<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Road to Mac Office 2008: Excel &#8216;08 vs Numbers 1.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/11/15/road-to-mac-office-2008-excel-08-vs-numbers-10/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/11/15/road-to-mac-office-2008-excel-08-vs-numbers-10/</link>
	<description>Daniel Eran Dilger in San Francisco</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:23:17 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: josephine</title>
		<link>http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/11/15/road-to-mac-office-2008-excel-08-vs-numbers-10/comment-page-1/#comment-1558</link>
		<dc:creator>josephine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/11/15/road-to-mac-office-2008-excel-08-vs-numbers-10/#comment-1558</guid>
		<description>Number is a poor, third rate cousin to Excel for Windows.  Excel for Mac should have been stillborn, because if the lack of VBA support.  The lack of a powerful spreadsheet application alone is enough to keep me tethered to the MSFT ball and chain for this upgrade cycle, which is probably how Microsoft likes it.  There is no substitute for Excel; therefore, there is no substitute for Windows.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Number is a poor, third rate cousin to Excel for Windows.  Excel for Mac should have been stillborn, because if the lack of VBA support.  The lack of a powerful spreadsheet application alone is enough to keep me tethered to the MSFT ball and chain for this upgrade cycle, which is probably how Microsoft likes it.  There is no substitute for Excel; therefore, there is no substitute for Windows.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lowededwookie</title>
		<link>http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/11/15/road-to-mac-office-2008-excel-08-vs-numbers-10/comment-page-1/#comment-1480</link>
		<dc:creator>lowededwookie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:11:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/11/15/road-to-mac-office-2008-excel-08-vs-numbers-10/#comment-1480</guid>
		<description>Considering M$ is killing off VB macros in Office 2008 would this mean that for many people Numbers would be just as good as Excel?

I mean the macro factor of Excel was something that was required to remain compatible with other Excel files from Windows so without that feature it seems Excel is just an expensive option now.

Personally iWork is perfect for my needs and the cost of Office which doesn&#039;t really offer my needs anything extra means M$ will never grace my Mac again, except of course for a couple of Windows apps that I need (IE7 unfortunately being one of them).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Considering M$ is killing off VB macros in Office 2008 would this mean that for many people Numbers would be just as good as Excel?</p>
<p>I mean the macro factor of Excel was something that was required to remain compatible with other Excel files from Windows so without that feature it seems Excel is just an expensive option now.</p>
<p>Personally iWork is perfect for my needs and the cost of Office which doesn&#8217;t really offer my needs anything extra means M$ will never grace my Mac again, except of course for a couple of Windows apps that I need (IE7 unfortunately being one of them).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
