LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIt sounds like somebody monkeyed with the autocorrect feature of
spellchecker.
Tools>Options>Spelling
Click the [Autocorrect options] button
Searh in the Replace list for the number 4
Select that row and click [Delte] then [OK]
Does that help?
Ron
It sounds like somebody monkeyed with the autocorrect feature of
spellchecker.
Tools>Options>Spelling
Click the [Autocorrect options] button
Searh in the Replace list for the number 4
Select that row and click [Delte] then [OK]
Does that help?
Ron
An employee is having a problem where excel is replacing the number 4
with the number 19. This happens when typing in as a number 4 (=4), as
text ('4), and as a formula (=4+2, results in 21). It occurs in
existing spreadsheets and new spreadsheets. However, if I log in as
administrator and run excel, excel runs fine. Any thoughts?
Excel XP SP2 and Windows XP pro SP2.
I think that you need to format and reinstall.. and this time don't
bother with Excel; it was passe in 1994
MrExcel told me there's 200 million Excel users, Aaron. It's us against you.
*******************
~Anne Troy
www.OfficeArticles.com
www.MyExpertsOnline.com
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think that you need to format and reinstall.. and this time don't
> bother with Excel; it was passe in 1994
>
No point Anne, he regularly has these hissing fits.
Bob
"Anne Troy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MrExcel told me there's 200 million Excel users, Aaron. It's us against
you.
>
> *******************
> ~Anne Troy
>
> www.OfficeArticles.com
> www.MyExpertsOnline.com
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I think that you need to format and reinstall.. and this time don't
> > bother with Excel; it was passe in 1994
> >
>
>
and i still get more done than all 200 million of you lol
i mean-- you guys all make the same report every week.. you have to cut
and paste-- i mean-- there IS a better way; and it is called DATABASEs.
you guys all report on DB data anyway.
use the right tool for the task.
i mean seriously..
you guys MAKE THE SAME REPORT EVERY WEEK
and you have to copy and paste-- i mean.. you 200m people are THE
BIGGEST WASTE OF MAN HOURS EVER
AND YOU GUYS DONT DESERVE TO BE WORKING IN MODERN CORPORATE AMERICA.
YOU SKILLSETS ARE DATED AND YOU GUYS DONT ADAPT TO REALITY.
I use both Excel and Access, and have a familiarity with Crystal and SQL, and
all have their benefits. Nobody with a lick of sense can honestly say that
Access (or any other database I'm familiar with either) is as flexible or
easy to use as Excel. Try to email an Access or any other DB program, and
you'll see another reason why businesses use Excel far and beyond db's for
everyday data entry (HUGE). The VBA code is the same of course.
--
Message posted via http://www.officekb.com
technically, databases are SMALLER than Excel.
Access Data Projects are TINY
But more than size, it is about centralization.
Access lets you keep all your DATA in one place instead of a billion
different spreadsheets.
Excel just can't make reports. It is non-functional. Excel is the
epitome of inefficiency. I mean-- do you really need 1,000
beancounters to make the same report week in and week out?
I mean-- OMFG excel sux because it's still stuck in 1995.
[email protected] wrote...
>technically, databases are SMALLER than Excel.
>Access Data Projects are TINY
They are if you mean everything you need is already on a server in a
table or view *and* you're not storing any temporary tables. The flip
side is that you may need to do LOTS of processing to retrieve
information that would be static/archived in spreadsheet files.
>But more than size, it is about centralization.
>Access lets you keep all your DATA in one place instead of a billion
>different spreadsheets.
This is good and bad. Good for static data, not good at all for the
results from ad hoc calculations.
>Excel just can't make reports. It is non-functional. Excel is the
>epitome of inefficiency. I mean-- do you really need 1,000
>beancounters to make the same report week in and week out?
You only generate canned reports. Those of us who know how to use
spreadsheets and other software do much more. You, with your pea-sized
brain, just can't hope to understand that.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Harlan Grove" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Excel just can't make reports. It is non-functional. Excel is the
> >epitome of inefficiency. I mean-- do you really need 1,000
> >beancounters to make the same report week in and week out?
