through an acquisition where we transitioned from Google Apps to the Microsoft suite. I do not share your love of Microsoft's suite.
Among the many problems I have with the Microsoft suite, Outlook is at the top of my list for generating the most frustration. GMail's priority inbox and new-style inbox where machine learning is used to sort out mail is a productivity booster for me. With Outlook, I regularly lose important mail because it is buried under the difficult to filter masses of other email.
I could go on about how the lack of robust collaboration facilities are a direct time waster for my team, but I don't want to hijack this thread further...
> I'd prefer that any money my company might be saving be deducted from my paycheck if it would mean they'd get off of Google apps.
Sysadmin here. How much are you willing to pay? I'll need at least 2 domain servers, exchange server, backup server/device/nas/tapes, etc to give you a stable and recoverable environment. I'll need an air conditioned server room/closet as well and a decent UPS. We'll need to pay for offsite data storage as well. How many people? We'll need CALs for each user. Licensing even for a trivial environment is easily 5 figures. Not to mention my salary.
I guess you could go with some shitty MSP and small business server, but not if you actually value your company, uptimes, and data.
Cloud services aren't big because they're good. They're big because they're cheaper than guys like me and all the stuff we work with. Your boss understands this. He's expecting you to deal with it.
I would agree with you that excel is still more powerful than google spreadsheet but I don't agree that's because of native vs web type of app, because gmail is more powerful (and faster) than outlook. So let's call it subjective and give it a rest.
The main reason we switched to google apps is collaboration: all the features in the world do not really matter when the whole team can open and edit a document at the same time and work on it seamlessly.
I'll give you maybe Excel, but for a standard document (and really most spreadsheets, which for me admittedly aren't very complicated and the real-time sharing is more important) Google Drive kills Microsoft's offerings to me.
Especially mail. Gmail and its web interface are far superior to Outlook in usability, far less frustrating experience to me.
Basically I disagree that 'native' apps will always be superior here. Docs and Gmail are already superior on the web IMO.
This is how a disruptive technology starts. Google Apps doesn't have to be better, but the idea is that one day, you'll find Google Apps "good enough", with all the benefits of being online (and now offline, too). You're just on the higher end of the power-user curve, but your "good enough" day is approaching.
I completely agree. I'm not impressed by the new features of Google sheets when desktop apps have had these features (and much more) for years and years. Sure, Sheets runs in a browser which is an impressive feat, but it can't match the speed, responsiveness, or the much richer interactions possible with a desktop app.
Plus, if I'm running a desktop app I can be pretty sure it's not tracking and recording my every action. Can the same be said for when you sign into to use Google Sheets?
They (Google Apps, and Office) are different. People who cannot take the time to adapt to different will always find the 'other' system inferior to the one they know.
I'm also at a company that's a 100% Google Apps and so have been forced to make a good go at it.
- Gmail is great for near-term communications, having chat in the same place makes it a nice communications hub for immediate and near-term communications. I like it better than Outlook and it seems much snappier in day-to-day use.
But I find it almost unusable when looking for emails from a while ago. It's so bad that I connect to my mailbox with Thunderbird and use Thunderbird's search to find anything. The problem is with the threaded conversations, I'll get search results, with the result buried somewhere in 1 of a 100 different emails in the conversation and as far as I know there's no easy way to sort through that pile.
- Calendar is actually pretty good. For my use as good as Outlook. It integrates nicely with Gmail and gets the job done. It's also pretty snappy in day-to-day.
- Document is okay for very simple things. Collaboration is a killer feature. But it's missing many of the things that makes Word superior. It's bad enough that people in my company who interact with anybody outside of the company are on the list for a personal MS-Office license...pretty much just for Word. The review functions (comments, change tracking etc.) in Word is absolutely needed if you work on any kind of contract/proposal paperwork. I find that I quickly exceed the formatting abilities of of the web app without getting into anything too fancy.
- Sheets is also okay for very simple things. However, my accounting department sends me a pretty simple traditional spreadsheet showing timetracking for my staff and it's totally unviewable in the web app. I'd rather just use the web app then firing up Excel, but I simply can't.
