For all of it's flaws, I frikkin' love Gmail. Perhaps my favorite parts are the spam filtering and the filters.
New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
111–120 of 230 posts
Re: New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would agree with you that excel is still more powerful than google spreadsheet but I don't agree that's because of native vs web type of app, because gmail is more powerful (and faster) than outlook. So let's call it subjective and give it a rest. The main reason we switched to google apps is collaboration: all the features in the world do not really matter when the whole team can open and edit a document at the sa…
How is Gmail faster than Outlook? I've used both for as long as they've existed, and both for work and personal use, and don't see where or how Gmail is faster. Not going to bother with the more powerful comment. This being HN and all I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply not familiar enough with Outlook, rather than trolling.
Re: New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
#113Re: New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
#114Am I the only one that is distracted by the name "Google Sheets?" It doesn't exactly roll of the tongue, awkward to say and doesn't exactly scream "spreadsheets" when placed next to other Google Docs (Drive?) products. It can just as easily have been a presentation tool, or something else entirely. Although, it's probably ambiguous only to me and for most other people, sheets == spreadsheets.
Re: New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would agree with you that excel is still more powerful than google spreadsheet but I don't agree that's because of native vs web type of app, because gmail is more powerful (and faster) than outlook. So let's call it subjective and give it a rest. The main reason we switched to google apps is collaboration: all the features in the world do not really matter when the whole team can open and edit a document at the sa…
How is Gmail faster than Outlook? I've used both for as long as they've existed, and both for work and personal use, and don't see where or how Gmail is faster. Not going to bother with the more powerful comment. This being HN and all I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply not familiar enough with Outlook, rather than trolling.
Gmail has one of the best keyboard shortcuts ever, thing that always anoyed me with Outlook was that focus would get stuck between two panes and the only way out was to click with mouse. With few labels, powerful filter and incredible search, yeah I would say gmail is more powerful than Outlook. But like I said in previous comment, let's all agree that it is subjective.
What's definitely not subjective is Gmail being faster in search which still baffles me (outlook being slower). But having more than 10GB of email being searched almost instantly is something that I never managed to do with Outlook (and no, I never did have nor wanted to manage exchange server).
Re: New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
#116- I can explicitly name and lock a given version (i.e. a checkpoint). This is a huge missing feature at my company, where we rely on collaboratively-edited spreadsheets
- I can select non-contiguous cells
- I can insert multiple rows easily
- I can copy formulas into Excel
Re: New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
#117I'm also seeing a nice change to using custom formulas/scripts. Normally when I return a 2D array, most of the grid is results from the CONTINUE function - now it writes the actual cell value calculated. This is a lot nicer for then sorting this data.
Re: New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
#118Do feeds still work like they used to via the same APIs? I'm not able to get a json feed out via a link like before for some reason.
Re: New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
#119I'm at my first company that uses Google apps and it's been a bad experience. There's so much about email and calendaring that Outlook/Exchange got right that it's hard to be without it after taking it for granted. Using a native rich application is always going to be superior to building a web app on top of a browser. Once you're used to real applications, Gmail and the other apps aren't suitable for anything more t…
I'm also at a company that's a 100% Google Apps and so have been forced to make a good go at it. - Gmail is great for near-term communications, having chat in the same place makes it a nice communications hub for immediate and near-term communications. I like it better than Outlook and it seems much snappier in day-to-day use. But I find it almost unusable when looking for emails from a while ago. It's so bad that I…
Re: New Google Sheets: faster, more powerful, and works offline
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently went through an acquisition where we transitioned from Google Apps to the Microsoft suite. I do not share your love of Microsoft's suite. Among the many problems I have with the Microsoft suite, Outlook is at the top of my list for generating the most frustration. GMail's priority inbox and new-style inbox where machine learning is used to sort out mail is a productivity booster for me. With Outlook, I reg…
So, we all like what we're used to. To the OP, insisting that apps running in browsers will never match native apps in terms of UX, that's a very audacious claim. There are many powerful, competent, and well-funded entities with a vested interest in improving the web app experience (including Google). I wouldn't claim they're doomed from the start. This could be just another example of a disruptive technology, that's…
They are set back and certainly extremely limited from the start. Native means you have almost unlimited capabilities for interacting with the user and their system. A browser application by definition is much more limited. The experience is always improving but it's to get the point that native applications have always had -- and they still have a long way to go. And the nature of browser based applications might mean that it can never happen. The browser is layer between the solution and the user and it will always interfere in some way.