>
> You only generate canned reports. Those of us who know how to use
> spreadsheets and other software do much more. You, with your pea-sized
> brain, just can't hope to understand that.
I don't understand this guy's fetish for "making the same reports week
in and week out". Neither I nor any of my clients do that, and I've been
using XL for 20+ years, in consulting, in the military, and in
financial, environmental, engineering, and manufacturing businesses.
Outside of a few tiny shops, I've never worked for a company whose
"bean-counters" used XL for financial reporting, though they've used it
extensively for modeling. Of course, I've never worked for an
organization that needed 1,000 bean-counters, either.
He must work for a particularly brain-dead organization.
I've seen my share of inappropriate uses for XL, but in general, they've
been far more cost-effective over their life-cycle than buying and
training employees on a DBMS.
JE McGimpsey wrote...
....
>He must work for a particularly brain-dead organization.
....
So he must fit in well.
Office Web Components with Analysis Services is a much better reporting
environment than your GAY xls files
you can embed that on forms in Access and it works like a charm
or you can do it in a webpage; i dont care.
lose the training wheels kid
because you sit there and make the same report week in and week out
what a waste of manpower.
Excel isn't a reporting platform. It is impossible to authenticate
that a report is accurate-- since you have 20 million copies of the
same formulas
i mean-- you can't reuse what you do
you can't put a trigger on a XLS file
you can't even print an XLS to a SNP format-- i mean-- if Microsoft
wanted to make XL _USEABLE_ they would have made an 'export to SNP
format' button-- so that you could email a 40kb report instead of a
10mb XLS
what a waste of time Excel is
[email protected] wrote...
>because you sit there and make the same report week in and week out
You may get paid to produce reports, but I don't. The only reports I
produce anywhere clost to a regular basis are expense reports, and I'm
not responsible for the design or implementation of that system.
>what a waste of manpower.
Agreed if all Excel users were doing were creating canned reports.
However, you just can't handle the possibility that spreadsheets are
used to do things you may never have heard about or just don't
understand.
>Excel isn't a reporting platform. . . .
Agreed! Again!
> . . . It is impossible to authenticate that a report is accurate--
>since you have 20 million copies of the same formulas
Not true. In a previous company where I worked, some reports were
distributed as WK4 (Lotus 123) files stored in Notes databases. The
forms used essentially as cover memos contained logic to catch
revisions to attached files (it stored checksums) and request
explanations of the changes. Not perfect, but the Notes version was the
ONE TRUE SOURCE. I now work for a company that's much, much larger, but
they distribute XLS and DOC file reports as e-mail attachments. I
completely agree that that's braindead.
>i mean-- you can't reuse what you do
Yes you can, much as you can reuse wording in documents that are only
available in hard copy. The ideas are reused even if there is some
re-keying. I know this may come as a shock to you, but there are some
jobs in which the ideas are more important than duplication of effort.
It may be the case that most users can't reuse what they have in
spreadsheet files, but there are many sophisticated Excel and other
spreadsheet users who can and do. [Feel free to infer from this that
you're definitely NOT a sophisticated Excel users since you can't
figure out how to do this.]
>you can't put a trigger on a XLS file
No, not a database trigger.
Granted maintaining referential integrity between XLS files is a manual
process, but there's often no particular need for it. I have airbags in
my car, but do I need them on my bike?
>you can't even print an XLS to a SNP format-- i mean-- if Microsoft
>wanted to make XL _USEABLE_ they would have made an 'export to SNP
>format' button-- so that you could email a 40kb report instead of a
>10mb XLS
No, you'd print to PDF and distribute the PDF.
You live in a dream world. PDF won the battle of the view and print
only file formats years ago. SNP is as important and relevant now as
Betamax. Other than you and a few others similarly deluded, no one uses
SNP-format files. Unlike you, the people at Microsoft are smart enough
to realize this.
[email protected] wrote...