- I don't think I've ever bothered with the presentation app or anything else in the suite, but that's all I really need to use. TBH, it's actually a pretty nice suite that gets me about 70% where I need to be. However, all our internal tracking tools (Atlassian tools) really want documents instead of links to shared on-line docs so you end up importing/exporting everything as word docs anyways.
but I have to say I think that this (2nd, 3rd?) rewrite of sheets looks really good. I'm going to try it out the next time I need to deal with staff time.
As a power-excel user I agree with you that Sheets isn't quite there yet. Trying to use the same shortcut keys that I'm used to often makes me want to bang my head against a wall, either because they don't work at all or because even if they do, it's not as responsive.
However, the pace of improvement is one that I think you should definitely consider before saying "never." Excel hasn't fundamentally changed for me since 2003 (outside of being able to more easily handle larger datasets from 65K+), so it seems like a fixed target while sheets continues to move closer (still with large gaps ahead!).
If I need to do financial modeling, I'll likely continue to use excel. However, for many low-touch projects, I've almost completely switched over to sheets, which wasn't the case even a year ago.
I wouldn't count on this:
> Using a native rich application is always going to be superior to building a web app on top of a browser
I firmly believe there would be no "native applications" within 10 years of time.
Outlook is very easily the the application that I hate from bottom of my heart. You are correct that other alternatives are not that good either and that's why Outlook still lives on. Even in 2013, its search feature is laughing stock. It hangs all the time, takes up lots of memory, rules can't be other than presets, its ranking function is sort by date, it can't do spam, TODO list integration is mess, it blocks good attachments, it can't keep conversation togather, it screws HTML and even its spell check is straight from 18th century. If you look at release over release enhancements, it pretty much has remains same, as if there is no one really working on it. Outlook is a shame to human kind considering so many people has to use it despite of it being a pig.
Wow that is so far from my own personal experience it's difficult for me to understand. I am occasionally forced to use Outlook and/or Excel and it tends to ruin a large part of my day. Real time collaboration isn't just a cute convenience, it's the primary staple of my workflow. Strange to have such differing experiences.
That's interesting. We just went the opposite direction, from Office 365 to Google Apps and we couldn't be happier. Office365 was slow, riddled with issues and a poor experience for anyone who used a Mac. Literally awful; we often couldn't talk between offices on Lync because of "reasons" according to Microsoft.
Switching to Google was like a fresh breath of air.
> Using a native rich application is always going to be superior to building a web app on top of a browser.
Depends on how you define "superior."
Word has a lot more features that Google Documents, but if I don't need them...
Personally, I am more than happy to use Google Docs over MS software. Google stuff doesn't take 45 seconds to load. Formatting rarely goes awry. It has the features need. I can access docs from anywhere and share with anyone and they don't have to install anything or even load an application to view it.
I'm not here to defend Google apps (although I use them everyday) as much as web apps in general.
> Once you're used to real applications
What makes an application 'real' as opposed to 'not real'? Did you mean 'native'?
> It's not just the features that are missing
One potential upside to web apps is that, by constraint, a lot more thought needs to go into what should be included and what should be left out. For example, I find a lot of features in Word, Excel, etc. to be completely unnecessary and, moreover, counterproductive. A stripped-down interface, and even functionality set, does have some advantages.
> I can't assume I can right click and get anything useful
Often the case for native apps, although - admittedly - less so
> The concept of a consistent menu bar you can access with hotkeys is gone
Ditto. OSX almost solves the former at the expense of the latter. Applications like Chrome break the single-menu paradigm, though. Windows has a host of applications that invent their own menu styles/behaviours.
> And the input lag is intolerable.
Which specific file type? I rarely have problems with documents or spreadsheets.
> Having all of my documents stored centrally is a real, but small, convenience
It's a massive convenience for me. Dropbox is a good alternative, but I never want to go back to the days of having to remember to carry a specific USB stick everywhere I go and/or using network drives that are a nightmare to access anywhere but the office.
Am I the only one that is distracted by the name "Google Sheets?" It doesn't exactly roll of the tongue, awkward to say and doesn't exactly scream "spreadsheets" when placed next to other Google Docs (Drive?) products. It can just as easily have been a presentation tool, or something else entirely. Although, it's probably ambiguous only to me and for most other people, sheets == spreadsheets.
