VIP or Lotus
32 messages in this thread
Although I am replying to you, I hope that Ethan Solomita also reads
this… VIP Professional is not as bug free as you claim. I was unable
to transfer certain VIP spreadsheets to Lotus. Not all of my spreadsheets
had this problem, but enough of them did. I documented the bug to ISD
Marketing, and they confirmed the bug's existance, gave me an unacceptable
work-around, and told me they would fix it on their next upgrade (I
wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it). Another clarification: VIP will
let you specify the amount of memory to set aside to it. Run VIP, and when
the title screen appears, click with the mouse in the number area by
maximum spreadsheet size. Then type in the desired spreadsheet size in
K's. One other trick is that I learned is that if you boot up from
Workbench, the front and back gadgets are hidden underneath the "Ready"
prompt at the top. Try it! Once again, for my money, Plan/IT 3.0 is the
Amiga spreadsheet of choice. Just don't try loading Lotus spreadsheets with
circular references.
Tony,
I'm coming into this a little late but have seen no mention of Analyze!
here. With the upgraded version (which is over 2 years old), you can use the
mouse or standard lotus keyboard commands. I built a very extensive
spreadsheet at home on the Amiga, used a Dos to Dos conversion and took the
file to work to load it into the clone. All I had to do was put the titles
back onto the macros and it worked fine. This program was used to extimate and
manage a $33,000,000 budget.
Steve
Except that analyze will not process (a deliberate decision by mss) most 123
macro's.
Ron
I ended up starting this whole thread because I knew of some people who
might have bought a used Amiga if only it had the joy of their lives: Lotus.
All sarcasm intended. This program was mentioned as a true compat.
— Ethan
vip was supposed to be a fully compatible sheet program. Unfortunately to
those who need that on Amiga, it isn't, contrary to what the box says.
Ron
Here's an interesting fact: Lotus version 1A was 90K of program;
VIPProfessional is over 400K! Plan on having a meg if you want to run VIP
templates of any size…
Analyze! is a very nice spreadsheet. The reason I don't consider it a
"first tier" product is because it is not fully compatible with all of the
Lotus version 1A functions. Specifically, it does not suuport any of the @D
functions (DSUM, DCOUNT, etc.). I bought Analyze! when version 2.0 came out
and was forced to bring it back because I could not get a number of my
templates to run on it. But if you can accept the program for what it is, it
is a nice product.
Unfortunately there is still no fully lotus 123 compatible worksheet program
for Amiga. VIP claims to be release 1a compatible (except for those bugs that
they've acknowledged to you, to me, and I assume others), but no one has a
release 2 program out. ISD has made it clear to me that someday they may think
about considering a new version. Maybe.
Ron
That's true, there is no fully compatible 1-2-3 spreadsheet out there. My
question is "Why would you want one?". Lotus is yesterday's technology, if not
the day before's. Today's latest spreadsheet technology is Excel for the Mac
and AT (and above), Lotus version 3 (AT and above), Wingz (for the Mac), and at
the low end Lucid 3-D (PC). To that list, I think Amiga owners should add
Plan/IT 3.0. Plan/IT reads and writes Lotus 1A and 2, allows macro recording,
and can generate graphs in IFF format for desktop presentations. So what if it
can't read 1-2-3 macros? I have found that I am twice as productive with
Plan/IT than I am with Lotus or its clones, and productivity is what matters to
me. Plus I enjoy Plan/IT's interface (actually fun!) over Lotus (dreary and
keystroke intensive).
Plan/IT's main fault is that it does not appear to support double
precision math. Calculations are only significant to 10 places (Mike Lehman,
are you listening? Get back to work!)
Tony,
How does Plan/IT 3.0 compare to Excel or Lotus version 3? If it can't read
1-2-3's macro's can it generate it's own? The problem with 1-2-3 being
'yesterday's technology' is that it is nonetheless THE standard of spreadsheets
probably more than any other program being a standard it its own field. The
other programs may be light years ahead, but the fact that there are _so_ many
applications running 1-2-3 ties everything down to that lower level. Add to
that the fact that _most_ users of 1-2-3 are still really computer-phobes means
that they dread changing to anything else once they've learned to use 1-2-3.
More capable programs must assure themselves of backward compatibility with
1-2-3 if they are going to succeed, much the same way that OS/2 is crippled by
the need to stay compatible with 8088 code. I doubt that 1% of spread sheet
users appreciate or understand the advanced capabilities of 1-2-3 let alone the
better programs.