>Office Web Components with Analysis Services is a much better reporting
>environment than your GAY xls files
....
You're making the same mistakes over and over and over . . .
VERY FEW business PC users have access to Analysis Services. Maybe the
IT shops in which you seem always to work (for which most of us, who
don't work in IT shops, are grateful) have these tools readily
available, but that doesn't mean ANYONE outside those IT shops does.
Also, you're deluded (there I go repeating myself again) if you believe
setting up an OWC spreadsheet-like grid in a database form and tying it
to Analysis Services would anywhere near as simple as building a
spreadsheet.
Finally, the other regularly repeating mistake you're making is
assuming that all data any users needs already exists in their own
company's centralized databases. You don't live in the real world, at
least not the one inhabitted by OUTSIDE CUSTOMERS. Again, your
misconceptions are due to your monumental ignorance, and you're so
ignorant you can't even conceive of anyone else using computers in ways
you've never done.
i just think that instead of going on this XML bender-- i wish that MS
had taken the DB industry seriously.
I mean-- I have a system that works FLAWLESSLY in importing
spreadsheets and cataloging them in a datamart. It works pretty well--
I just wish that more people would understand the inefficiency of
using Excel-- i mean-- even simple tasks-- keeping track of what
reports im working on for example-- most people would make a
spreadsheet to keep track of this kindof errata.
I put ALL my information inside a SQL Server database-- and that way I
can re-use it in multiple places.
I just think that Excel isn't DB-driven enough. And I wish that MS
would take the ADP model and apply it to Excel-- have people still
create worksheets; but each worksheet is just a pointer to data in a
database.
Give excel people real tools to automate their work-- and to use a
_REAL_ datastore.
Instead of making the over-worked db people do more work to import your
spreadsheets.
make excel into a complete frontend to SQL Server.
haha yeah. i just wish that MS had won that battle 5 years ago. I
mean-- SNP is _SMALLER_, more stable than Acrobat reader... C++ and
Access are the only 2 apps that can make snapshots; right?
It would have been a different outcome if MS had stuck with the SNP
strategy instead of going with this whole Microsoft document imaging
crap.. i just dont like that bloatware.
i've used SNP format a lot over the years. I even had a system where
Access would spit out SNP formats and then i had an agent that would
fax SNP-- it worked pretty well.
g2g
[email protected] wrote...
>i just think that instead of going on this XML bender-- i wish that MS
>had taken the DB industry seriously.
They are as THEY see it. Whether for good or ill, most companies are
attracted to what they perceive as flexibility and openness. For the
most part, XML provides both, and proprietary format disk files in
which dbms's store company data don't. Same goes for XLS and DOC
formats.
Microsoft has many highly-paid employees whose jobs depend on knowing
what their customers want to buy, NOT what someone else who lacks
buying authority may believe would be better for them to use.
Microsoft really knows how to make money. Making software is
incidental.
>I mean-- I have a system that works FLAWLESSLY in importing
>spreadsheets and cataloging them in a datamart. It works pretty well--
>I just wish that more people would understand the inefficiency of
>using Excel-- i mean-- even simple tasks-- keeping track of what
>reports im working on for example-- most people would make a
>spreadsheet to keep track of this kindof errata.
I'd use a text file and store it locally. Why? Because I really
wouldn't want anyone else to see it, even the DBAs, AND so I could read
it even when the network goes down (not necessarily because the servers
crash - network outages can be caused by utility crews accidentally
severing trunk lines and other land-line snafus).
Simple lists are best handled using simple tools, like text editors.
>I put ALL my information inside a SQL Server database-- and that way I
>can re-use it in multiple places.
Most business users, so most spreadsheet users, can't create or modify
centrally stored dbms tables, so the only benefit they might gleen from
using databases would come from pulling centralized data via queries
rather than rekeying it. That's a BIG help, but how would they save
their work to reuse it if they can't send ANYTHING back to the dbms?
That's the critical flaw in your world-view.
>I just think that Excel isn't DB-driven enough. And I wish that MS
>would take the ADP model and apply it to Excel-- have people still
>create worksheets; but each worksheet is just a pointer to data in a
>database.
