Text 6175, 186 rader
Skriven 2005-07-20 09:11:08 av Gary Britt (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 6169 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Reality Check
=========================
From: "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com>

A true geek like myself would enter .43 (that's a decimal in front of the 43
that can hardly be seen on this monitor of mine).

Gary

"Ellen K." <72322.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j8trd19hdm8mrpcuh0ua07sf5jllobo62m@4ax.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)