# Off Topic > The Water Cooler >  >  Why does Excel 2010 (and later) suck so bad? (My rant)

## zgozvrm

This topic/issue may have already been discussed but I was unable to find anything, so I apologize if this is a repeat of something already on the forum.

While this may have already been discussed, I have been disgusted with Excel for a few years now...  :Wink: 



First of all, I consider myself to be an advanced Excel user. I use it almost daily. I make extensive use of macros and UserForms. To put it mildly - I LOVE Excel!

That is, I _used_ to love it ... until Microsoft (in all their wisdom) decided to "fix" it. Excel 2010 (and beyond) is a piece of trash. They have taken many things that worked well and were familiar and made them work poorly and hard-to-find. It has become what I consider "other" spreadsheet programs to be: Excel wannabes.

That's right, Excel 2010 is now an Excel wannabe!

Excel XP (also known as Excel 2003) was almost perfect. Sure, it needed _some_ help. But, it did what it did well and it was rock-solid & easy to use. It was easy to find functions in the few menus listed at the top of the screen. It now takes me sometimes several minutes to find things. It has become a bloated, user-UNfriendly piece of garbage. 

One of my complaints had to do with headers and footers:
When "adding" a header or footer to a worksheet, you _used_ to go to "View -> Header and Footer..." This made perfect sense to most people. Even if you haven't typed anything into a footer, for instance, the footer already existed ... it was just blank. So, if you wanted to enter something into the footer, you had to _view_ it first. Hence, "Header and Footer..." was listed under the "View" menu.

That is no longer the case. Now, it is listed under the "Insert" menu. This seems to make sense at first. The thinking may go like this: "I haven't created a footer yet, so I want to insert one." This is a major change in thinking for people who have been using Excel for decades. The footer ALREADY EXISTS!!!! What's worse, is once you have typed something into the footer (or header) and you decide later that you want to change that text, most people would think that they either needed to EDIT the footer or VIEW the footer in order to make the changes. This thinking would lead the user to either the "Edit" or "View" menu. However, you need to go to the "Insert" menu! Why would you go to the "Insert" menu to edit something that already exists!

Well it would be confusing if they moved the "Header and Footer..." selection from one menu to another, based on the existence of a header or footer, wouldn't it? 

What's confusing is that they moved it at all! They should have left it where it was.

I have similar complaints about almost every aspect of the newer versions of Excel. In fact, I find it so painful to use, that I avoid it at all costs (whenever possible). My wife is forced to use the 2010 version at her workplace and I do a lot of work for her. But I *REFUSE* to use her computer. Instead, I have her put her work in her Dropbox, and I work on it on MY computer with the XP version that I've come to know and love. (Of course, this brings on many "Compatibilty" issues, so I have to make sure she doesn't use any features that didn't exist prior to the 2010 version.)

About the only "improvement" or good thing that I can say about the newer versions is that they finally lifted the 3-condition limit that existed for conditional formatting. But, even this has its problems... I recently worked on a spreadsheet (I was forced to use 2010 at the time) that had 3 conditional formatting formulas per cell in several columns. I changed the formula for the conditional formatting in one cell then, using "Paste Special...," I copied that formatting to the rest of the cells in the same column. This worked fine. But then, I copied all of the cells in that column and used "Paste Special..." to update the conditional formatting in other columns. The result was that the cells in the other columns ended up with SIX conditional formatting formulas ... the 3 old ones AND the 3 new ones. I didn't realize this until months later when I was editing the data in the chart and found that the conditional formatting wasn't working as expected.


The newest screw-up I've discovered is in regard to referenced cells. In my example, I had a cell that was essentially a title to the chart below it. It was a dynamic title that included a year listed in another cell (so that changes only needed to be made in one place). For example, I had the value "2012" cell W7. In cell B4, I had the following formula: 

     =W7 & " Statistics"

Cells B4 through G4 had been merged into one cell. When I changed the value in cell W7 from "2012" to "2013", you would expect the title in cell B4 (B4 through G4) to now read "2013 Statistics" But that didn't happen. My first guess was that the cell calculations where in "Manual" mode, but that wasn't the case. What's worse, is that I had a similar formula in merged cells J4 through M4 that referenced cell W14. The title in cell J4 (through G4) updated *instantly* when the value in cell W14 was changed. What I found was that if ANY part of the merged cell was not visible at the time the referenced cell was changed, the formula didn't update live ... you had to bring the ENITRE cell into view (in this case B4 through G4) and _then_ refresh the data in order for the formula to update.