Ha, no you aren't. Has it always been called that? My first reaction to the submission title was "what in the world is google sheets?"
I almost always use the word processing part of Docs, and maybe 10% spreadsheets (and maybe like .5% presentations), but I guess I just always refer to "google docs", saying "make a spreadsheet in docs" if I have to be more specific (or "in drive", though I'm still resisting that for going less descriptive of what I actually do with it with the new name).
Eg, to add 30 rows, select 30 random rows, no matter what they are, as long as your selection is 30 high. Then you right click the row area, you get the option to insert 30 rows.
Who does UX for these products? Surely this didn't test well?
It's been years and still Google only implements offline mode in docs for Chrome? This looks shameful, but perhaps there is some reason that Google people reading HN can explain?
From what I can tell this requires a Chrome app from the Chrome Web Store. So it is not standard HTML5 stuff. Does Google intend to fully support non-Chrome browsers? This behavior seems to show otherwise.
Google can't force other browsers to implement features. If it's only available for Chrome, it is possible that the features they need are not available elsewhere.
fast - check. Powerful - check. Works offline - check.
Let's get a little closer to google docs...
Works online - check. Edit in browser - check. Edit on mobile device - check. Share with other people - check. Cheap - check (o365 sub is really cheap per seat). Can customise the UI - check. Can deal with huge sheets - check. Can extend, script etc - check.
I use MS Office occasionally at work but even that small amount of usage has me wanting to use Google Docs instead.
-Someone has the Excel file open on the network? Oh, read-only for you my friend. Have to save? Better track down whoever has it open.
-No revision/change tracking. Have to always be alert as to who is changing what and when. Often simpler just to make a new file and add to the clutter on the network folder.
The $0 Google Docs is correctly priced for what it offers: spreadsheet functionality for the lower 80% of the market that doesn't use advanced features and most likely wouldn't pay for a solution
Good to see filtering is finally a client-only action. It always struck me as strange that what was effectively a view change (on the order of scrolling through the document or changing the active page) propagated to other collaborators.
Big fan of gdocs here. Some of the new functions are going to really be great. My only complaint is the display changes. The default row size has increased to 21 from 17 and size 10 font no longer fits in a 17 pixel row. The best option now is size 9 font on 19 pixel rows. It may seem nitpicky, but when I design a spreadsheet, I use a lot of screenspace and this really adds up.
I'm skeptical of the claim that it's more powerful. Running a simple performance test, 10,000 formulas of the form:
B1=MOD(A1+32,1000)
re-evaluation takes about a second, which is slightly slower than the old version. For reference, Excel can do 1,000,000 of these formulas, significantly faster.
As an ex-excel power user, this is a huge step in the right direction. F4/F2 now seem to work. Unfortunately there is no way to turn of editing directly in cells. There are strange bugs like auto column sizing doesn't work correctly. Merging cells is a cancer, it would be nice if the drop down offered centering across selection.
While this is still not Excel for windows, it feels better than Excel on the Mac. I think I will start using it.
Spreadsheets have pretty much been the same for the past 10 years so it's good to finally see some movement in this area. For a time being, I was sure that Google gave up on spreadsheets.
I am curious: are documents in Google Sheet scanned by Google's software bots to determine stuff about me? I can't seem to find a Privacy Policy document specific to documents in Google docs. How about if I pay for the service (can I pay for the service)?
- I can explicitly name and lock a given version (i.e. a checkpoint). This is a huge missing feature at my company, where we rely on collaboratively-edited spreadsheets
I've used ms office and google apps for years. For lightweight day to day use, google, hands down. Nearly every document I create is shared, and MS as of a few years back doesn't compare. I haven't tried the new office.
For serious spreadsheet work with layout requirements, Numbers, easy. Yes, Numbers. For super-serious something or other I hear Excel is unbeatable, but I don't know what functions Excel has that google doesn't, let alone Numbers, and Numbers has the one feature every spreadsheet should have and almost none do (certainly not excel/google): allow two sheets on a single page. How often do you have to juggle column widths/cell merges to get different layouts in two parts of your worksheet? No more! With Numbers you can draw out multiple separate sheets, each with their own column widths/row heights and other formatting, no problem.
