Yes, that is “New New”.

A day or so ago the New Leopard Intro Video was posted on to Youtube. Well, I’ve got a hold of the New New Leopard Intro Video. Go check it out. :-)

I spent some time this weekend playing with iWork ’08’s Numbers. I’ve mentioned before that I like this spreadsheet a lot - but I wanted to compare the functions it has to those in Microsoft Excel: to see what functions are missing and give people and idea of what they can expect if they try and import Excel documents using Numbers.

I figured the best way to do this was to list all the functions in Excel, and highlight the ones that are not supported in Numbers. Sounds like an ideal use of a spreadsheet - so I prepared the list in Numbers itself. I also wrote a few notes on functions where I found they differ slightly from Excel (I blogged about some of these differences here).

So, first the results.

Functions in Excel versus Functions in Numbers

Here is a link to the spreadsheet in Numbers format (zipped), and a PDF version.

And here is a summary table:

As you can see, Numbers has roughly half the number of functions as Microsoft Excel. It isn’t quite as bad as it sounds though. Some key points from my research:

Text Functions: Almost all functions in Excel are available in Numbers - the exceptions being TEXT and the double byte character functions that are only available in Japanese Excel. Japanese users might be distressed by this however.

Date and Time Functions: The missing functions tend to be more obscure or those that may not be consistent across platforms such as DATEVALUE.

Mathematical Functions: The missing functions are Array and Matrices related and a few more obscure functions.

Financial and Statistical Functions: This may be the killer for many users - only around half of these functions in Excel are in Numbers.

Other Functions: There are no Engineering or Database functions in Numbers at all. If you use any of them, you’re out of luck.

Check the actual spreadsheet to see if there is something you think you need that Numbers won’t cover.

Using Numbers

Now that I’ve used Numbers a bit more, I should make some observations.

First, it is very slow on my G5 iMac (2GHz, 1GB). It is much smoother with an Intel machine, and more memory (of course). But Excel on the same hardware is a speed demon.

Unless I’m missing something, you can only print one sheet at a time. This is very annoying. If you Export instead to PDF, it can only print all sheets with one sheet per page, so that isn’t a substitute for sheets that span more than one page.

It is really nice not having to mess with tables in order to add explanation text or headings. Once you get used to doing it that way, you don’t want to go back to Excel. Ever.

I’d like to see more functions - I tried importing some spreadsheets I’ve used for years and found they import fine, but have some warnings on some very trivial functions (like ISNUMBER) that don’t exist in Numbers. I’d like to see Apple expanding the Excel compatibility (and not have to wait for iWork ‘10 to get the new functions).

It would also be great if Apple revealed some plugin architecture for adding more functions. If there is such a thing, and Apple publish instructions for using it, we might get third parties completing the functions needed for Excel compatibility - and some new functions that are Numbers specific for doing some very cool number manipulations.

Hopefully this information is useful to someone. There could be mistakes in the spreadsheet - I did my best, but I did rush it a little. Let me know if there are any mistakes.

I’ve been playing a lot with Numbers lately. I think Apple have really created something great here - whenever I use Excel I always spend hours trying to make the spreadsheet look good. Things like headings, graphics, borders etc. take ages to get right - resizing rows, merging cells, and so on. With numbers it is such a pleasure to make spreadsheets that actually look great with little effort.

Anyway, I was interested in comparing functions in Excel to functions in Numbers. There are a lot more functions in Excel than Numbers, though most of the basics are in Numbers. I was thinking of writing a blog outlining the differences, but I got side tracked when I started looking at the Excel functions CODE and CHAR.

Excel tells me that CODE:

Returns a numeric code for the first character in a text string. The returned code corresponds to the character set used by your computer.

Numbers tells me:

The CODE function returns the Unicode code number of the first character in a specified string.

Ok - Numbers mentions Unicode. I figured I’d try some experiments with CODE and CHAR - using both Numbers and Excel.

I started Numbers and typed in a cell =CODE("A"). It returned 65. Not unexpected. I tried this in Excel. Same result.

So next I tried some Japanese. I typed in a Numbers cell =CODE("か"). That’s the hiragana character KA for those who can’t make it out (first character of my wife’s name for those wondering why I chose it). The result in Numbers was 12363 (304B in hex). This is the correct Unicode value.

I tried this in Excel. I got the result 95. Clearly an odd return value - but in Microsoft’s defence, they never promised CODE would work for double byte character sets. So I tried the reverse of CODE, that is =CHAR(95). It returned an “_” character.

I remembered though that Excel doesn’t work very well in Japanese, by default, using English Excel. You need to convert your application to use Japanese. Absolutely bizarre way to do things - most Applications on the Mac work with any language - no need to change the application in some way. Anyway, I followed the instructions to change to Japanese Excel. Some of the menus and dialogs are now in Japanese, but I can still do what I need for testing. So I test again:

=CODE("か") now returns 9259. That’s not Unicode either! I spent a lot of time trying to work out what that code represents. It turns out it is ISO-2022-JP.

So here are the results of my testing for each of these applications.

Results from Numbers

Results from English Excel

Results from Japanese Excel

Numbers stores its files as XML, and you can see the use of Unicode in the text:

...
<sf:formula-string sfa:string="=CODE(&quot;&#x304B;&quot;)"/>
...

