4 ms·

Excel 2007 was released in late 2006. Six and a half years have passed and two new versions have been released. It would be much more interesting to see the acc

by rrreese 13y ago

Excel 2007 was released in late 2006. Six and a half years have passed and two new versions have been released. It would be much more interesting to see the accuracy of the current version, then this very old version.

kfk 13y ago
I am still using 2003 at my company...
- christopheraden 13y ago
  They are just now moving people off MSO 2003 at ours as well, following complaints from several people that they can't open the newer xlsx, docx, and accdb file extensions. IT and Clinical Analytics are the first wave to move to "brand new" MS Office 2010, as of Jan'13. Sure hope you aren't doing any life-threatening numerical computations in your version of Excel!
  - kfk 13y ago
    It doesn't matter the version, if 2003 or 2020, I would never do life-threatening computations in Excel. It's just too painful and dangerous (look at how it treates dates). But unfurtunately I don't do this much, I do mostly finance-accounting. Yet, if I did, be sure I would have to put the results in a nicely formatted Excel file.
    - christopheraden 13y ago
      We got around the inaccuracy problems where I'm at by doing all the sensitive calculations in a more capable program (SAS where I'm at now--R when I consult), then exporting the results to Excel. It avoids most of the problems faced by the poor statistical tools in Excel. It's frustrating to think how difficult it is to cut Excel from the pipeline, but such is the dilemma with Excel being as virulent as it is.
      - pseut 13y ago
        IIRC there's a plugin that lets you call R functions within excel.
        kfk 13y ago
        I always found much easier to do all the work in R or Python and then put the results in Excel. Excel is really not a good tool for things that go beyond additions and vlookups.
christopheraden 13y ago
They do one of these every iteration of Excel, and the results are usually similar. One day, Microsoft will make a good version of Excel, but I'm still waiting. http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~gmelard/rech/gmelard_csda23.pdf http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~gmelard/rech/gmelard_csda23.pdf
mutagen 13y ago
Microsoft is likely to preserve some errors in the name of backwards compatibility. Spreadsheets that calculate different values in different versions are going to cause them more headaches from their customers than these reports of errors, as the people who care are already using other methods.
- jimhefferon 13y ago
  Sit down, have a drink, and think about what you are saying.
  - carbocation 13y ago
    And yet, in your heart of hearts, you know mutagen's point to be true.
  - doppenhe 13y ago
    have to say mutagen is spot on.
- doppenhe 13y ago
  This is not far from the truth. In certain cases large solutions have been already developed to take into account any variation in implementation, accuracy or behavior. With millions of custom solutions based on Excel floating around , "fixing" issues where calculations suddenly give different results would be highly counterproductive and potentially dangerous.

by rrreese 13y ago

kfk 13y ago

I am still using 2003 at my company...

christopheraden 13y ago
They are just now moving people off MSO 2003 at ours as well, following complaints from several people that they can't open the newer xlsx, docx, and accdb file extensions. IT and Clinical Analytics are the first wave to move to "brand new" MS Office 2010, as of Jan'13. Sure hope you aren't doing any life-threatening numerical computations in your version of Excel!
- kfk 13y ago
  It doesn't matter the version, if 2003 or 2020, I would never do life-threatening computations in Excel. It's just too painful and dangerous (look at how it treates dates). But unfurtunately I don't do this much, I do mostly finance-accounting. Yet, if I did, be sure I would have to put the results in a nicely formatted Excel file.
  - christopheraden 13y ago
    We got around the inaccuracy problems where I'm at by doing all the sensitive calculations in a more capable program (SAS where I'm at now--R when I consult), then exporting the results to Excel. It avoids most of the problems faced by the poor statistical tools in Excel. It's frustrating to think how difficult it is to cut Excel from the pipeline, but such is the dilemma with Excel being as virulent as it is.
    - pseut 13y ago
      IIRC there's a plugin that lets you call R functions within excel.
      - kfk 13y ago
        I always found much easier to do all the work in R or Python and then put the results in Excel. Excel is really not a good tool for things that go beyond additions and vlookups.

christopheraden 13y ago

They do one of these every iteration of Excel, and the results are usually similar. One day, Microsoft will make a good version of Excel, but I'm still waiting. http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~gmelard/rech/gmelard_csda23.pdf http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~gmelard/rech/gmelard_csda23.pdf

mutagen 13y ago

Microsoft is likely to preserve some errors in the name of backwards compatibility. Spreadsheets that calculate different values in different versions are going to cause them more headaches from their customers than these reports of errors, as the people who care are already using other methods.

jimhefferon 13y ago
Sit down, have a drink, and think about what you are saying.
- carbocation 13y ago
  And yet, in your heart of hearts, you know mutagen's point to be true.
- doppenhe 13y ago
  have to say mutagen is spot on.
doppenhe 13y ago
This is not far from the truth. In certain cases large solutions have been already developed to take into account any variation in implementation, accuracy or behavior. With millions of custom solutions based on Excel floating around , "fixing" issues where calculations suddenly give different results would be highly counterproductive and potentially dangerous.