And for large data sets, or data that requires extensive filtering or specialized presentation, FileMaker, no question. It blows all spreadsheets away when it comes to: hundreds of thousands of rows (or millions), and it supports limitless separate views of the same data. Anyone who does serious work in excel that includes large data, normalize-able data, or extensive presentation or filtering, you owe it to yourself to check out FileMaker.
I really appreciate the performance boost. We have a quite complicated sheet before and adding 20 more rows at a time is annoying. Yes I know there are ways to add 20+ but the default low limit shows how slow it is. With this new system, Google is confident enough to allow user to add 1000 rows at a time (default value). Scrolling seems to be very smooth too. Overall a great upgrade!
Personally I'm more interested in projects like Webodf (http://webodf.org/) and it's integration with OwnCloud 6 (http://owncloud.org/). Stick it on a Synology NAS at home and I've got my own office suite in the cloud.
Offline is awesome; obviously because it means it works anywhere, but also I presume this means that all formula evaluation is now done locally, i.e. "instantly". I am pretty sure that before the server was involved in (some?) recalculation, which caused sluggishness.
I still find it bizarre that the actual files still aren't synced in the google drive desktop app. Instead they are synced and stored in the browser. I'm assuming this means you have to go into the browser and get the latest versions before you go offline, rather than the desktop app keeping you in sync. The desktop app really feels neglected, like it's a checkbox feature to compete with Dropbox.
[+] [-] gdulli|12 years ago|reply
Using a native rich application is always going to be superior to building a web app on top of a browser. Once you're used to real applications, Gmail and the other apps aren't suitable for anything more than light usage. It's not just the features that are missing, it's UI responsiveness and usability. Hosting an application inside a browser is so awkward in ways that real applications aren't. I can't assume I can right click and get anything useful, I don't know if I'm going to get the browser's menu or the app's. The concept of a consistent menu bar you can access with hotkeys is gone. Online/offline will never be seamless and consistent across apps. And the input lag is intolerable.
Having all of my documents stored centrally is a real, but small, convenience to get in exchange for everything that's given up. And as far as cost goes, I'd prefer that any money my company might be saving be deducted from my paycheck if it would mean they'd get off of Google apps.
[+] [-] mierle|12 years ago|reply
Among the many problems I have with the Microsoft suite, Outlook is at the top of my list for generating the most frustration. GMail's priority inbox and new-style inbox where machine learning is used to sort out mail is a productivity booster for me. With Outlook, I regularly lose important mail because it is buried under the difficult to filter masses of other email.
I could go on about how the lack of robust collaboration facilities are a direct time waster for my team, but I don't want to hijack this thread further...
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|12 years ago|reply
Sysadmin here. How much are you willing to pay? I'll need at least 2 domain servers, exchange server, backup server/device/nas/tapes, etc to give you a stable and recoverable environment. I'll need an air conditioned server room/closet as well and a decent UPS. We'll need to pay for offsite data storage as well. How many people? We'll need CALs for each user. Licensing even for a trivial environment is easily 5 figures. Not to mention my salary.
I guess you could go with some shitty MSP and small business server, but not if you actually value your company, uptimes, and data.
Cloud services aren't big because they're good. They're big because they're cheaper than guys like me and all the stuff we work with. Your boss understands this. He's expecting you to deal with it.
[+] [-] selectnull|12 years ago|reply
The main reason we switched to google apps is collaboration: all the features in the world do not really matter when the whole team can open and edit a document at the same time and work on it seamlessly.
[+] [-] myko|12 years ago|reply
Especially mail. Gmail and its web interface are far superior to Outlook in usability, far less frustrating experience to me.
Basically I disagree that 'native' apps will always be superior here. Docs and Gmail are already superior on the web IMO.
[+] [-] cglee|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chestnut-tree|12 years ago|reply
Plus, if I'm running a desktop app I can be pretty sure it's not tracking and recording my every action. Can the same be said for when you sign into to use Google Sheets?
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callesgg|12 years ago|reply
Our company probably saves something like 3000 USD per user by using google apps. Mostly administrative costs.