Rich
I have not used Excel or Lotus 3.0 because I do not wish to scrap all of
my perfectly fine turbo XT equipment just to run a spreadsheet. All of my
other software has no problems with my clones. I do know that Plan/IT is
modeled after Excel, with many Amiga enhancements. I wouldn't touch the
initial release of Lotus version 3. Version 2 was mainly a bug-fix, and it was
a mess (hence the hurried release of version 2.01). Also, Plan/IT cannot read
Lotus macros, but can record its own. Try doing that on Lotus before version
3!
Sir, I assume you own an Amiga. That automatically makes you a person who
rejects "yesterday's technology", whether you like it or not. The fact is that
it is not useful to have a "Lotus clone" running on the Amiga because people
who are interested in running Lotus are going to want to buy an MS-DOS machine.
They are not going to want to play with Dos-2-Dos to transfer files over. The
only other possibility for these people is to buy an Amiga 2000 series with
BridgeBoard, and then they'll borrow the copy of Lotus from work. I feel the
programmer(s) of Plan/IT made the best decision by giving us all the Amiga
bells and whistles, along with the ability to read and write Lotus 1A and 2.01
templates. Plan/IT's macro capability far exceeds Lotus'. I feel it would be
a joke to cripple the program in order to read Lotus' \X commands.
Tony,
You misunderstood me. I agree with you re the Amiga. It is unfortunate that the
mentality that exists _does_ exist. Instead of viewing the machine as a tool to
get the job done, everyone in the business world views these beasts with
paranoia and fear, minimized only by asuring themselves that they have exactly
the same equipment as the office down the street or across the country,
resulting in a 'sense' of security. Since the Amiga is so different and since
its programs are so different, it will never be accepted as a business machine.
When OS/2 really gets moving, it will wipe out _all_ competition, including
Amiga and yes even MAC. Even the developers that now produce programs like
Plan/IT for our machine will have no choice but to go with the herd for the
reasons I have mentioned here and in my last message.
Rich
"When OS/2 really gets moving, it will wipe out _all_ competition, including
Amiga and yes even MAC."
<Long, low whistle> That's a VERY powerful statement, Richard. Geez, I
dunno. If all of what I've heard about OS/2 is true (or even the majority of
it), it's got a LONG way to go before it "really gets moving". And even then,
there is always a place for a maverick, different system for other
applications. So I don't think OS/2 will ever "wipe out _all_ competition".
But I suppose we'll see, eh?
Rick
Right on Rick. There will always be room for innovation, and OS/2 ain't it.
Period.
-larry
Larry, OS2 is good for one thing – selling memory boards!
Ron
You got that right Ron. IBM has always sold software that requires more
hardware and vice versa. I remember well playing at home on my C64, with its 16
colours, while the local Telco was installing IBM colour terminals with 8
colours. The software to run the colour terminals required a 300 meg disk.
-larry
Rick, I didn't mean that message exactly as I sent it . . . but close enough.
Look at the computer ads. a 386 machine running at 20 MHz with 1 Mb, color VGA,
40 Meg HD can be had for $2300 to $2900. The prices will only come down and the
features will go up. The software support will be tremendous. Only a short time
ago the Amiga was way ahead in technology. That is no longer true. In just a
few months programs have appeared for these machines that are way ahead of the
Amiga versions (Micrografix designer or Corel Draw vs Pro Draw) and will be
improved even before the Amiga versions add features which don't even get them
to the level the 'Windows' versions are now. The MS DOS/Windows/OS-2 programs
are even better than the MAC 'equivalents' and will continue to widen the
distance.
The sheer weight of numbers is the difference. The new 386 and possibly 486
machines will be impossibly attractive to software developers. The Amiga no
longer holds the edge in graphic capability, although it is admittedly a better
machine re multitasking. Amiga only can survive by being superior in some very
significant way. What is that way any more? Price? NO!, Graphics? (Amazingly)
NO! Multitasking? Well, OS/2 _will_ work. Will Unix be the way? Maybe. But
that's a whole other issue.
The 386 and ultimately 486 world will be so lucrative, that other systems will
just not be able to survive unless they are clearly superior. Even the MAC will
not be able to claim this distinction any more. And its price will be the
ultimate problem.
