Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT for Excel

chatgpt.com

191–200 of 209 posts

Re: ChatGPT for Excel

#191

This looks bad for Microsoft. They added a Copilot button to all their products but it doesn't do much more than open a chat side panel. I recently tried Claude Cowork for PowerPoint and I was stunned by the content as well as design quality of the deck it produced. That's a threat for Microsoft because now you don't need the editing tools of PowerPoint, AI replaces it, so all you need is the presentation mode of Pow…

I run the Excel team at Microsoft. The experience you're describing sounds like it's from the earlier versions of Copilot in Excel that were genuinely limited. Today, Excel Copilot takes a model-forward approach where we give the models full access to Excel's capabilities. We give customers the choice of the latest models from both OpenAI and Anthropic, and we encourage the models to iteratively explore the spreadshe…

just tried it: i can't even use CSV files with Copilot...

Without coming across as overly rude, it is frankly astonishing how limited Copilot is.

I do not like being an MS customer or user.

Re: ChatGPT for Excel

#192
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that makes sense. For some reason, I was under the impression that all calculations run locally in the browser, which would have been comparable to how Excel desktop works (i.e., local calculations). Is there a reason for why the Excel calculations run on the server (e.g., excessive workload of a browser implementation, proprietary code, difficult to implement in JavaScript, cross browser compatibility issues,…

I don’t think Excel web will ever be running the calc engine browser side, no. The only way I could see this happen would be via compiling the core to wasm, which I don’t think is worth the engineering effort. Excel has this legacy (but extremely powerful) core with very few people left that knows all of it. It has legacy bugs preserved for compatibility reasons as whole businesses are ran on spreadsheet that break i…

> Excel has this legacy (but extremely powerful) core with very few people left that knows all of it.

Would love to hear more about this. Especially history and comparison to Lotus etc.

Re: ChatGPT for Excel

#193

This looks bad for Microsoft. They added a Copilot button to all their products but it doesn't do much more than open a chat side panel. I recently tried Claude Cowork for PowerPoint and I was stunned by the content as well as design quality of the deck it produced. That's a threat for Microsoft because now you don't need the editing tools of PowerPoint, AI replaces it, so all you need is the presentation mode of Pow…

I run the Excel team at Microsoft. The experience you're describing sounds like it's from the earlier versions of Copilot in Excel that were genuinely limited. Today, Excel Copilot takes a model-forward approach where we give the models full access to Excel's capabilities. We give customers the choice of the latest models from both OpenAI and Anthropic, and we encourage the models to iteratively explore the spreadshe…

Thanks for clarifying this. I was genuinely frustrated with copilot due to the lack of features.

If it's possible please push your large business clients to update office. I work for a multinational pharma company and the copilot feature in excel deployed there is next to useless

Re: ChatGPT for Excel

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current model is inauthentically limited? "If you tried it a few months ago and walked away, it's worth another look." You shouldn't have shoved trash down people's throats a few months ago then?

> You shouldn't have shoved trash down people's throats a few months ago then? :s/You/MS While I agree the widespread "race to market" with crap probably does and should hurt the success of these "AI-enabled apps," that particular area probably was not this individuals decision.

It was this person's decision to mention their senior role at MS then dump marketing drivel into our heads. It's not his hand but he still eats with it.

Re: ChatGPT for Excel

#195
post #102

I’ve always found it unbelievable how bad Gemini’s Google Sheets interaction is. Copying the sheets into Claude and then modifying them there and copying them back actually outperforms it. Nowadays I just make single-purpose websites with Claude Code because Google Sheets has such poor AI integration and is outrageously tedious to edit. They had all the parts and I have a subscription and it still does terrible thing…

I'm having great luck having Claude Code generate, read, and update spreadsheets by writing Python code that uses gspread.

Surprisingly even small models can do this quite well. I have Sonnet on a claw-like generate something based on my emails, airbnb receipts, and so on, and it was perfect and it could edit fields and whatnot, but the Gemini tool can't do anything.

Re: ChatGPT for Excel

#197
I am a ChatGPT plus user in the UK. I believe this should work for me as I am outside the EU (!), but every time I have tried it I get ‘Currently Unavailable - please try again later’. Which is very unhelpful.