They even ruined the help feature!


To Microsoft, I ask, "Have you not heard the saying, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'?"

Suffice it to say, that I will continue using Excel XP/2003 for as long as possible.

----------


## JosephP

XP = 200*2* not 2003

I like 2010. I hated 2007 and mostly dislike 2013. sure the ribbon takes some getting used to like any change but it has its good points. the main program has a lot of nice features and the BI tools are nice too

agree about header and footer-but they ought to be on the *Page Layout* tab of course

if you use merged cells you have only yourself to blame :-)

----------


## zgozvrm

> if you use merged cells you have only yourself to blame :-)



I somewhat agree...

Merged cells have always posed some kind of problem, but there is no reason there should be _new_ problems associated with them. Especially when it comes to simple cell references.

BTW, I haven't check to see if the same phenomenon occurs with standard (non-merged) cells ... yet.

----------


## zgozvrm

> XP = 200*2* not 2003



My bad ... you are correct!

----------


## JosephP

> but there is no reason there should be _new_ problems associated with them



sure there is-if you make wholesale changes to a piece of software there *will* be new bugs

----------


## zgozvrm

> I like 2010.



Do you also like eating dirt & scratching chalkboards with your fingernails? (lol!)

What is your opinion of XP/2002?
How long have you been using Excel?

----------


## zgozvrm

> sure there is-if you make wholesale changes to a piece of software there *will* be new bugs



 :Confused: 

But, as far as I can tell, there have been no "wholesale changes" in regard to merged cells.

Besides, cell references is the core of Excel (or any other spreadsheet program).
They, along with some simple calculations, are what make spreadsheets spreadsheets.

Otherwise, I'd just create a chart in Word.

----------


## JosephP

but that's a display issue

I liked 2002 and 2003. I found the ribbon very hard to get used to at first but now I find it strange if I have to use 2003

I've been using excel longer than I care to admit (decades)

----------


## zgozvrm

> but that's a display issue



But that's the whole point ... it should display relevant information at any given time (and it doesn't).





> I liked 2002 and 2003. I found the ribbon very hard to get used to at first but now I find it strange if I have to use 2003
> 
> I've been using excel longer than I care to admit (decades)



I get that, and I'll probably get used to the new format/layout _eventually_.
But I maintain that many changes were either unnecessary, confusing, or both.

It feels like they just wanted to revamp the program so that it visually matched their new operating system which (as most people agree) also sucks.


We shouldn't have to "get used to" something in order to like it and for it to be easy to use ... you should like it immediately. And it should be intuitive. Neither of those things are true.

It's kind of like a shotgun wedding ... you may not like her now, but you'll get used to her!

----------


## zgozvrm

> I've been using excel longer than I care to admit (decades)



As have I.

I started using it back in the '80s, when it was called VisiCalc. Over the years it has changed/evolved several times. Until the 2010 version, I welcomed each change. The program got more complex/versatile and you didn't have to re-learn things you already knew.

That is no longer the case.

----------


## shg

VisiCalc was purchased by Lotus and discontinued in 1985, three years after Multiplan, Microsoft's predecessor to Excel, was introduced.

----------


## zgozvrm

> VisiCalc was purchased by Lotus and discontinued in 1985, three years after Multiplan, Microsoft's predecessor to Excel, was introduced.



You are correct ... my memory is failing me (or, rather, it is mixing things up).

While I _did_ start using VisiCalc, I was thinking about one of my other peeves ... that Excel sucks so bad on Macintosh computers. After all, it was originally written for Macs!


I have tested identical simple 500-cell spreadsheets (i.e. no macros, just basic formulas) on both PCs and Macs and found the Mac to process the spreadsheet as much as 10 times slower! But I also found that the same spreadsheet will run on a Mac through a PC emulator _almost_ as quickly as on a native PC! That suggests that they have purposely made the program run slower on Macs.

----------


## JosephP

my comment about display issues was in response to your comment about no changes to merged cells. the issue does not relate to merged cells directly

most of the rest of what you say is a straight matter of opinion rather than fact-although if you are implying that the ribbon was created to match the look of Win8 your timescales are a little out

the suggestion that excel runs slower on a mac deliberately makes no sense at all in my opinion

and there I leave it ;-)

----------


## Pepe Le Mokko

English is not my mother tongue, but this thread's title seems inappropriate ( coarse language?).

