Previous 1 2 3 4 Next 289 Replies Latest reply: Jul 25, 2014 9:56 AM by fitopia Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
  • Jerrold Green1 Level 7 (29,955 points)

    Yes, and the floating formula window can be dragged taller too, if you have a steady enough hand. They need to make the landing zone larger for that action.



  • SGIII Level 5 (7,670 points)

    Ah, thanks for that, Jerry. I tried dragging taller and gave up, assuming it just wasn't possible. With the window dragged wider and taller things become more tolerable. More space to admire the crescent moons.  Actually it occurs to me that the magically appearing crescent moons are not just eye candy.  If you type an opening or closing parenthesis and you get a crescent moon, at least you know you're on your way to constructing something with valid syntax. If you type in a parenthesis and it "stays black" you've definitely got a problem in your formula.



  • papalapapp Level 1 (80 points)

    Yup, the "old" version (Numbers Pro) seems to have a bright future on my mac.


    Floating formula input, well, I don't mind, but I constantly need to move it away when composing formulas longer than 1+1. Somehow it always feels in the way.


    Another stripped feature I miss is the ability to drag tables on all sides. Now you can only drag from the top left corner.

  • Derick Fay Level 1 (10 points)

    And maintaining cursor location between sessions:

  • aryel Level 1 (0 points)

    Well... This is an absolute disaster, and for the first time of my life I think seriously to throw away my iMac and get something else instead (well... a hard solution, to say the least...)

    The new trio Keynote/Pages/Numbers is a real disaster, with some useless (for me) new features and a lot of essentials features removed.  This is ridiculous.  What do they think?  We don't use those softwares to play, but to work with.  Changing "look" for the fun of it is, already, a bad decision, but convert the good apps of the main computers to their downgraded versions of the little ones (iPad, iPhone, iPod...) is... well... I just can't find the word...


    I simply can't work with this version of Numbers.  I'll be waiting for a short time to see if Apple brings essentials upgrades for this one, but if not, it will be a major change of working for me.  Get back to this "Office" thing and, since I will be there, why not a Windows OS and, then, an Android phone?


    Think a bit Apple: in that direction you'll loose your basic friends.  And your new ones are sometimes fickle...

  • SGIII Level 5 (7,670 points)

    They've kept this in the menu of the "upgrade":




    Maybe give them feedback directly, perhaps putting Numbers 3.0 in the subject line.



  • G-Music Level 1 (25 points)

    I'd like a little less clicking between panes to get to the information I need. I was tired after creating a single document! I think increasing the clutter on screen (just a little) would prevent tabbing and clicking so much.

  • Xthing Level 1 (0 points)

    I do not think the newer version of number is any improvement at all!

    I can't even merge between tables or sum up number without locating the table on my data!


    Can anyone reverse the version back to old 9.0?





  • Johnny Hands Level 1 (15 points)

    Fantastic - I've found some serious Numbers people!


    I'm a long-time Mac guy, a seasoned amateur Excel guy -  and now a Numbers novice. I'm really interested in how seemless the iCloud thing is with Numbers between devices, and Windows.  I've got three devices, an old 10.7.5 Mac with Numbers 2.0, and newer MacBook with 10.9.x and Numbers 3.0 + Windows 7/Excel 2007 via bootcamp, and an iPad Mini with 7.0.3 and Number 2.x (the new upgrade for iOS.)


    Anyway, my report of what's lost from Number 2.0 to 3.0, on Mac OS X only (not the iOS because it was never there to begin with.)


    My first discovered Numbers 3.0 "take away":


    VLOOKUP and HLOOKUP formulas that takes a entire table as its (rows-range) 2nd argument have this taken away:  you no longer have the ability to just type in the table name (without the cell ranges also).  This may affect many other functions, but I don't know yet - as I said I'm a novice.


    So in Numbers 2.0, you could type in just the table name in HLOOKUP like this (and VLOOKUP, but I don't need to repeat both since they're transpositions of each other):


    Say, you've got this simple table called MyTable:








    And another table where you're going to do an HLOOKUP in cell F2, with the value B in cell D2:


    in cell F2 you type:


    =HLOOKUP( D2, MyTable, 2)    <which will return the 20 from row 2, column B from MyTable>


    In Numbers 2.0, you could just type that right in, and it would work.


