2002 or 2003

  • Thread starter Thread starter Limda
  • Start date Start date
L

Limda

I am taking a class that uses 2002. If I buy Excel 2003
will there be a great deal of differences?
Thanks.
 
Hi Limda!

Not a lot of difference.

But if you use some statistics functions, you may get different
results because Microsoft improved a lot of those functions.

You'll also find Help is a lot different (some say worse!)

The following link sets out the changes:
http://office.microsoft.com/assistance/preview.aspx?AssetID=HA010714961033&CTT=98

--
Regards
Norman Harker MVP (Excel)
Sydney, Australia
(e-mail address removed)
Excel and Word Function Lists (Classifications, Syntax and Arguments)
available free to good homes.
 
Limda,

Here's a review from a person who has written a lot of
great books on Excel and also participates in the newsgroups.
http://j-walk.com/ss/excel/xl2003.htm

To quote a sentence from his review:
"I'm sure Microsoft has lots of good reasons for releasing
Office 2003. Enticing Excel users is obviously not among them."

John
 
-----Original Message-----
I am taking a class that uses 2002. If I buy Excel 2003
will there be a great deal of differences?
Thanks.
.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the replies!
Linda
 
Norman Harker said:
Not a lot of difference.

But if you use some statistics functions, you may get different
results because Microsoft improved a lot of those functions.
Click to expand...
....

Yeah, they really improved RAND, RANDBETWEEN, SLOPE, INTERCEPT and FORECAST.

Two steps forward, one step back. FWIW, 18 days since Rita Nikas officially
acknowledged a problem with RAND and RANDBETWEEN in a newsgroup posting, and
still squat all about this in the 'KnowledgeBase', at least not searching
for the single word RAND for the Excel 2003 product.

http://support.microsoft.com/search...L&maxResults=25&Titles=false&numDays=&InCC=on
 
Hi Harlan!

I didn't want to complicate my response but did say "improved a lot"
with those problems in mind.

It seems a great pity that Microsoft didn't get a bit more assistance
from people like you and Dave; or at least get you to cast your
critical eyes over the algorithms. Having accepted that there would
not need to be backwards compatibility, I think that they missed a
great opportunity.

I'll raise with Rita the need to get a knowledgebase article on the
problems ASAP.

--
Regards
Norman Harker MVP (Excel)
Sydney, Australia
(e-mail address removed)
Excel and Word Function Lists (Classifications, Syntax and Arguments)
available free to good homes.
 
Norman Harker said:
It seems a great pity that Microsoft didn't get a bit more assistance
from people like you and Dave; or at least get you to cast your
critical eyes over the algorithms. Having accepted that there would
not need to be backwards compatibility, I think that they missed a
great opportunity.
Click to expand...

As Jerry W. Lewis pointed out in that other thread, the *algorithm* given in
the KB article on XL2003's RAND is fine. It seems to be the implementation
(i.e., programming) that's fubar, and methinks it'll be a chilly day in Hell
before Microsoft lets any nonemployee (other than lawyers with more
discovery orders than Microsoft has nondisclosure agreements) see its source
code.
I'll raise with Rita the need to get a knowledgebase article on the
problems ASAP.
Click to expand...

I'm not holding my breath.
 
Hi Harlan!

Interesting! Can't excuse messing up the algorithm implementation.

I'll lay a bet that Rita will give a response PDQ. She was certainly
very active in getting the response that it will be patched. We'll
perhaps have to halve the bet on whether she can persuade Microsoft to
produce a KB on it.

I'm not so pessimistic on Microsoft allowing some degree of access to
source code but it certainly wouldn't be public with their current
policies.

--
Regards
Norman Harker MVP (Excel)
Sydney, Australia
(e-mail address removed)
Excel and Word Function Lists (Classifications, Syntax and Arguments)
available free to good homes.
 
Norman Harker said:
I'm not so pessimistic on Microsoft allowing some degree of access to
source code but it certainly wouldn't be public with their current
policies.
Click to expand...
....

