Text 6181, 234 rader
Skriven 2005-07-20 13:59:18 av Gary Britt (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 6179 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Reality Check
=========================
From: "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com>

Ooops.  I misread what you typed.

Gary

"Ellen K." <72322.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1dusd1t22h7hr69s21le7vchaf41a6j18n@4ax.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)