Could you list some features that are not just cause you are used to Outlook?
[+] [-] bane|12 years ago|reply
- Gmail is great for near-term communications, having chat in the same place makes it a nice communications hub for immediate and near-term communications. I like it better than Outlook and it seems much snappier in day-to-day use.
But I find it almost unusable when looking for emails from a while ago. It's so bad that I connect to my mailbox with Thunderbird and use Thunderbird's search to find anything. The problem is with the threaded conversations, I'll get search results, with the result buried somewhere in 1 of a 100 different emails in the conversation and as far as I know there's no easy way to sort through that pile.
- Calendar is actually pretty good. For my use as good as Outlook. It integrates nicely with Gmail and gets the job done. It's also pretty snappy in day-to-day.
- Document is okay for very simple things. Collaboration is a killer feature. But it's missing many of the things that makes Word superior. It's bad enough that people in my company who interact with anybody outside of the company are on the list for a personal MS-Office license...pretty much just for Word. The review functions (comments, change tracking etc.) in Word is absolutely needed if you work on any kind of contract/proposal paperwork. I find that I quickly exceed the formatting abilities of of the web app without getting into anything too fancy.
- Sheets is also okay for very simple things. However, my accounting department sends me a pretty simple traditional spreadsheet showing timetracking for my staff and it's totally unviewable in the web app. I'd rather just use the web app then firing up Excel, but I simply can't.
- I don't think I've ever bothered with the presentation app or anything else in the suite, but that's all I really need to use. TBH, it's actually a pretty nice suite that gets me about 70% where I need to be. However, all our internal tracking tools (Atlassian tools) really want documents instead of links to shared on-line docs so you end up importing/exporting everything as word docs anyways.
but I have to say I think that this (2nd, 3rd?) rewrite of sheets looks really good. I'm going to try it out the next time I need to deal with staff time.
[+] [-] arnoldwh|12 years ago|reply
However, the pace of improvement is one that I think you should definitely consider before saying "never." Excel hasn't fundamentally changed for me since 2003 (outside of being able to more easily handle larger datasets from 65K+), so it seems like a fixed target while sheets continues to move closer (still with large gaps ahead!).
If I need to do financial modeling, I'll likely continue to use excel. However, for many low-touch projects, I've almost completely switched over to sheets, which wasn't the case even a year ago.
[+] [-] oftenwrong|12 years ago|reply
Always? You think that will be true 20 years from now?
[+] [-] sytelus|12 years ago|reply
I firmly believe there would be no "native applications" within 10 years of time.
Outlook is very easily the the application that I hate from bottom of my heart. You are correct that other alternatives are not that good either and that's why Outlook still lives on. Even in 2013, its search feature is laughing stock. It hangs all the time, takes up lots of memory, rules can't be other than presets, its ranking function is sort by date, it can't do spam, TODO list integration is mess, it blocks good attachments, it can't keep conversation togather, it screws HTML and even its spell check is straight from 18th century. If you look at release over release enhancements, it pretty much has remains same, as if there is no one really working on it. Outlook is a shame to human kind considering so many people has to use it despite of it being a pig.
[+] [-] grahamburger|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] owenwil|12 years ago|reply
Switching to Google was like a fresh breath of air.
[+] [-] MRSallee|12 years ago|reply
Depends on how you define "superior."
Word has a lot more features that Google Documents, but if I don't need them...
Personally, I am more than happy to use Google Docs over MS software. Google stuff doesn't take 45 seconds to load. Formatting rarely goes awry. It has the features need. I can access docs from anywhere and share with anyone and they don't have to install anything or even load an application to view it.
I do not miss using MS Office one bit.
[+] [-] oneeyedpigeon|12 years ago|reply
> Once you're used to real applications
What makes an application 'real' as opposed to 'not real'? Did you mean 'native'?
> It's not just the features that are missing
One potential upside to web apps is that, by constraint, a lot more thought needs to go into what should be included and what should be left out. For example, I find a lot of features in Word, Excel, etc. to be completely unnecessary and, moreover, counterproductive. A stripped-down interface, and even functionality set, does have some advantages.