Of course Excel isn't DB-driven. It's not supposed to be. It can use
DAO and ADO from VBA, and it's still possible to load the XLODBC.XLA
add-in to get the SQL.REQUEST udf. But that's the extent of it's
intended db functionality, and that's intentional.
If you want to use a database, use a database. If you want to use a
spreadsheet, don't use a database, use a spreadsheet.
As I mentioned in a different thread, there have been several attempts
to sell multidimensional modeling tools to replace spreadsheets. Lotus
Improv was the first to have any significant market share, but it still
died. TM/1 as an add-in for 123 proved a much more attractive product
for most people who needed this functionality. Other multidimensional
analysis and OLAP products are still around, but they're not widely
used because they're not perceived as flexible. More bluntly, THEY
DON'T SELL.
>Give excel people real tools to automate their work-- and to use a
>_REAL_ datastore.
Excel users already have means to pull data from dbms sources and OLAP
cubes, and (given a bit more work than should be needed) SQL.REQUEST to
pull data using formulas. Fetching data isn't an issue.
As for storing data, most companies give most non-IT employees NO WRITE
ACCESS to dbms servers. If you just think for a moment how much disk
space could be consumed by a poorly constructed pivot table you'd be
able to see why this is so. If you can't store data centrally, what's
the point to using Access? Millions of almost but not quite duplicate
MDB files running around. And this would be an improvement over
millions of redundant XLS files how?!
>Instead of making the over-worked db people do more work to import your
>spreadsheets.
Ough-tay It-shay.
If db people gave end-users write access to central dbms's, you might
have a point. But if db people did that they'd likely lose their jobs
within a week given all the problems it'd cause, so not too likely.
>make excel into a complete frontend to SQL Server.
If you were capable of learning how to use Excel properly, you could
already do so. Most Excel users wouldn't want to do so, so the odds are
it ain't gonna happen. If you want that to change, become world
dictator and force your will on the rest of us. Until then, kindly hold
your breath.
i know Excel well enough to understand that it's possible to leverage a
bunch of spreadsheets into other apps.
if you have a handful of spreadsheets; you dont have jack ****
if you have a handful of Access Databases; you can leverage this data
into automated reports.
Thats why i choose not to abuse my company; and i use the most
efficient program for reporting-- Microsoft Access or Crystal Reports.
[email protected] wrote...
....
>Thats why i choose not to abuse my company; and i use the most
>efficient program for reporting-- Microsoft Access or Crystal Reports.
Which is fine for you since what you seem to do mostly if not
exclusively is produce reports. What you continue to fail to understand
is that creating reports is a VERY SMALL subset of the tasks for which
Excel is used (and creating reports in Excel that could be produced
automatically by dbms's consititutes misuse of Excel *IF* there's a
dbms to use - if not, sensible people use what's available).
Harlan,
I know it is not in your nature, but give up mate. He either is not
listening, or ha cannot hear. As such, whilst we may find you posts
illuminating, I doubt that your target does.
Regards
Bob
"Harlan Grove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote...
> ...
> >Thats why i choose not to abuse my company; and i use the most
> >efficient program for reporting-- Microsoft Access or Crystal Reports.
>
> Which is fine for you since what you seem to do mostly if not
> exclusively is produce reports. What you continue to fail to understand
> is that creating reports is a VERY SMALL subset of the tasks for which
> Excel is used (and creating reports in Excel that could be produced
> automatically by dbms's consititutes misuse of Excel *IF* there's a
> dbms to use - if not, sensible people use what's available).
>
Bob Phillips wrote...
>I know it is not in your nature, but give up mate. He either is not
>listening, or ha cannot hear. As such, whilst we may find you posts
>illuminating, I doubt that your target does.
....
I can't bring myself to give up on him. I have to keep trying to make
him see sense.
Here's a thought:
Open an Excel versus Access thread. Then all interested parties can debate
while the rest of the forum goes on about their business. The current
process keeps throwing the equivalent of spam into too many threads.