Since your memory seems to require refreshing, see the 3rd paragraph in

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

to get an idea of how closely Microsoft works with people who want to work
with them.
 
Hi Harlan!

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I think that Microsoft are becoming a bit
more forthcoming with acceptance of assistance. There's a fair way to
go. Perhaps the problems with RAND will lead them a bit further along
the road.

Naive? Probably!!

--
Regards
Norman Harker MVP (Excel)
Sydney, Australia
(e-mail address removed)
Excel and Word Function Lists (Classifications, Syntax and Arguments)
available free to good homes.
 
I have to interupt this thread before I need to start using the bottom
scroll bar to view the rest... ;) and ask why...
"To top-post is human, to bottom-post and snip is sublime."
Is sublime better than human and why?
Rob



Norman Harker said:
Hi Harlan!

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I think that Microsoft are becoming a bit
more forthcoming with acceptance of assistance. There's a fair way to
go. Perhaps the problems with RAND will lead them a bit further along
the road.

Naive? Probably!!

--
Regards
Norman Harker MVP (Excel)
Sydney, Australia
(e-mail address removed)
Excel and Word Function Lists (Classifications, Syntax and Arguments)
available free to good homes.
Harlan Grove said:
...

Since your memory seems to require refreshing, see the 3rd paragraph in
Click to expand...
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]
bl
Click to expand...
 
Hi Rob!

Top-posting v. Bottom posting?

Top-Posting is putting your new text at the top of the message, above
the cited text of previous messages. This makes it much easier to
others to read the responses to a message that has been posted.
However it *is* illogical in that the answer is before question. I
prefer Top-posting as it is quicker for me to read replies and for me
to give replies. But if trying to get the full thread of a discussion,
then bottom posting is easier. We'll never get agreement on this but
at present top posters are in the majority although that doesn't make
it right.

Snipping

Snipping is the process of removing all or some of the previous thread
that you're replying to. This is certainly recommended practice
although we are all guilty of forgetting at times. I'm coming round to
the view that we should snip all previous parts of the thread. If
replying to a specific point we can always put a "Re" followed by a
quote. For detailed threads, it is sometimes better to reply after
each point raised.


--
Regards
Norman Harker MVP (Excel)
Sydney, Australia
(e-mail address removed)
Excel and Word Function Lists (Classifications, Syntax and Arguments)
available free to good homes.
 
Thanks Norman. That's all very clear and makes sense. One comment though.
On quite a few occassions I have looked through the newsgroup messages and
something of interest stands out and I'm glad the original question is still
easily seen. If the original message has been snipped it is much more
difficult to see what the reply is all about. So I actually deliberately
leave the whole message and replies intact (unless it gets a bit long and
bulky). We don't all have time to read every post every day.
Rob
 
...
...
On quite a few occassions I have looked through the newsgroup messages and
something of interest stands out and I'm glad the original question is still
easily seen. If the original message has been snipped it is much more
difficult to see what the reply is all about. So I actually deliberately
leave the whole message and replies intact (unless it gets a bit long and
bulky). We don't all have time to read every post every day.
Click to expand...
...

So the Google Groups archive is too hard to use?

Maybe including all preceding relevant material makes some sense in some
instances, but is there any reason (other than sheer laziness) that you wouldn't
at least eliminate multiple copies of various individual's signatures from long
threads? Or do multiple instances, say, of Norman's signature aid your
understanding?
 
Not hard, just inconvenient if the thread could have been viewed by a single
click.
And, unless the post gets too bulky, it shouldn't need snipping.
 
rob nobel said:
Not hard, just inconvenient if the thread could have been viewed by a single
click.
Click to expand...

But if there are multiple branches, you won't see the full extent of one
branches from any of the other branches. Your ideal only works when there's
only one responder at each response level.
And, unless the post gets too bulky, it shouldn't need snipping.
Click to expand...

'Bulky' is in the eye of the beholder. And FWIW, the *$%#@!~ HTML and MIME
posters waste even more bandwidth.
 
That's true, but at least the chances of viewing the original question is
usually there.
Rob
 
Back
Top