Re: ChatGPT for Excel

#198
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that makes sense. For some reason, I was under the impression that all calculations run locally in the browser, which would have been comparable to how Excel desktop works (i.e., local calculations). Is there a reason for why the Excel calculations run on the server (e.g., excessive workload of a browser implementation, proprietary code, difficult to implement in JavaScript, cross browser compatibility issues,…

I don’t think Excel web will ever be running the calc engine browser side, no. The only way I could see this happen would be via compiling the core to wasm, which I don’t think is worth the engineering effort. Excel has this legacy (but extremely powerful) core with very few people left that knows all of it. It has legacy bugs preserved for compatibility reasons as whole businesses are ran on spreadsheet that break i…

Surely picking that apart is a good idea. Even if it costs a fortune, there have to be benefits.

Re: ChatGPT for Excel

#199
post #157
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I recently tried Claude Cowork for PowerPoint and I was stunned by the content as well as design quality of the deck it produced. That's a threat for Microsoft because now you don't need the editing tools of PowerPoint, AI replaces it, so all you need is the presentation mode of PowerPoint. Actually, someone here posted a Claude Code skill recently that generates a presentation as a self-contained HTML5 file, so al…

I'd love to get a link to that comment/post!

https://github.com/shawnzam/keynot

Re: ChatGPT for Excel

#200
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think Excel web will ever be running the calc engine browser side, no. The only way I could see this happen would be via compiling the core to wasm, which I don’t think is worth the engineering effort. Excel has this legacy (but extremely powerful) core with very few people left that knows all of it. It has legacy bugs preserved for compatibility reasons as whole businesses are ran on spreadsheet that break i…

> Excel has this legacy (but extremely powerful) core with very few people left that knows all of it. Would love to hear more about this. Especially history and comparison to Lotus etc.

So the first thing that's important to understand is that Excel is the product of another era. One where resources like memory were very constrained and compilers and optimizers weren't as good as they are today (so much so that the Excel team at one point wrote their own because MSVC sucked, but I digress)...

And so, a lot of the core code is used to that. Cell formatting data for example is super tightly packed in deeply nested unions to ensure that as little memory is used to store that info. If something only needs 3 bits, it'll only use 3 bits. The calc engine compiles all of your formulas to its own (IIRC variable-instruction-width) bytecode to make sure that huge spreadsheets can still fit in memory and calc fast.

And a lot of it still carries the same coding and naming practices that it started with in the 80s: Hungarian notation, terse variable and file names, etc. Now, IMO, Hungarian notation by itself is pretty harmless (and even maybe useful in absence of an IDE), but it seemed to encourage programmers to eschew any form of useful information from variable names, requiring you to have more context to understand "why" something is happening. Like, cool, I have a pszxoper now (pointer to zero terminated string of XOper), but why?

So the code is tight, has a lot of optimization baked in and assumes you know a lot about what's happening already.

But more importantly, a lot of "why" information also just lives in people's head. Yes, some teams would have documentation in an ungodly web of OneNote notebooks, or spread across SharePoint pages, which had the least useful search functionality I've ever witnessed, but finding anything you wanted was hard. But that didn't use to matter, since the core team had been there for a long time, so you could ask them question.

That being said, I joined MSFT in 2012 and started working on Excel closer to 2014. At that point, heavyweight like DuaneC (who wrote like 10% of Excel and I don't think I'm exaggerating) had already retired and while others people were very knowledgeable in some areas, nobody seemed to have a good cross view of the whole thing.

You have to understand that I was in the Office Extensibility team. We were building APIs for the whole thing. I had to touch the calc system, the cells and range, the formatting, tables, charts and images (the whole shared oart system was interesting), etc. Answering "How do I do X" was always a quest because you would usually:

- Find 3 different ways of achieving it

- One of them was definitely the wrong way and could make the app crash in some situations (or leak memory)

- All the people on the "blame" had left

- One of them was via the VBA layer which did some weird stuff (good ol' pbobj)

- Be grateful that this wasn't Word because their codebase was much worse

And so, a lot of the API implementation was trial and error and hunting down someone who understood the data structures. The fact that full sync and rebuild took about 6 hours (you ran a command called `ohome` and then you went home) meant that experimenting was sometimes slow (at least incremental builds were OK fast). The only lifeline back then was this tool called ReSearch2 that allowed you to search the codebase efficiently.

But the thing is, once you got thing to work, they worked really well. The core was solid and performant. Just slightly inscrutable at time and not the kind of code you're use to reading outside of Excel.

Post reply on HN