Q: What has been lost in Numbers 3.0 upgrade?

One more that I didn't see mentioned:

Can no longer move columns or rows around in a table or drop them on the canvas to create a new table.  "Mark for Move" and "Move" has already been mentioned as being missing but it appears the ability to pull columns/rows from a table and move them around or place them elsewhere is also gone. Anyone know how to do this now?

I am trying really hard to try to use Numbers 3.0 but it is thwarting my efforts at every turn. This is just one more item on my list. Most importantly, though, is that the most important Numbers document I use is actually slower in Numbers 3.0 than Number 2.3.  As an example, if I have a table cell selected (in any table in the document, no matter how large or small), it will take 3-5 seconds from when I click on the menu bar before the menu will appear. And I haven't actually done anything, I simply clicked on the menu bar. While the document is "large" by Numbers standards, Number 2.3 never had this problem with it.

Hmmm. I just noticed that Numbers is having this slowdown with all documents, even a new blank document. Quiting and restarting Numbers doesn't fix it. I'll try a reboot.

I know I've gone off topic and this is a bug report but whatever.

Logging off  fixed the slowdown until I tried editing my file again.  It has a table for data import that needs to be cleared before pasting in new data. When I select all cells in that table and hit delete to clear it, it creates the slowdown.  Command Z (undo) doesn't fix it. The slowdown remains and affects all documents until I log off and back on again.  Not acceptable.

Badunit,

Regarding the movement and dropping of Columns and Rows, those functions still work here in Numbers 3.0.

On the MBP TrackPad, I Tap-Tap-Drag on the Column or Row Tab in the bar over or to the side of the table. It all feels about the same as in Numbers 2.3.

I don't know about the slowdown. Every Mac I've ever used feels slow, as though not enough thought is given to responsiveness when assigning priority to the keyboard interrupts.

Jerry

I agree, move is available.

It's actualy in Apple's docs.

Move rows and columns within a table

• Select one or more rows or columns, then do either of the following:
  • Move rows: Click and hold the numbered bar for the rows so they appear to lift off the table, then drag above or below another row.
  • Move columns: Click and hold the lettered bar for the columns so they appear to lift off the table, then drag to the right or left of another column.

If you drag rows or columns outside an existing table, you create a new table.

 

I have now started checking the docs before assuming something is not available because the methods of doing things may have slightly changed.

Badunit wrote:

 

Most importantly, though, is that the most important Numbers document I use is actually slower in Numbers 3.0 than Number 2.3. 

I only have an old lowly Macbook Pro late 2008 and have found with regard to Numbers speed that it does seem to take a little longer to open a spreadsheet but once open I find it quicker than the previous version.

This improvement in speed may be because of the content that has been removed, time will tell.

The delay in opening I think is a general Mavericks issue because I have it in other programmes also and have seen it reported by others for programmes I don't have, so I am expecting a fix for this from Apple in the next Mavericks update.

I stand corrected on the relocation of columns/rows. The old procedure was to click then drag up and out. That was what I was trying to do. The new procedure is to click, hold until the selected column lifts, and then drag. I was not aware of a new Numbers User's Guide but I see now that it is online and this tidbit of information can be found under the heading "Add Rows and Columns". I would not have thought to look there anyway; I was not adding a column.

When Numbers is operating correctly, my document is probably much faster than in Number 2.3.  I cannot tell for sure, though, because the operation I am trying to do (clearing of a table then pasting of new data into the table) is what showed the speed of the application as the formulas in all the other tables recalculated. But Numbers 3.0 apparently has a bug that is causing a major slowdown immediately following this operation. I have narrowed it down further and I believe it has to do with using Numbers 2.3 and Numbers 3.0 at the same time.  I am using Numbers 2.3 to open a CSV file because it does it correctly, unlike Numbers 3.0.  I then copy the data from Numbers 2.3 to my document in Number 3.0.  The copy operation in 2.3 appears to be when things go south.

Here is the test that seems to do it for me:

1. Create a new document in Numbers 3.0
2. Create a new document in Number 2.3
3. Make the table in 2.3 larger. Try 400 rows with columns out to AS. No need to have any data in the cells
4. In the table in 2.3 select all (command A)
5. Go back to 3.0 and try using the menu system. It will be very slow.
6. This part I just figured out: Select something else (a single cell) and copy it to clear the big table off of the clipboard. Number 3.0's menu system speeds back up

Continuing on with that test, I tried again to copy the table in Numbers 2.3, I could paste it into 2.3 but not into 3.0. Numbers 3.0 acted as if there was nothing on the clipboard.  So I quit both apps and tried the entire test again. This time I was good through step 5 so I pasted the table into 3.0. Then I got the spinning beach ball, it pasted in, and the menu system got slow. What I am finding out is it appears to be somewhat inconsistent how this problem occurs. It seems to have something to do with the clipboard, though, because clearing the clipboard seems to clear up the slowdown.

How do we go back to version 2 and get our lost templates back? I lost spreadsheets that were shown on the templates page that are just ...gone.   Apple needs to be focused and attentive to those of us who have been

loyal "Macs" for years.  Features and functions are disappearing. Choices and options are disappearing that we're used to, use and need.  If newbies need dumbed down, controlled s/w give it to them but give us what we need

and want.  We're the ones who have been here all  along-  not switching back and forth.

Anyone know how to get templates/spreadsheets back after upgrading?  Too late to say don't upgrade.

No one said all my templates would disappear  --  just that I needed to upgrade!

How do we go back to version 2 and get our lost templates back? I lost spreadsheets that were shown on the templates page that are just ...gone. 

Hi Ricki,

Have you tried opening Numbers 2.3 just as you always have? It's in a subfolder within your Applications folder named iWork '09 or similar.

SG

I don't know if this is a "lost" feature or a bug or an oversight but I can no longer filter a table to hide rows with null strings, such as those created by the formula =IF(Table 1::B2="","",Table 1::B2).

In Numbers '09, the filter considered null strings to be "blank" so a filter for "show rows where column B is not blank" would hide those "blank" rows. In Numbers 3.0, the filter does not consider a null string to be blank. The result is you cannot create a filter for null strings. The "if blank" filter doesn't do it and you cannot create a filter for "if text is a null string".

Yes, a workaround might be to have the result be a space instead of a null string but that is not a good workaround if a downstream formula uses that result.

Hi Badunit,

I get the beachball of death if I create a document in Numbers 2, save it and then open in Numbers 3. After an edit, I think Numbers 3 tries to update the original document if it is still open. I guess working on a copy under a different name may keep the two versions "separate".

Regards,

Ian.

Yes, Numbers 3.0 seems to consider any cell with a value or a formula in it as "is not blank."  Annoying.

Another workaround (even uglier) is to have an extra column with =LEN(letter of the column with the formula) and filter for Numbers "not equal to" 0.

SG

I think an auxiliary column to control the filter could be an efficient approach in some situations.

I've added the changed filter behavior to the things that are lost list.

Jerry

 

I've added the changed filter behavior to the things that are lost list.

I just reported it as a bug, too.  Surely it must be a bug or oversight. Or does the new behavior provide advantages in some situations? (I can't think of any. Can you?)

SG