----------


## FDibbins

Pepe, I dont thinks its really that bad, its just an english-y expression  :Smilie: 

To add in to what has already been said, I started out on supercalc and calcstar, way back when, dabbled with excel when it 1st came out, but switched to Lotus 123 and eventuallt came home to roost with excel.  I have been through many upgrades, and on the whole, I must say that I think the changed have been good.  

It was interesting to watch 123 and excel leap-frog each other with new features, with each 1 coming out with the other's improvement, plus something of their own, with each new itteration.

I used (and loved) 2000 and 2003 for years, and still have 2003 at home.  I have upgraded to 2007, because thats all we have at work, it was a bit of a learning curve, but like Joseph said "I liked 2002 and 2003. I found the ribbon very hard to get used to at first but now I find it strange if I have to use 2003"...I now find myself having to think back to try and remember where different stuff is.  I have 2007 and (newly aquired) 2010 at home as well, I guess with some things, it a bit of a trade-off, but over-all, I think the "upgrade" to 2007 and 2010 has been just that - an upward step.

I have not heard too many good things about 2013, but do not have it, nor have I used it, so I cannot really comment on that version.  MS are taking the same approach that all business do - adapt or die...some adaptations work and will last, others dont, and will hopfully fade and disappear

----------


## Tony Valko

> I will continue using Excel XP/2003 for as long as possible.



I still use Excel 2002 (XP) as my default version even though I also have 2007, 2010 and 2013.

I can operate Excel 2002 with my eyes closed!  :Wink:  

The only time I use the other versions is when I have to.

I hate the ribbon. It looks like something you'd find on a product made by Fisher Price.

Here's my resume for those that haven't seen it yet:

http://www.excelforum.com/the-water-...ml#post3432911

----------


## MarvinP

I guess you need to see what exactly was added (or improved) in 2010 and then 2013 Excel to give more meat to your rant.  Read these:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ex...010369709.aspx
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ex...308.aspx?CTT=1 

For me, Pivot tables have been upgraded lots and I love the newer versions.
Also, Power Pivots are available with 2010 and up for multiple data sources or workbooks.

If you need to share data on the net, version control is now available on SkyDrive.
There are also a new Web Based language in 2013 (and 2010?) to work with others on the web.

Excel is one of the few products that has kept up with the moving technologies as they change in lots of different directions.  I'm very glad I've learned it and it is keeping up with what's new.

----------


## FDibbins

Marvin, you know what they say - to each his/her own - but I have to say I agree with you, this is a great program and it continues to evolve

----------


## JBeaucaire

I hated Excel 2010 at first.  All change is bad, even reasonable change.

Now I've been using it for over a year and can't imagine what my problem was.  Nothing cures infamiliarity better than practice.

----------


## FDibbins

Its called "being dragged out of your comfort zone" lol

----------


## romperstomper

@zgozvrm

You call that a rant? *This* is a rant...  :Wink:

----------


## Tony Valko

Yeah, I like both the rant and the reply.  :Smilie:

----------


## xladept

When the files get big (100000 rows or more) then you need the ribbonidiotic versions.  I use 2003 for most things still.  And the fact that I had to repair my 2010 the very day I got it has left a sour taste in my mouth.

----------


## zgozvrm

I have continued to (try to) use Excel 2010, but I still hate it with every thread of my being! Four years of trying to get used to a program that _was_ easy to use (from the beginning), and I STILL find myself cussing at every turn...

Recently, my wife was updating the data in a workbook that contains 21 charts that she had been using for years. She had printed them out (in Excel 2010) a couple of times before with no issues. Now, the text on the charts is printing like a type-writer font with characters overlapping each other, although they look perfectly fine on-screen! In addition, the charts contain a 5-category legend and 1/3 of the charts are listing them in reverse order!

We transferred the workbook to my laptop (both are running Win 7) and I opened it in Excel 2002. Not only does all the text print in the correct font, the legend categories are ALL in the correct order!

We created a test spreadsheet on her computer (Excel 2010) using the same font as in her "chart workbook" and it printed out fine! We even tried changing the font in her "chart workbook" and it printed out fine. However, when we changed any or all of the text back to the original font, it fails to print correctly.

I maintain that the troubles/problems in this version of Excel severely out-weigh the benefits of the "improvements!"

----------

