Excel WorkAlikes

  • Thread starter Thread starter V.Bistak
  • Start date Start date
V

V.Bistak

A couple of people in the office wanted to use their work spreadsheets
at home but some do not have Office/Excel at home. I was poking around
for workalike programs and I've read a few reviews on StarOffice that
seems like it would do the job, however, I came across Luxuriousity
which they say was developed by Sun and is fully compatible. (I'm not
trying to make this sound like a commercial). And it was a ridiculously
low price.

Question is, has anyone stumbled across this and is it as compatible as
they claim. Or, are you aware of any other low cost alternatives.
The sheets they need to use are pretty basic in that they are all plain
vanilla worksheets with no embedded graphics or data links.

Thanks
 
OpenOffice always gets a name-check, so I'm sure it is fine. NB - it's a
suite, & as such requires 64 MB RAM, 300 MB available hard disk space.

If that's an issue, download a demo of Ability from
http://www.ability.com/sales/products/spreadsheet.php?ln=us ; it requires
"40 MB hard disk space during download and setup, less than 25 MB for full
installation after setup, 32MB RAM".

I gave it a (very brief) spin once, it seemed adequate for (basic) Excel
compatability. I don't know Luxuriousity, however the Ability shop says USD
19.95 a copy.

HTH,
Andy
 
plain vanilla worksheets with no embedded graphics or data links.

Minor update (had a copy of the download on HD, unused since last format).

Ability can open .xls and save as .xls.

It won't do ; pivot tables (no surprise) ; data validation or conditional
formatting (no major surprise).

However, it also won't do filtering, which may make it u/s from your POV.
Although this doesn't automatically disqualify it as a bona fide spreadsheet
prog since Microsoft® Works SS doesn't either.

Rgds,
Andy
 
I've downloaded StarOffice. It doesn't have as many bells & whistles as
Microsoft products, but I can't see anything wrong with it as long as you're
only looking for a clone that has the basic functionality of the current
market leader. That's a pity, because, if I may go slightly OT, some of us
need something completely different.

What we really need is a (frustratingly) simplified spreadsheet with
formulae but with nothing that prevents you from totally checking
mission-critical applications. People working in regulated industries such
as pharmaceutical production use specific software that has taken years to
validate for routine calculations. Anything unexpected or otherwise
non-routine has to be done by hand, because XL and StarOffice are so
complicated you can never be sure there isn't a program/formula error
lurking somewhere.

I suppose the same issue applies to businesses that rely on homespun
spreadsheet developments for their accounts.

No doubt many contributors wonder why formulae other than simple descriptive
statistics are so complicated and counter-intutitive. It's an inevitable
consequence of the restricted environment - a bit like the old batch-file
language of MS-DOS - and we'll have to wait for a new generation of
spreadsheets that work by drag-and-drop or something.

Don't let this discourage you - it's just a gentle provocation.

Regards
 
JE McGimpsey said:
I use/test in OpenOffice and Gnumeric fairly frequently. Both run on
Unix-based machines (like Macintoshes) or Linux, but OpenOffice has a
windows version. Both are free, and for most applications, are
compatible with XL.

http://openoffice.org

http://gnumeric.org
....

Just to add . . . OpenOffice Calc isn't as capable with array formulas, it
provides only 32,000 rows per worksheet, it lacks the CELL function, and
more that a few of its statistics and math functions are less accurate than
their Excel counterparts. All these may be esoteric, so it's likely adequate
for most applications. Just make sure to save in Excel's .XLS format.

In most ways, gnumeric is better, but not an option for Windows-only users.
 
Chris R. Lee said:
I've downloaded StarOffice. It doesn't have as many bells & whistles as
Microsoft products, but I can't see anything wrong with it as long as you're
only looking for a clone that has the basic functionality of the current
market leader. That's a pity, because, if I may go slightly OT, some of us
need something completely different.
....

That's somewhat unfair. While OOo/SO Calc lacks some 3D functionality, its
worksheets are much more a third dimension than are Excel's. If worksheets
were in the sequence A, B, C, and B.A2 (OOo/SO addressing syntax) contained
the formula =A.B5, copying that cell and pasting it into C.B3 would make
that cell's formula =B.C6. Worksheet references can be frozen using $ just
like rows and columns. There are a few other things OOo/SO Calc does better
than Excel. Search the ng archives - I've listed some of them before.
What we really need is a (frustratingly) simplified spreadsheet with
formulae but with nothing that prevents you from totally checking
mission-critical applications. People working in regulated industries such
as pharmaceutical production use specific software that has taken years to
validate for routine calculations. Anything unexpected or otherwise
non-routine has to be done by hand, because XL and StarOffice are so
complicated you can never be sure there isn't a program/formula error
lurking somewhere.

