Text 6153, 159 rader
Skriven 2005-07-19 12:27:52 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 6113 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Reality Check
=========================
From: Mike '/m' <mike@barkto.com>


It is just a bit of intelligence on the input, the value of the cell is still
0.43.

The main use for me is a data input cell that represents the percentage
incidence of a demographic within a population group.  That is always spoken of
in terms of percentages, and it makes a lot of sense to the users to enter 43%
instead of .43 when prompted for an incidence percentage.  They even expect
such behavior on the spreadsheets they create for themselves.

MS Office '97 had the logic correct, based upon the reactions of the people I
instruct on the usage of the apps I write for MS Excel.  The new behavior of MS
Office XP confuses them.

 /m



On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:25:47 -0700, Ellen K. <72322.1016@compuserve.com> wrote:

>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)