I do agree on the fact that Excel is a great program, it always amazes me with all its built-in functions; but as with other Microsoft programs, it does has its flaws: first of all, it is a hassle to work in two different language versions of the program Excel itself. In other Office programs, this doesn't pose a problem, but in Excel the programmers have chosen to translate the functions usedin the cells. For exemple, when one would use "=SUM(A1:B12)" in the English version, one have to type "=SOM(A1:B12" in a Dutch version (notice the difference O/U according to the language). A less subtle exemple might be "=AVERAGE(A1:B12)" which would translate to "=GEMIDDELDE(A1:B12)". So if one (meaning "me") is used to work on an English version of Excel and that same person would have to make an Excel document say at work or at school where the native language is most often used, one has to look for the right words for the functions. That is what I find the major flaw of Excel, which also happens to make it more comprehensible for beginners who aren't native English speakers. I would rather like Excel to accept the English terms in every version of Excel (this wouldn't be that much of work, since an Excel file isn't language-dependent) and to have a language extension for each translated version with the renamed functions in it.
Then, second, one of the flaws, which I can't really attribute to Excel itself but to the ease of use of Excel: many users abuse Excel by making a database in it. I just hate when that happens, I personally prefer programs which have a much steeper and longer learning curve which causes the user to be less productive at start but in long term the user will know what he's doing and will be more trained to solve new problems on his own.
First of all Linux itself doesn't have a GUI. That is the power of Linux: it hasn't got a GUI. Surely you can have an X-server which makes the use of Linux more graphical. But the GUI isn't really determined by the X-server but by the window manager (KDE, Gnome, vwm, Enlightenment or one of the many others). This is the main advantage of Linux: you can choose how you want it to look. Linux is more flexible than Windows.
The installation of Linux can be a hard nut to crack, but that depends on what distribution you try. Nowadays many dsitributions like Fedora, Mandriva (I tried Red Hat and Mandrake years ago, so I guess both successors will include similar installation methods) include very good help, also with the flexibility of Linux where you can choose to install an Office Suite, multimedia programs etc. Windows doesn't allow this much choice unless you first install Windows, then apply some hacks to delete components or make an unattended installation cd and re-install Windows with that cd.
Good help files on Linux aren't that hard to find, I think. I barely use the Windows help files because they only provide minor knowledge for the real beginners with Windows. That is something that Linux indeed doesn't supply. But Linux does supply man pages with more information on almost everything. Windows doesn't quite supply 'advanced' information, so you will need an internet connection and take a look at the MSKB. Linux has got its resources on the internet too: just type a question into Google and you will (in most cases) find a answer.
I currently use SlackWare and with just the healthy amount of technical knowledge I got my system running. And being quite a Linux newbie, that does mean that it is possible to install a Linux system even with one of the most 'difficult' distributions. More 'popular' distributions seem even easier to install.
Like somebody else has already told: why do compare a ten year old OS with a four year old alternative? You shouldn't forget that Linux has come a long way since 1991 when it was founded, Windows itself is (I just guess) at least 5 years older.
Another question is whether your vision of a 'decent GUI' counts for everybody; On Linux (Gnome) I tend to use many workspaces, but on Windows this just ain't possible with Microsoft tools (yes, a powertoy exists, but the taskbar get cluttered with al those windows, so that is just not a good solution). Also Windows ahs got a skinning engine, but you can officially only use skins by Microsoft itself. I personally don't like the blue-ish Windows XP interface.
Slashdot Mirror
I do agree on the fact that Excel is a great program, it always amazes me with all its built-in functions; but as with other Microsoft programs, it does has its flaws: first of all, it is a hassle to work in two different language versions of the program Excel itself. In other Office programs, this doesn't pose a problem, but in Excel the programmers have chosen to translate the functions usedin the cells. For exemple, when one would use "=SUM(A1:B12)" in the English version, one have to type "=SOM(A1:B12" in a Dutch version (notice the difference O/U according to the language). A less subtle exemple might be "=AVERAGE(A1:B12)" which would translate to "=GEMIDDELDE(A1:B12)". So if one (meaning "me") is used to work on an English version of Excel and that same person would have to make an Excel document say at work or at school where the native language is most often used, one has to look for the right words for the functions. That is what I find the major flaw of Excel, which also happens to make it more comprehensible for beginners who aren't native English speakers. I would rather like Excel to accept the English terms in every version of Excel (this wouldn't be that much of work, since an Excel file isn't language-dependent) and to have a language extension for each translated version with the renamed functions in it.
Then, second, one of the flaws, which I can't really attribute to Excel itself but to the ease of use of Excel: many users abuse Excel by making a database in it. I just hate when that happens, I personally prefer programs which have a much steeper and longer learning curve which causes the user to be less productive at start but in long term the user will know what he's doing and will be more trained to solve new problems on his own.
First of all Linux itself doesn't have a GUI. That is the power of Linux: it hasn't got a GUI. Surely you can have an X-server which makes the use of Linux more graphical. But the GUI isn't really determined by the X-server but by the window manager (KDE, Gnome, vwm, Enlightenment or one of the many others). This is the main advantage of Linux: you can choose how you want it to look. Linux is more flexible than Windows.
The installation of Linux can be a hard nut to crack, but that depends on what distribution you try. Nowadays many dsitributions like Fedora, Mandriva (I tried Red Hat and Mandrake years ago, so I guess both successors will include similar installation methods) include very good help, also with the flexibility of Linux where you can choose to install an Office Suite, multimedia programs etc. Windows doesn't allow this much choice unless you first install Windows, then apply some hacks to delete components or make an unattended installation cd and re-install Windows with that cd.
Good help files on Linux aren't that hard to find, I think. I barely use the Windows help files because they only provide minor knowledge for the real beginners with Windows. That is something that Linux indeed doesn't supply. But Linux does supply man pages with more information on almost everything. Windows doesn't quite supply 'advanced' information, so you will need an internet connection and take a look at the MSKB. Linux has got its resources on the internet too: just type a question into Google and you will (in most cases) find a answer.
I currently use SlackWare and with just the healthy amount of technical knowledge I got my system running. And being quite a Linux newbie, that does mean that it is possible to install a Linux system even with one of the most 'difficult' distributions. More 'popular' distributions seem even easier to install.
Like somebody else has already told: why do compare a ten year old OS with a four year old alternative? You shouldn't forget that Linux has come a long way since 1991 when it was founded, Windows itself is (I just guess) at least 5 years older.
Another question is whether your vision of a 'decent GUI' counts for everybody; On Linux (Gnome) I tend to use many workspaces, but on Windows this just ain't possible with Microsoft tools (yes, a powertoy exists, but the taskbar get cluttered with al those windows, so that is just not a good solution). Also Windows ahs got a skinning engine, but you can officially only use skins by Microsoft itself. I personally don't like the blue-ish Windows XP interface.