Rich
But Rich, the Amiga is still superior in many ways, including graphics. We show
more colours, do faster and better animation, and do it in NTSC compatible
mode. The multitasking is something else again. That 90 million dollar smoke
bomb organized by IBM, called OSF, is proof positive that they know where the
real future lies, and they are hoping that by the time they get their
particular flavour of Unix up to snuff, that they can still capture a
significant market share.
-larry
Who ever said OS/2 is going to sell big-time? Maybe if the new release is
as much better as IBM claims, but I HIGHLY doubt its going anywhere in the next
three years. Currently, most people can't afford 2-3 Megs of RAM to waste and
speeds from 80386 to worse than 80286 just for multitasking on a clumsy system.
Eventually there will be cheap RAM and the 80586 will be a standard, and then
people won't give a damn about wasting resources, but for now, OS/2 is dead. If
AmigaDOS were made for IBM systems, i.e. a well designed multitasking system,
people would be switching in droves.
— Ethan
P.S. All appropriate IMHOs inserted.
Ethan,
But AmigaDos is _not_ made for IBM systems. And despite the fact that OS/2 has
problems, it is _not_ dead. And regardless of OS/2 the 386 machines are so
capable and so competitive in price that the outcome I so boldly predicted is
inevitible.
Rich
Richard,
I don't know about your area, but around here, folkss are staying away from
OS/2 in droves. I think IBM has cut their throat on this turkey, and I have
only grins for them if that turns out to be the case.
-larry
The '386 machines are real number crunchers. No doubt about it. But I
think most people are satisfied with MS-Dos. The costs, for now at least, for a
good OS/2 system are astronomical. How can most companies afford a 2 meg system
just to run SideKick!
— Ethan
Ethan, we have alot (40+) PS/2's and mostly Model 70's. I can tell you that
the prices are ridiculous and you can't run anything other than OS/2 without
many more than 2megs. Of the minimal amount of packages specifically written
for the PS/2 and not necessarily under OS/2 itself most require 10-14megs of
ram if they are graphics oriented. My company is currently paying $1000 for
2meg cards. <sheesh>
Marlene
Not only is the hardware expensive, but I'm sure OS/2 software is more
expensive. I know the WordPerfect for the Sun (not sure if its generic unix or
written for SunView) is something like $1200! Prices go up for the complex
machines. Funny how the Amiga has many of the same features (and the same
complications) and yet the price just goes down.
— Ethan
But will Oh Sh_t 2 ever get rolling? Managers I know make itclear they just
don't want to know about it. Dos 3.? works, doesn't require several meg just
to get a prompt, supports all their software. All they get for the expensive
upgrade is more expense and pain.
Ron
Rich,
I don't doubt that OS/2 will have an impact on the market, but I think
you'll find a much bigger impact from Unix in the near future. Once everyone
gets their act(s) together, you'll find Unix in more and more machines. In
fact, you'll find Unix holding a major share of the market, much like MS-DOS
now holds a major share of the market.
Don
Tony, if Planit included a conversion program to take lotus and excell macro's
(and the associated templates) and put them into planit form, and vice versa
(if it is so similair to excell it shouldn't be that hard) that worked most of
the time, I probably would be very quick to buy planit. It would meet my needs
and my bosse's needs rather nicely.
Ron
Tony, working in the world of one of the top 10 banks in the US, I would be
much more useful to my boss if I could run 123 release 2, or even better,
Excell (yes, Excell is better then 123-2) at home when budget time comes
around. Because I can't run it, I am much less useful in such exercises. If I
could copy the sheets he creates onto my Amiga I and use them, with their
macro's, unaltered, I would be more productive. You see, the business world is
mostly pc's, and while I have a better computer, it is not sufficiently
compatible with data from pc's.
Ron
Do you really need to run the macros? If not, try to bring in the
spreadsheet into Plan/IT (remember you'll need Dos-2-Dos), change a few
numbers, save it back out, and bring it back to work the next morning. While I
found one error in Plan/IT's conversion (D functions have an offset range one
colum off), the translation actually works pretty well. Let us know if you try
it along with the results. Plan/IT's read and write Lotus feature apparently
is for bring your work home at night.
I do have dos-2-dos. Still, I would find a spreadsheet program almost useless
without the 123 macro's. I certainly could never use the complex templates out
there (including ones my brother wants me to test or try out) such as tax
templates (which don't work with vip).
Ron