>>853
>>854
Amann Escher's problems aren't much easier than Zorich's per se but I'd still claim you'll have a much easier time. One of the reasons why Zorich's problems are difficult is because they're often based on novel examples or only tangentially related fields. Amann Escher isn't as random (or rather, the proofs they expect you to write down aren't much harder than the ones they do for you). Amann Escher also treats analysis much more formally (introduce metric spaces, normed vector spaces, and topological ones early on, then prove most of the theorems for banach spaces). So if you had issues with abstraction Amann Escher may be better. For illustration: Zorich introduces transcendental numbers in an exercise early on (may be chapter 2 IIRC), whereas in Amann Escher you first hear about them on page 300-something and not in an exercise.