Sorry, but unless you just want a pretty graph for a small set of data, Numbers is hopeless.
Mac Excel isn't even a patch on the Windows version, but it's light years ahead of Numbers in just about every way for manipulating lots of numbers. I could send you some spreadsheets that Numbers won't open, that Mac Excel almost grinds to halt with but Excel 2007 will spin cartwheels with!
it should be called (Graph a few) Numbers
This is a hugely misrepresentative post. While you are right that importing a large, complex Excel file into Numbers becomes a big mess, the exact same is true in the other direction.
I have, for example, a file that is a native Numbers file, meaning it was originally created in Numbers, and did not begin life as an Excel file. It tracks balance sheet, income statement, and activity level data for every week of every month of every year beginning in 2009 for 6 different business units and over 100 past and present employees, and calculates a meriad of management KPI's on both a macro and micro level down to very small minutiae like activity levels and conversion rates per account manager per week, month, quarter, and year.
This is a massive and complex file utilizing many advanced features, pivot table functionality, look up functionality, almost 1,000 individual tables, and nearly 50 separate graphical data representations in the form of different graphs in various formats.
Try to import that Numbers file into any version of Excel and see where that gets you. Oh wait, Excel doesn't even have a function to import from Numbers...you have to export from Numbers to Excel...and it is UGLY!! Totally destroys the functionality and format of the file.
What I'm saying is, your argument is fundamentally flawed because you're arguing that Numbers sucks because it can't import large complex Excel files properly.
My point is Excel sucks even worse because it can't even import a simple one cell Numbers file. Numbers is far superior in that it can actually import and export Excel at all.
I am at an advantage because in my professional position, I can dictate the platform from the top down. My company uses Numbers, Keynote, and Pages exclusively. Office is only on a few computers that need it for old files, like mine. Windows and Windows based PC's are bad memories here, and the amount of money we save on OS and software licenses is a very compelling added bonus.
----------
OP, consider reading the Help documentation regarding which functions, formatting, and features do not translate when converting from Excel to Numbers - dozens of functions do not translate or even exist in Numbers. Also, in Numbers some functions have different names and how they're implemented/formatted also can differ. The Help documentation can guide you if you choose to port your workflow to Numbers.
I have been using Excel since the late 80s, along with Lotus (for DOS and Windows), and can add DeltaGraph Pro and AppleWorks to that mix. I really, REALLY miss CricketGraph too...
I'm sticking with Excel. I use both the Mac version and Windows 2013 version.
I also completely disagree with the position offered by MyopicPaideia regarding Excel and its relation to Numbers. For my work, Access is the data container and, by design, Excel is a data processor - too many of the people I work with make that mistake, thinking that Excel is simply a repository for "numbers". I started calculating light rail runtimes and layouts in the early 90s, and performed advanced wastewater effluent analysis during the 90s, and mapped hundreds of millions of dollars of project budgets and expenditures, and cranked out thousands of statistical analyses for clients - all in Excel. Excel's very underutilized reporting features are unsurpassed by any other application like it, and that doesn't even address its extensibility in VB. Pivot tables in Excel are nice, but they're IMO only skimming the purpose and power of Excel. No way is Excel is going to be replaced by Numbers...
What I haven't seen or read elsewhere regarding how Numbers offers in relation to Excel is that I see each "table" in Numbers as a "named range" on an Excel spreadsheet in a workbook. Apple took the complex, often unused "NAME" command and created a GUI-based object to define a group of data. There's more power to Numbers than most realize IMO - but, it will never replace Excel, and it's not meant to be a replacement for Excel. If Apple really got their act together, they'd get a perfect data translator for Excel and make Numbers a better data summary application for Excel to put Excel's reporting ffunctions to shame...
IMHO, you may find it's easier and more time-effective to start from scratch if you're considering Numbers.
Good post. If you are dependent upon any part of Office in your workflow, like Access as your database, then of course you are going to have problems and are probably better off using the integrated solution.
Like you say, Numbers isn't meant to replace Excel as an alternative in an otherwise Office workflow, that would be a ridiculous assertion.
Again, Like you say, if you are willing to start from scratch, and have your Excel files as a reference and back-up, Numbers can be a very fulfilling alternative, and in many ways superior exprierence.