To an extent this is a criticism of all spreadsheets, all functional
languages, and indeed all programming languages generally. It's even
possible to miskey entries on pocket calculators, rendering this complaint
almost meaningless.

Spreadsheets generally are one heck of a lot easier to use than, say, Lisp
or APL. Spreadsheets are susceptible to programming errors just like any
other form of programming, and studies have shown spreadsheet error
densities to be comparable to other programming lahguages. The point is that
programming takes care, and like it or not so does programming using
spreadsheets.

Others also have experience writing software in various languages, and they
can share their experiences and impressions, but IMO as long as formulas are
kept fairly simple (no more than, say, 5 function calls per cell), *current*
spreadsheets are simpler to use *and* verify than most of the alternatives.
I suppose the same issue applies to businesses that rely on homespun
spreadsheet developments for their accounts.

Simple bookkeeping in spreadsheets is one thing - it compares favorably to
paper, pencil and calculator. Full fledged double entry accounting systems
are a PITA to try to implement using spreadsheets. Larger companies use true
accounting systems. Spreadsheets are used for bugetting and forecasting, not
financial reporting.
No doubt many contributors wonder why formulae other than simple descriptive
statistics are so complicated and counter-intutitive. It's an inevitable
consequence of the restricted environment - a bit like the old batch-file
language of MS-DOS - and we'll have to wait for a new generation of
spreadsheets that work by drag-and-drop or something.

Got some *SPECIFIC* examples?

How would drag & drop work? The spreadsheet would read your mind and do what
you want it to do? At some point you, the human, have to tell the computer
what to do. Sometimes that means telling it *how* to do it.

No doubt our different perspective come from different experience using
computers. If you've ever spent time debugging programs submitted on paper
punch cards, you'd think very nice thoughts about spreadsheets.
 
Stephen Bye said:
Try my program Spread32, available from
http://www.byedesign.freeserve.co.uk/
....

FTHOI I just downloaded and ran the Win32 version. First thing I tried was
entering the array formula

=1000*ROW()+COLUMN()

in A1:D6. It works. That puts you one up on OpenOffice.org Calc. Then I
inserted additional worksheets and copied this array range into them. This
gave me the same - working - array formula on Sheet1, Sheet2 and Sheet3.
Then I tried to calculate a sum on a 3D reference. The formula

=SUM(Sheet1:Sheet3!A2:C3)

returns #NAME!. The alternative formula

=SUM(Sheet1!A2:Sheet3!C3)

returns a number, but it's just the same as =SUM(Sheet1!A2:C3). Does this
mean Spread32 doesn't support 3D reference? Your help file doesn't seem to
mention 3D reference semantics.

What am I doing wrong?
 
Try my program Spread32, available from

Mr Bye, I saw your prog some time ago, before I'd ever tried a PDA, let
alone anything like PXL.

My initial reaction was "where's the toolbars? ; where's half the menus?" --
now I have a basic handheld I understand slightly better <blush>.

A while back I was trying to help someone in another group with a PXL issue.
He had a file with multiple sheets, each sheet had an alphabetical list of
names, he wanted a method to eg: jump to the first "T" in the list. I
suggested using workbook level names such as T =
"=INDIRECT("A"&MATCH("T",!$A:$A,0))". This works in Excel with Edit -- Go
To -- Reference = "T". I don't know if it works in PXL. However, I can't get
it going in Spread32 ; defining the name followed by Edit -- Go To --
Reference = "T" gives a greyed-out "OK".

Do you know if this can be tweaked to work in (a) (if necessary) PXL (b)
SpreadCE for PocketPC?

TIA,
Andy
 
My program allows you to 'goto' a name whose definition is a reference, but
not a name whose definition is a formula that returns a reference. I will
try to add this for the next version of the program.
 
My program allows you to 'goto' a name whose definition is a reference,
but
not a name whose definition is a formula that returns a reference. I will
try to add this for the next version of the program.

Thanks for clarifying that. I'd have a go at SpreadCE but mine's little more
than databank. For all I know about these things, a sterling job (well
obviously if it's won awards).

I'll look for the info on PXL functionality elsewhere.

Rgds,
Andy
 
Harlan Grove said:
...

That's somewhat unfair. While OOo/SO Calc lacks some 3D functionality, its
worksheets are much more a third dimension than are Excel's. If worksheets
were in the sequence A, B, C, and B.A2 (OOo/SO addressing syntax) contained
the formula =A.B5, copying that cell and pasting it into C.B3 would make
that cell's formula =B.C6. Worksheet references can be frozen using $ just
like rows and columns. There are a few other things OOo/SO Calc does better
than Excel. Search the ng archives - I've listed some of them before.


