Talk:Comparison of spreadsheet software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Software / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Online spreadsheets?[edit]

This article in its current form is limited to desktop spreadsheet applications. Shan't we include online spreadsheets as listed on list of online spreadsheets here as well? --Pkchan 04:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that all current (and perhaps some historical?) spreadsheets should be compared, regardless of platform. The article as it stands implies that on-line spreadsheets are almost irrelevant whereas, in reality, they are leading the way to functionality impossible with single user, stand-alone, workstation productsken (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was associated with a spreadsheet-type application in the early 1980s, that was marketed for batch processing reports, by uploading command/data files (or if lucky and well-funded interactive terminal edit commands) via dialup (300-baud) modem access to timeshare mainframe computers ($30,000/month).

I do not remember the product name. It was likely written in COBOL for IBM mainframe computers; and I believe it was being ported for use on "mini-computers" (at $100,000/each). While I did not use this software myself, I'm sure that it was a predecessor of the later universal microcomputer-based "spreadsheet" programs. As such, there should be historical reference in this article to these early spreadsheet processors.

Note: The world did not begin with Intel's 8080 micro-processors, IBM's invention of the "PC" (sarcasm intended), or the Internet.

HalFonts (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I worked on a fully interactive, WYSIWYG, networked, multi-user spreadsheet as early as 1974 for ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries, in Northwich, UK). This preceded Visicalc by 5 or 6 years for instance. My Wikipedia contributions about it were deleted because of "original research" and undeserved negative comments from the status quo (the supposed "inventors"). There are at least 6 people still alive who can testify to its origin, efficacy, longevity (1974-2001) and its total absence of bugs.

Here is a link to my own 'blog' on the product that has recently been updated to include a feature-by-feature 'comparison of early spreadsheets'

Some supposed spreadsheets were in reality, little more than batch "compile-and-go" or early specialized 4GL symbolic languages rather than, in any way, like modern spreadsheets. The Works records System at ICI however stands out in possessing all of the required attributes of what would, still today, be considered a spreadsheet. It also did many things that even modern spreadsheets don't do and didn't suffer from one of the major problems of modern day spreadsheets - accidental overkeying of a formula with an absoluyte value with impunity.

However, seemingly, the unnamed 1980's product you mention appears a little too late in the history to be very important because interactive PC based products began to appear in 1979/80 (Visicalc). The world definitely didn't begin with microprocessors and much of what had already been learned on mainframes had to be re-learned by PC programmers because of the lack of good education and/or published material. Much of it, unfortunately in fact, has still not been learned!ken (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lotus 1-2-3?[edit]

Where's Lotus 1-2-3? - MSTCrow 19:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we add it ?

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Quattro Pro ???[edit]

Or how about Quattro Pro?

Above statement was by User: I totally agree with the editor's sentiment, anyway! Dogru144 05:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

may we add a comparison of spreadshet and calculation features?[edit]

It would be very informative if there were a table showing categories of functions available (engineering, financial and what-so-ever) and size of spreadsheets.FlavianusEP (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Microsoft Office Excel 2007.png[edit]

The image File:Microsoft Office Excel 2007.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Spreadsheet Comparison[edit]

This paragraph just sounds like marketing, no? "...can be a mind-numbing exercise...", especially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


There should be a comparison of maximum number of rows and columns in a sheet, maximum number of sheets, maximum number of data elements in a sheet, maximum number of data elements in a graph, maximum number of data elements in a series on a graph, maximum file size. —DIV ( (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

Agreed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Regards, RScheiber (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Section "Spreadsheet comparison tools"[edit]

May I note that the page is a comparison of *spreadsheet software* (which is rather lacking, but that's beside the point), not a list to advertise spreadsheet comparison software. This section should be removed. (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems with this page[edit]

