Text 6169, 169 rader
Skriven 2005-07-19 23:55:56 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 6153 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Reality Check
=========================
From: Ellen K. <72322.1016@compuserve.com>

Well, but a geeky person like myself manually entering percentage values would
enter .43 for 43%, and expect entering 43 to result in 4300% showing.  Entering
43% (with the percent sign) I can see.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:27:52 -0400, Mike '/m' <mike@barkto.com> wrote in
message <67aqd1hcbkulut5mm0o37qs9019pi0q5u7@4ax.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)