> I can't assume I can right click and get anything useful
Often the case for native apps, although - admittedly - less so
> The concept of a consistent menu bar you can access with hotkeys is gone
Ditto. OSX almost solves the former at the expense of the latter. Applications like Chrome break the single-menu paradigm, though. Windows has a host of applications that invent their own menu styles/behaviours.
> And the input lag is intolerable.
Which specific file type? I rarely have problems with documents or spreadsheets.
> Having all of my documents stored centrally is a real, but small, convenience
It's a massive convenience for me. Dropbox is a good alternative, but I never want to go back to the days of having to remember to carry a specific USB stick everywhere I go and/or using network drives that are a nightmare to access anywhere but the office.
[+] [-] yan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] magicalist|12 years ago|reply
I almost always use the word processing part of Docs, and maybe 10% spreadsheets (and maybe like .5% presentations), but I guess I just always refer to "google docs", saying "make a spreadsheet in docs" if I have to be more specific (or "in drive", though I'm still resisting that for going less descriptive of what I actually do with it with the new name).
[+] [-] Double_Cast|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
I agree with you that 'naming' is not a strong suit here.
[1] I'm sure one segment of the Internet could find a use for a bed sheet that was also a display :-)
[+] [-] skeletonjelly|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffgreco|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nailer|12 years ago|reply
Currently the solution is this: https://support.google.com/drive/answer/44684?hl=en
Eg, to add 30 rows, select 30 random rows, no matter what they are, as long as your selection is 30 high. Then you right click the row area, you get the option to insert 30 rows.
Who does UX for these products? Surely this didn't test well?
[+] [-] discardorama|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azakai|12 years ago|reply
From what I can tell this requires a Chrome app from the Chrome Web Store. So it is not standard HTML5 stuff. Does Google intend to fully support non-Chrome browsers? This behavior seems to show otherwise.
[+] [-] sockgrant|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oinksoft|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csmuk|12 years ago|reply
Excel features...
fast - check. Powerful - check. Works offline - check.
Let's get a little closer to google docs...
Works online - check. Edit in browser - check. Edit on mobile device - check. Share with other people - check. Cheap - check (o365 sub is really cheap per seat). Can customise the UI - check. Can deal with huge sheets - check. Can extend, script etc - check.
Google docs buys me nothing.
[+] [-] xhrpost|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sheetjs|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r00fus|12 years ago|reply
The lack of this feature kept me using Excel when my collaborators complained about stale status colors.
I'll have to give it a test drive again soon.
[+] [-] mikegioia|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mortenjorck|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wudf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgewfraser|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcampbell1|12 years ago|reply
While this is still not Excel for windows, it feels better than Excel on the Mac. I think I will start using it.
[+] [-] tartehk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rajat|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scrumper|12 years ago|reply
- I can explicitly name and lock a given version (i.e. a checkpoint). This is a huge missing feature at my company, where we rely on collaboratively-edited spreadsheets
- I can select non-contiguous cells
- I can insert multiple rows easily
- I can copy formulas into Excel
[+] [-] gcanyon|12 years ago|reply
For serious spreadsheet work with layout requirements, Numbers, easy. Yes, Numbers. For super-serious something or other I hear Excel is unbeatable, but I don't know what functions Excel has that google doesn't, let alone Numbers, and Numbers has the one feature every spreadsheet should have and almost none do (certainly not excel/google): allow two sheets on a single page. How often do you have to juggle column widths/cell merges to get different layouts in two parts of your worksheet? No more! With Numbers you can draw out multiple separate sheets, each with their own column widths/row heights and other formatting, no problem.
And for large data sets, or data that requires extensive filtering or specialized presentation, FileMaker, no question. It blows all spreadsheets away when it comes to: hundreds of thousands of rows (or millions), and it supports limitless separate views of the same data. Anyone who does serious work in excel that includes large data, normalize-able data, or extensive presentation or filtering, you owe it to yourself to check out FileMaker.
[+] [-] freefrancisco|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sondh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newrui|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CatMtKing|12 years ago|reply
https://support.google.com/drive/answer/3543688
[+] [-] g8oz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martinpw|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinsb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FigBug|12 years ago|reply