Text 6113, 134 rader
Skriven 2005-07-16 22:25:46 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 5984 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Reality Check
=========================
From: Ellen K. <72322.1016@compuserve.com>

Entering 43 where the cell is formatted as a percentage also results in 43% in
Office 2000, I just tried it.   I have never, ever done this in
real life, didn't even know it was possible until I read your post. Usually the
only cells I format as a percentage are calculated cells. As a person who's
done many reporting applications to replace user spreadsheets etc, I'm not sure
I think it's a good idea for Excel to think "43" means 43%.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:30:12 -0400, Mike '/m' <mike@barkto.com> wrote in
message <aq1bd1hju674cl4s4hegq7j4j53g936jg2@4ax.com>:

>
>Yet another MS Office XP 2002 annoyance.
>
>I format a cell as percentage.  In order to get 43% in the cell, I have
>to enter .43 in Office XP.  In Office 97, there was some intelligence
>and I could just enter 43, and it would know what I wanted.
>
>I looked and looked for a config parm to change this "feature" back to
>the Office '97 way of doing things, but I can't find anything.
>
>
> /m
>
>
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:59:29 -0400, Mike '/m' <mike@barkto.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Office '97 here at home.  Reluctantly, Office XP 2002 at work (the more
>>I use it, the more I want to go back to Office '97).
>>
>> /m
>>
>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:29:18 -0400, "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Ok time for a survey.
>>>
>>>I run Office 2000, what versions do the rest of you run?
>>>
>>>Geo.
>>>
>>>  "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42d29689@w3.nls.net...
>>>     If you truly expect 95% than I believe you are full of it and just
making up junk to sound as if you know something.  Use "some" if you mean some.
>>>
>>>  Rich
>>>
>>>    "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
news:42d292af$1@w3.nls.net...
>>>    I never said it wasn't.  What is it about the definition of the words "I
>>>    Suspect" that seem to so trouble your reading comprehension.  Quit being
>>>    such a touchy ass about this.  Its not my fault nobody wants to upgrade
>>>    their MS Office software.
>>>
>>>    Your employer needs to build a business model that doesn't rely upon
full
>>>    cost monopoly priced upgrades of products every 9 months.  That isn't my
>>>    fault either.  Eventually, people say "wait a minute", again not my
fault.
>>>
>>>    I guess Microsoft could get lots of office upgrades if they just make
>>>    Longhorn incompatible with every version of MS Office except <FILL IN
NAME
>>>    OF VERSION HERE>.
>>>
>>>    Gary
>>>
>>>    "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42d28167@w3.nls.net...
>>>       And I still think you have no clue.  The 95% you keep claiming is a
>>>    number you pulled out of thin air.
>>>
>>>    Rich
>>>
>>>      "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
>>>    news:42d265b2$1@w3.nls.net...
>>>      You are right that my perspective does not extend outside the USA.
>>>
>>>      I never said there weren't *improvements* from Office 5.0 to the later
>>>      versions.  I am saying those *improvements* are meaningless to 95% of
the
>>>      market, and in MANY or MOST situations those *improvements* are offset
by
>>>      dis-incentives and negative changes that are more negative than the
>>>      improvements are positive.
>>>
>>>      I like office 2000, have no plans to go above office 2000.  Truth is,
I
>>>      could easily stayed with Office 5.  I suspect that truth holds for 95%
of
>>>      the market within my perspective.
>>>
>>>      Gary
>>>
>>>      "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42d1b1ad$1@w3.nls.net...
>>>         95% what market?  You surely do not mean people that speak many
>>>      non-Western languages because Unicode support did not appear until
Office
>>>    97
>>>      and support for more languages and better support for existing ones
>>>      continued to improve with successive releases.  With your broad brush
you
>>>      are discounting a great deal of the people on this planet.  Far more
than
>>>      5%.  Western European language speaker are the minority.  Even you
would
>>>      have to be blind to not see the clear improvements between Office 5.0
or
>>>      even Office 95 and Office 2000.
>>>
>>>         I suspect you have no clue what the improvements are in the two
>>>    releases
>>>      since the one you use.  If I'm wrong feel free to tell us all which
Office
>>>      2003 applications you use and what differences you perceived.
>>>
>>>      Rich
>>>
>>>        "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
>>>      news:42d194f6$1@w3.nls.net...
>>>        The truth be told, Office for Win95 and Office 5.0 for Win3.1 was
good
>>>        enough for 95% of the market.
>>>
>>>        I've stayed at the Office 2K level with no intention on the horizon
of
>>>      going
>>>        higher.
>>>
>>>        Gary
>>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)