    I'm finding in Numbers 3.0, just MyTable in argument 2, the (rows-range) argument, will not work - you'll get whatever autofill subsection of the table MyTable.  To get past the new Numbers 3.0 autofill/autocomplete stuff you need to type this:


    MyTable::A1:C3      <not just MyTable, then tab anymore like in Numbers 2.0>


    Am I doing something wrong?  I don't think I am.  And, to boot, you're forcing me to KNOW/REMEMBER the exact dimensions of the table -  to enter the table at all.


    Your other alternative, which is your ONLY alternative on iOS Numbers 1.x and now 2.0  is to drag-select the entire friggin' table range manually (a subject of another post).  The bigger the table, the suckier it is to do it that way. 


    If we can verify this, add this to your list Jerrold Green, and I will definitely will feedback with "Numbers 3.0" in the beginning of the title, as suggested by SGIII.


    I will probably make my feedback an enhancement request to make the table name itself be the first autofill suggestion, rather some subsection of the table - I mean, isn't an entire table as the (rows-range) what VLOOKUP and HLOOKUP mainly do?????


    See the autofill defaults you're first presented with after typing MyTable:, instead of just MyTable, in this screenshot:







    These are the autofill suggestions you get for the rows-range 2nd argurment, after typing this much: MyTable:


    And you click one of the first three options you see above:


    MyTable::'5'  -  all of row 2 (the 5, 20 and 60) as your rows-range


    MyTable::5 - all of row 2 again, but with a different color


    MyTable::X  -  all of row 3 (the X, Y and Z)



    Again, why can't just all of MyTable be the first autofill suggestion?


    One final thought: what I think Apple's long range plan is, is to make autofill the preferred way of doing things, because that's what works best on tablets, but that's just a hunch.



  • Roberto Marelli Level 1 (5 points)

    whine whine whine c'mon guys if you dont like 3 or you find it useless just stick to 2.

    Apple has conveniently allowed us to have both versions- seems cool to me.

  • sjlawton Level 1 (0 points)

    Thanks Johnny,


    Decision made. No way am I 'upgrading' now. I make extensive use of VLOOKUP/HLOOKUP functions and I agree with you that the main purpose is to search a whole table. If we are forced to specify cell ranges then what happens to our functions when more data is added to the table?



  • sjlawton Level 1 (0 points)

    Hardly the point. We users of Numbers 2 are entitled to expect that key features are carried forward into any 'upgrade'. I'm not happy that a useful productivity tool has been made less useful just so that it it fully compatible with the iPad version.


    I'm led to understand that the file format between versions 2 and 3 are different - if that's the case then you can't really have versions 2 and 3 running side-by-side can you? Not cool to me.


    During the Apple presentation, I don't remember the guy demonstrating new iWork saying, "By the way - you might want to keep your old version of Numbers because we've decided to dump a whole load of features just to be compatible across all devices".


    Think we're entitled to whinge about this.

  • Roberto Marelli Level 1 (5 points)

    In fact you can run them side by side.


    You can also trash 3 and continue on your merry way with 2.


    Furthermore, since the "upgrade" price was $0 your expectations

    should meet that and also be 0.


    In effect apple gifted us a new app so seems to me in bad taste to whine.


    On another note a lot of the functionality many of you seem to want would probably better be handled by a relational database no?

  • Johnny Hands Level 1 (15 points)

    My Numbers 2.3 got erased with the 3.0 install - there's no longer a Numbers 2.0 in my Applications folder.



    I think if I would made a folder Applications and moved it there before installing 3.0, it would have been preserved. For myself, I don't care - I have 2.0 on another machine, and I plan to use 3.0 anyway, and definitely on the iPad, to see how iCloud integration works.  I wonder how HLOOKUP/VLOOKUP works on iCloud in a browser?


    Is that what people who are  using both 2.x and 3.0 have done - moved 2.0 out of Applications before installing 3.0?

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next