To an extent this is a criticism of all spreadsheets, all functional
languages, and indeed all programming languages generally. It's even
possible to miskey entries on pocket calculators, rendering this complaint
almost meaningless.

Many thanks for your detailed reply.

An advantage of hand calculation in a tightly regulated context is that when
(as is always the case) a colleage checks your work, he/she has to start
from scratch, so if 2 or 3 people get the same result it can be considered
reliable.

The simplest example of a "lurking" error I can think of is when you want
the mean or other descriptive statistic of a set of values that have been
calculated using a formula (for example Cn=An*Bn where n goes from 1 to 10,
then mean of C1;C10). If relevant cells in columns A or B are empty, XL
puts zero in C, so the mean is wrong. If you do it by hand (or using ancient
systems like RS/1) you won't be caught out this way. Of course if you know
that XL doesn't treat empty cells consistently some kind contributor to this
NG will give you the right formula, but that isn't the point.

Spreadsheets generally are one heck of a lot easier to use than, say, Lisp
or APL.

My point is - I think - that they are too easy so you can have a false
sense of security.

Spreadsheets are susceptible to programming errors just like any
other form of programming, and studies have shown spreadsheet error
densities to be comparable to other programming lahguages. The point is that
programming takes care, and like it or not so does programming using
spreadsheets.

Others also have experience writing software in various languages, and they
can share their experiences and impressions, but IMO as long as formulas are
kept fairly simple (no more than, say, 5 function calls per cell), *current*
spreadsheets are simpler to use *and* verify than most of the alternatives.

Simple bookkeeping in spreadsheets is one thing - it compares favorably to
paper, pencil and calculator. Full fledged double entry accounting systems
are a PITA to try to implement using spreadsheets. Larger companies use true
accounting systems. Spreadsheets are used for bugetting and forecasting, not
financial reporting.


Got some *SPECIFIC* examples?

See above. My solution in this case wouldn't necessarily be drag & drop, but
something more intelligent than that pesky paperclip would presumably ask
you in this example whether there more or less than10 pairs of figures
should be allowed for.

On a more general note, for those who consider the macro language too
uncertain for mission-critical applications, nested IFs and workarounds are
a pain when multiple choices are involved.
How would drag & drop work? The spreadsheet would read your mind and do what
you want it to do? At some point you, the human, have to tell the computer
what to do. Sometimes that means telling it *how* to do it.

No doubt our different perspective come from different experience using
computers. If you've ever spent time debugging programs submitted on paper
punch cards, you'd think very nice thoughts about spreadsheets.
I've also used punched cards. I also like spreadsheets, but would like even
better a spreadsheet that does a better job of helping you verify that your
algorithms are correct, preferably both before and after coding them.

Regards
 
Chris R. Lee said:
The simplest example of a "lurking" error I can think of is when you want
the mean or other descriptive statistic of a set of values that have been
calculated using a formula (for example Cn=An*Bn where n goes from 1 to 10,
then mean of C1;C10). If relevant cells in columns A or B are empty, XL
puts zero in C, so the mean is wrong. If you do it by hand (or using ancient
systems like RS/1) you won't be caught out this way. Of course if you know
that XL doesn't treat empty cells consistently some kind contributor to this
NG will give you the right formula, but that isn't the point.

Which simply point out the fact that Excel (and all other spreadsheets I've
used) shouldn't be relied upon to do any sort of important statistical
analysis. Use a real stats package with missing value support. In other
words, always use the right tool for the job.
My point is - I think - that they are too easy so you can have a false
sense of security.
....

OK, that's a valid point. However, I'd say it's not spreadsheets'
simplicity, it's naive users' false confidence that's the problem. A dose of
statistics on the prevalence of spreadsheet errors may sober them up. If
not, maybe they're not ideally suited to performing analyses with any
software.
See above. My solution in this case wouldn't necessarily be drag & drop, but
something more intelligent than that pesky paperclip would presumably ask
you in this example whether there more or less than10 pairs of figures
should be allowed for.
....

Your helpful assistant would be my constant irritant. Some people like
hand-holding. Others hate it. We seem to fall on opposite sides of this
issue.
I've also used punched cards. I also like spreadsheets, but would like even
better a spreadsheet that does a better job of helping you verify that your
algorithms are correct, preferably both before and after coding them.

Read some of Alan Turing's work. What you propose involves certain practical
and theoretical impossibilities. Try finding a programming environment that
provides algorithmic analysis. If you find one (good luck!), use it while
you wait (likely past the end of your working life) for any spreadsheet to
provide comparable functionality.
 
Back
Top