Text 6179, 192 rader
Skriven 2005-07-20 09:19:56 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 6175 av Gary Britt (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Reality Check
=========================
From: Ellen K. <72322.1016@compuserve.com>

Yes, that's what I said.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:11:09 -0400, "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote
in message <42de4c3a$1@w3.nls.net>:

>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)