  1. Looks way too much like an advert for Google apps Most people use Microsoft office or openoffice calc - and especially so for serious or professional use. The online stuff should have a lower ranking in the page order and in all seriousness google apps is not used as frequently and is still more of a toy or gimmick than an every day tool for the mass population. This may change in the future, but data security issues and national interests mean that online application platforms are unsuitable for use by governments or commercial organisations because of the sensitive and confidential data that they handle or store.
  2. Does it actually compare very much? How user friendly are they? Can you get started quickly and continue to learn or do you have to do a course before going anywhere near the software? How stable is the software? Is it buggy? Does it crash often or not? How often are bugs fixed? What is the support like?
  3. What are the limitations of these various packages? What can be imported, exported? Max rows, Max columns, ability to import and merge data from other software? What hardware is required? (Windows xp when it first came out required just a few hundred mb of ram but now it requires a gigabyte of ram if you want to surf the net with a modern browser without your hard drive having a fit and dying)
  4. How practical are they? It is easy to claim crazy limits wrt columns or rows etc but when they start to get filled with data or formulas the software can rapidly become unstable or unusable. If you are digging a hole you can use a spade or a JCB but for different jobs a different tool is more appropriate. So, which packages are suitable for netbooks and small stuff and which packages are the heavyweights suitable for finacial modelling, forecasts, large scale number crunching with millions of cells.

....just a few ideas to get someone started on what a page like this should be about. None of us want the sales manual. None of us want a geeky argument about ideas or philosophies but we want to be able to get some information on what alternatives there are to our existing packages. Or, when choosing a new package which ones are good when for example case 1: we have a limited budget and are doing a school project or case 2: when our job is on the line and we have a deadline to meet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

suggesting comparisons of online (web-based) spreadsheets.[edit]

I suggest comparisons of online (web-based) spreadsheets topic.Manzzzz(talk) 03:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Spready Software[edit]

Hi, anybody knows where I can find that software to know about it and download? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rro4785 (talkcontribs) 01:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Basis of license comparison[edit]

It is quite clear that we have a dispute here. The main mover, Tim@, wants to change the basis of license comparison in the list.

Before Tim@ comes, "free" meant "gratis". Tim@ wants to change it so that it means "libre". Of course, per MOS:STABILITY, such a change needs prior consensus. We can start by listening to Tim@ explaining why representing the comparison on the basis of libre is better than gratis. Then proponents and opponents can comment on its merit.


FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Color-coding based on either "libre" or "gratis" both have merits. And none of them are forbidden in Wikipedia. I used the "gratis"-based coding because it was in effect when I came along and removed the price list.
Judging from Tim@'s edit summary, it appears that he thinks WP:NOTPRICE forbids Wikipedia from having the remotest connection with cost, expenditure, price, and such, under any and all circumstance. It does not. It says:

An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.

To summarize: Mention of price is not fully forbidden, and there is nothing in this policy about categorization or color-coding based on gratis status being forbidden.
Of course, I am not sure how much I should rely on his edit summaries. You see, he once gave this edit summary: "Fix license column sorting (using the format most other compare pages use)." But what he actually did was reinstating a previously disputed change. (The two revisions are identical.) So, are the edit summaries truely a representation of what he thinks?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
1 the column should sort properly, 2 the column should have focus (price or licence), 3 the column should conform to other pages on wikipedia
So Please clean it up, if you want to have cost(free/non-free) and license please make a column for each as they are mutually exclusive.
--Tim (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
To put it briefly: No!
1. As far as I am concerned, the all the columns do get sorted properly. You may want to explain what you mean.
2. The disputed column does have a focus: Accurate licensing scheme per MOS:COMPUTING § License, color-coded on gratis threshold
3. Absolutely not! First, there is no policy for cross-article conformance. Second, there is no consistency whatsoever. Each of the articles to which you linked follows a totally different style.
And please indent your messages properly, per talk page guideline. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Tim
Good to have you here. Face-smile.svg
FleetCommand is right. There is no consistency in those articles. Here is a summary of the style that each use:
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)