Respectfully,
Ron
"Ron Coderre" <[email protected]> wrote...
>Here's a thought:
>
>Open an Excel versus Access thread. Then all interested parties can debate
>while the rest of the forum goes on about their business. The current
>process keeps throwing the equivalent of spam into too many threads.
You can't open that thread yourself?
While I regret Aaron replying to messages in this ng rather unhelpfully by
recommending that OPs switch to Access in particular or some dbms generally,
he is free to do so. When I choose to respond, I'm free to do so. When
others despair of the two of us, they're free to add us to their kill files
and/or blocked senders lists, or block threads that have become
reciprocating rants.
Freedom is a horrible thing. It allows other people to do what we'd prefer
they don't do. Nasty thing about that is that they think the same about us.
Manners have a place in all of this. If you believe some are unmannerly, you
have the tools to avoid them (if you're using a real newsreader) in a manner
similar to how each of us avoids people we don't want to associate with in
the real world.
So, personally, while I disagree with much of what Aaron writes, I'd prefer
to defend his right to state it willy-nilly in this ng than support your
call to restrict discussion into a ng ghetto.
Have a nice day.
--
Regards,
Ron
Hi Harlan
It's just too bad to see time, skills, talent and freedom wasted on
educating that clown, it's like watching money burn.
Best wishes Harald
"Harlan Grove" <[email protected]> skrev i melding
news:%[email protected]...
> When I choose to respond, I'm free to do so. When
> others despair of the two of us, they're free to add us to their kill
files
> and/or blocked senders lists, or block threads that have become
> reciprocating rants.
>
> Freedom is a horrible thing.
I agree Harald, but I keep watching <g>
Guess I hope forlornly that the other guy will get it.
Regards
Bob
PS I agree whole-heartedly with Harlan's earlier response. It's like
censorship, we don't need others to control us, we all know where the off
switch is.
I don't know why I'm surprised that a thread that started out about Excel's
autocorrect feature (for 2 posts), then descended into a 20+
point/counterpoint debate about the superiority of Excel and Access, would
then treat a suggestion for an Excel vs Access thread as an endorsement for
censorship.
It would have been nice if someone had allowed for the possibility that I
was just hoping to consolidate the debate for the benefit of anyone looking
to weigh the pros and cons of Access/Excel. After all, that was my intent.
Regards,
Ron
"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results." - Enstein
Methinks that maybe you twist the words somewhat (or a lot).
Bob
"Ron Coderre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't know why I'm surprised that a thread that started out about
Excel's
> autocorrect feature (for 2 posts), then descended into a 20+
> point/counterpoint debate about the superiority of Excel and Access, would
> then treat a suggestion for an Excel vs Access thread as an endorsement
for
> censorship.
>
> It would have been nice if someone had allowed for the possibility that I
> was just hoping to consolidate the debate for the benefit of anyone
looking
> to weigh the pros and cons of Access/Excel. After all, that was my intent.
>
> Regards,
> Ron
>
>
> "Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different
> results." - Enstein
>
>
IM TRYING TO MAKE YOU SEE SENSE
i just dont understand... what you make 'arent reports'
LoL
get off your high horse.. you guys are 'analysts' i forgot lol
you guys re-create the same report week in and week out. i mean--
automate your life and grow into Access lol
and when i reccomend that people use Access instead of Excel; I am in
fact liberating them from the drudgery of 'recreating the same report
by hand every month'
i mean-- there is a better way; it is called 'using a database or real
reporting app for reporting on data coming from a database'.
I dont believe in data living outside of a database. Take your little
spreadsheets and turn them into tables... get somewhere in life instead
of making the same report week in and week out..
Excel was passe in 1990.
-Aaron
"Liberate???????" What with your "I mean" and "I think" BS ????????
The only thing you do is to clutter a forum with your mutterings and rants. When have you once helped anyone?
So many responses and so few answers (I was curious myself what ideas people would come up with).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Register To Reply
Bookmarks