Text 5987, 347 rader
Skriven 2005-07-13 15:48:36 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5984 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Reality Check
=========================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0103_01C587C2.54B991E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You enter 43% or format the cell as a percentage and enter just 43.
Rich
"Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message =
news: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
>>
------=_NextPart_000_0103_01C587C2.54B991E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> You enter 43% or format =
the cell as a=20
percentage and enter just 43.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Mike '/m'" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:mike@barkto.com">mike@barkto.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:aq1bd1hju674cl4s4hegq7j4j53g936jg2@4ax.com">news:aq1bd1hju67=
4cl4s4hegq7j4j53g936jg2@4ax.com</A>...</DIV><BR>Yet=20
another MS Office XP 2002 annoyance.<BR><BR>I format a cell as=20
percentage. In order to get 43% in the cell, I have<BR>to enter =
.43 in=20
Office XP. In Office 97, there was some intelligence<BR>and I =
could just=20
enter 43, and it would know what I wanted.<BR><BR>I looked and looked =
for a=20
config parm to change this "feature" back to<BR>the Office '97 way of =
doing=20
things, but I can't find anything.<BR><BR><BR> /m<BR><BR><BR>On =
Tue, 12=20
Jul 2005 16:59:29 -0400, Mike '/m' <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:mike@barkto.com">mike@barkto.com</A>>=20
wrote:<BR><BR>><BR>>Office '97 here at home. Reluctantly, =
Office=20
XP 2002 at work (the more<BR>>I use it, the more I want to go back =
to=20
Office '97).<BR>><BR>> /m<BR>><BR>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 =
19:29:18=20
-0400, "Geo" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>><BR>>>Ok time for a =
survey.<BR>>><BR>>>I run=20
Office 2000, what versions do the rest of you=20
run?<BR>>><BR>>>Geo.<BR>>><BR>>> "Rich"=20
<@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d29689@w3.nls.net">news:42d29689@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>>=
> =20
If you truly expect 95% than I believe you are full of it and just =
making up=20
junk to sound as if you know something. Use "some" if you mean=20
some.<BR>>><BR>>> =20
Rich<BR>>><BR>>> "Gary Britt" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d292af$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d292af$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
>> =20
I never said it wasn't. What is it about the definition of the =
words=20
"I<BR>>> Suspect" that seem to so trouble your =
reading=20
comprehension. Quit being<BR>>> such a =
touchy=20
ass about this. Its not my fault nobody wants to=20
upgrade<BR>>> their MS Office=20
software.<BR>>><BR>>> Your employer =
needs to=20
build a business model that doesn't rely upon=20
full<BR>>> cost monopoly priced upgrades of =
products=20
every 9 months. That isn't my<BR>>> =
fault=20
either. Eventually, people say "wait a minute", again not my=20
fault.<BR>>><BR>>> I guess Microsoft =
could get=20
lots of office upgrades if they just =
make<BR>>> =20
Longhorn incompatible with every version of MS Office except <FILL =
IN=20
NAME<BR>>> OF VERSION=20
HERE>.<BR>>><BR>>> =20
Gary<BR>>><BR>>> "Rich" <@> wrote =
in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d28167@w3.nls.net">news:42d28167@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>>=
> =20
And I still think you have no clue. The 95% you keep claiming is =
a<BR>>> number you pulled out of thin=20
air.<BR>>><BR>>> =20
Rich<BR>>><BR>>> "Gary =
Britt" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message<BR>>> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d265b2$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d265b2$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
>> =20
You are right that my perspective does not extend outside the=20
USA.<BR>>><BR>>> I never =
said there=20
weren't *improvements* from Office 5.0 to the=20
later<BR>>> versions. I am =
saying=20
those *improvements* are meaningless to 95% of=20
the<BR>>> market, and in MANY or =
MOST=20
situations those *improvements* are offset=20
by<BR>>> dis-incentives and =
negative=20
changes that are more negative than=20
the<BR>>> improvements are=20
positive.<BR>>><BR>>> I like =
office=20
2000, have no plans to go above office 2000. Truth is,=20
I<BR>>> could easily stayed with =
Office=20
5. I suspect that truth holds for 95%=20
of<BR>>> the market within my=20
perspective.<BR>>><BR>>> =20
Gary<BR>>><BR>>> "Rich" =
<@>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d1b1ad$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d1b1ad$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
>> =20
95% what market? You surely do not mean people that speak=20
many<BR>>> non-Western languages =
because=20
Unicode support did not appear until =
Office<BR>>> =20
97<BR>>> and support for more =
languages=20
and better support for existing =
ones<BR>>> =20
continued to improve with successive releases. With your broad =
brush=20
you<BR>>> are discounting a great =
deal of=20
the people on this planet. Far more=20
than<BR>>> 5%. Western =
European=20
language speaker are the minority. Even you=20
would<BR>>> have to be blind to =
not see=20
the clear improvements between Office 5.0=20
or<BR>>> even Office 95 and Office =
=
2000.<BR>>><BR>>> &n=
bsp;=20
I suspect you have no clue what the improvements are in the=20
two<BR>>> =20
releases<BR>>> since the one you=20
use. If I'm wrong feel free to tell us all which=20
Office<BR>>> 2003 applications you =
use and=20
what differences you=20
perceived.<BR>>><BR>>> =20
Rich<BR>>><BR>>> =
"Gary=20
Britt" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>>=20
wrote in message<BR>>> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d194f6$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d194f6$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
>> =20
The truth be told, Office for Win95 and Office 5.0 for Win3.1 was=20
good<BR>>> enough for =
95% of=20
the =
market.<BR>>><BR>>> =
=20
I've stayed at the Office 2K level with no intention on the horizon=20
of<BR>>> =20
going<BR>>> =20
=
higher.<BR>>><BR>>> =
=20
Gary<BR>>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0103_01C587C2.54B991E0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|