So what does all this prove? Nothing really. Well, except that Numbers makes use of the more modern encoding format of Unicode more than Excel. The differences in CODE and CHAR could make for some obscure errors when importing Excel documents to Numbers documents, though I’m not sure these functions are generally used that much anyway. It would be interesting to hear how Japanese users of Numbers are finding the compatibility between files in Excel and files in Numbers.

We have decided, at the company I work for, to use Macs for all our work. The developers were already Mac users, and with the ability to run Windows software when needed, we are slowly converting the boss to using a Mac. In fact, we just ordered brand new MacBook Pros for all staff.

Now, the boss wants to run Microsoft Office 2007 - which is Windows only (the Mac version is Office 2004). That’s ok - he can dual boot his machine, or run VMWare on OS X. So it was left to me to buy the software he needed.

I went to a local store to order Office 2007. The following is the actual conversation I had with the person working there.

Buying the Software

Me: Hi. I’d like to buy a copy of Office 2007.

Shop Assistant: No problem. What version would you like?

Now, I might not be too familiar with the Microsoft world, but I know enough to know that they have lots of different and confusing versions of software, and that Office is ridiculously expensive. Anyway, I’d done a little research, so knew what we needed.

Me: Standard edition.

Shop Assistant: Hmmmm. I don’t think there is such a thing. Let me check.

The shop assistant sits at his computer and looks up “Office 2007″. His screen fills with dozens of versions of the software. He examines the screen intently.

Shop Assistant: There is no “Standard” edition. We have “Professional”, we have “Small Business”, we have “Ultimate”, we have “Basic”, we have “Student”, we have…hmmm…lots of others. But no “Standard”.

Ok, that throws me a little. I know there is a “Standard” edition, but he can’t find it. I hadn’t heard of “Small Business”, and our company is a small business. But I should check what the “Basic” version is first.

Me: What’s in “Basic”?

Shop Assistant: Word, Excel and Outlook.

Me: We need Powerpoint too.

Shop Assistant: (Calls out to colleague) What version of Office 2007 has Powerpoint too?

Shop Assistant’s Colleague: Small Business

Me: What’s in Small Business then?

Shop Assistant: (Looks at screen) Hmmm. It also includes Publisher.

Now we don’t need Publisher. But if it is included, and the price is right, it doesn’t matter.

Me: How much is the Small Business edition?

Shop Assistant: (Tapping at keyboard) The OEM version of it is $300.

I can’t recall the exact amount he quoted, but it was along those lines. Now “OEM” is in the mix. Of course, we don’t have OEM versions of software for the Mac generally, so this is also new to me. It seems some companies will sell you the OEM version of software, even though they shouldn’t. I can only ask more questions.

Me: So, can you sell me the OEM version?

Shop Assistant: Not unless you buy a computer from me.

I’m getting frustrated.

Me: Ok, so how much for the “Retail” version of “Microsoft Office 2007 Small Business Edition”?

Shop Assistant: Hey? Hmmmm… (Looks on computer). It is $700!

Me: So, can I buy that?

Shop Assistant: No one buys the retail version! It is too expensive! I’ve never had anyone actually buy the retail version!

Me: But you can’t sell me the OEM version?

Shop Assistant: Only if you buy a computer.

I thanked him for his time and left. Went back to the office and ordered the “Standard” edition online, and it arrived a few days later at the office.

How is having so many confusing versions of the software a good thing? It just wasted a day of my time at least. And that was before I discovered “Activation”…

Activation

The software uses product “Activation“. This is also something new to me. Well, actually I’d experienced it a few days before when I installed Windows XP on the machine. What follows is the experience of a non-Windows user to the world of “Microsoft Activation”.

First, I’ve set up the Mac side of the machine, and it all works great. We also bought copies of iWork ‘08 - and although it might not be as feature complete as Office in some areas, Keynote is leaps ahead of Powerpoint, Pages is beautiful, and Numbers is superb for general spreadsheets that end up looking fantastic rather than just a grid with some graphics in them.

Anyway, I’ve also bought and installed VMWare Fusion. And I’ve installed Boot Camp. I’ve then installed Windows XP.

Runs fine dual booted, and runs fine in VMWare. Now, Windows XP asks me to “Activate” it. I do so, over the internet.

It all works fine in VMWare. I then dual boot to Windows XP, and I’m shocked to see that it wants me to activate again (well, I’m not totally shocked, as I realise the way it works is that it sees this as a different hardware configuration. I guess I’m just surprised as I’m not use to this).

The trouble is, it says I’ve already used the activation key. Even though this is the same machine! So now I have to call Microsoft to tell them what has happened and get some huge number over the phone to activate the non-VMWare version of the software.

I do that - it wasn’t difficult, but it was time consuming. Now I can dual boot, or use VMWare. And all is fine. Unless I decide I want to reinstall, or repartition etc. Then, apparently, I may need to call Microsoft once more.

Truly, this is AWFUL. Why do Windows users put up with activation? It makes the law-abiding user feel like a criminal, and is a pain in the arse when it bites you (as in this case).

Anyway, I thought that was all behind me now. Until I installed Office 2007. Activation once again! Oh come on!

I get it activated over the internet, and it works fine. I now boot back to OS X, and use VMWare. Office starts, and says it needs to be activated. Oh not again!

Fortunately the same key works in VMWare. Trouble is, every time you dual boot, you need to activate Office in the new configuration - which means you need an internet connection. That’s probably something VMWare need to fix - but Activation is the cause of the problem.

Plain and simple: Activation sucks.