Wanna good laugh?
Fire up Microcrap Excel. Open a blank workbook and format
a cell as "Date." (Accept the default display format.)
Now in that same cell enter "60."
What do you see? Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
display format you have chosen).
The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
The year 1900 is not a leap year!
I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.
OMFG! What junk!
I thank John Walker for this:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
In LibreOffice, it's just "60". When you apply the "Date" format, the
result is 2/28/00; or choose the full date format to see the 1900.
Farley Flud wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Wanna good laugh?
Fire up Microcrap Excel. Open a blank workbook and format
a cell as "Date." (Accept the default display format.)
Now in that same cell enter "60."
What do you see? Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
display format you have chosen).
The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
The year 1900 is not a leap year!
I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.
OMFG! What junk!
I thank John Walker for this:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
In LibreOffice, it's just "60". When you apply the "Date" format, the
result is 2/28/00; or choose the full date format to see the 1900.
Wanna good laugh?
Fire up Microcrap Excel. Open a blank workbook and format
a cell as "Date." (Accept the default display format.)
Now in that same cell enter "60."
What do you see? Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
display format you have chosen).
The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
The year 1900 is not a leap year!
On 1/17/25 11:39 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Farley Flud wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Wanna good laugh?
Fire up Microcrap Excel. Open a blank workbook and format
a cell as "Date." (Accept the default display format.)
Now in that same cell enter "60."
What do you see? Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
display format you have chosen).
The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
The year 1900 is not a leap year!
I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.
OMFG! What junk!
I thank John Walker for this:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
In LibreOffice, it's just "60". When you apply the "Date" format, the
result is 2/28/00; or choose the full date format to see the 1900.
Looking into the Excel bug, it actually appears to be more than merely
that 2/29/1900 doesn't exist:
Using a value of 1 ... it reports as being 1/1/1900. Good enough, but
it also reports that that was a Sunday. But calendars report that
1/1/1900 was actually a Monday
Values 2 thru 59: same as above: the day of the week is off by one.
60: the Wednesday, 2/29/1900 error
61 & higher: Thursday 3/1/1900 .. so the day of week is now correct.
-hh
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of
yourself.
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of yourself.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of
yourself.
Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the “fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the first place.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of
yourself.
Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the “fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the first place.
BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.
[snip outrageous shill]
The year 1900 is not a leap year!
I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:37:45 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.
Imagine that: businesses avoiding using a product because it doesn’t lie
to them. And here I thought the successful businesses were the ones who
were most adept at recognizing reality and dealing with it?
On Jan 17, 2025 at 6:08:53 PM EST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of
yourself.
Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
“fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the >> first place.
It was designed that way to be compatible with Lotus 1,2,3. Multiplan (and later Excel) HAD to be 100% compatible with that.
This issue probably goes all the way back to the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc in 1979 on the Apple II. Lotus 1,2,3 was the IBM PC version of Visicalc in 1983.
BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.
Like it or not, that's how businesses work.
On 1/17/25 6:37 PM, Tyrone wrote:
On Jan 17, 2025 at 6:08:53 PM EST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <[email protected]d> >> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of
yourself.
Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
“fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the >>> first place.
It was designed that way to be compatible with Lotus 1,2,3. Multiplan (and >> later Excel) HAD to be 100% compatible with that.
Huh. That's a TIL for me.
This issue probably goes all the way back to the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc >> in 1979 on the Apple II. Lotus 1,2,3 was the IBM PC version of Visicalc in >> 1983.
Makes sense, even before contemplating if their original choice was
motivated because of how limited memory/storage/etc was in that era, or
just a lack of sophistication on leap year rules ... or both, since it
was decades prior to Y2K awareness.
BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.
Well, in modern context it isn't all that hard (once one is aware of the limitation/requirement) to write some code that addresses 'special
rules' of how to address dates earlier than 1 March 1900, including the compatibility layer for using files from other spreadsheet apps.
Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority.
Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that is all that matters.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 04:34:43 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority.
Then why allow them at all?
The Macintosh OS calendar only went as far back as 1904. This quite neatly
-- and elegantly -- solved the problem.
Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that is all that matters.
On Jan 17, 2025 at 9:57:41 PM EST, "-hh" wrote:
Makes sense, even before contemplating if their original choice was
motivated because of how limited memory/storage/etc was in that era, or
just a lack of sophistication on leap year rules ... or both, since it
was decades prior to Y2K awareness.
VisiCalc required only 32K in the Apple II. 32K. Which meant that the DOS, Visicalc and your spreadsheet had to fit in 32K.
Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority. No one is going to go over and above to handle all scenarios with 32K to work with.
And that's why it sells. MS did that with DOS too. MS is a business not
an R&D institution.
Parts of Excel are designed for secretaries' use, so a secretary type of sub-code-monkey like "DFS" must've been given the task to create. And blunders won't even discovered by secretaries or "DFS" lamebrained individuals, thy never encounter the flops that some other "DFS"
airheads have left behind in Excel.
the superior Lotus 123
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:00:11 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that
is all that matters.
Speak for yourself, autococksucker.
A lot of non-assholes, such as historians, economists, astronomers, etc. may >>want to work with historical dates.
Spreadsheets are not just for brain-dead business people.
I would rather use LO, but for many reasons beyond how 1900 is
treated.
I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new
tech realities.
Post some of your Excel sheets containing your VBA shit-code so I can
show you how to improve EVERYTHING.
On Jan 18, 2025 at 5:05:50 PM EST, "Physfitfreak" <[email protected]> wrote:
I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new
tech realities.
Absolute nonsense.
Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products) for $25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim. 86-DOS was a port of CP/M (Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS became MS-DOS.
At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital Research for CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to recognize an opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached Microsoft for a DOS, because MS was already supplying the BASIC programming language. Bill Gates quickly agreed, even though they had NOTHING at that point.
This is all well known history.
On Jan 18, 2025 at 5:05:50 PM EST, "Physfitfreak"
<[email protected]> wrote:
I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to
new tech realities.
Absolute nonsense.
Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products)
for $25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim. 86-DOS was a port of
CP/M (Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS
became MS-DOS.
At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital
Research for CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to recognize an opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached
Microsoft for a DOS, because MS was already supplying the BASIC
programming language. Bill Gates quickly agreed, even though they had NOTHING at that point.
This is all well known history.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 00:19:14 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
On Jan 18, 2025 at 5:05:50 PM EST, "Physfitfreak"
<[email protected]> wrote:
I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to
new tech realities.
Absolute nonsense.
Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products)
for $25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim. 86-DOS was a port of
CP/M (Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS
became MS-DOS.
At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital
Research for CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to
recognize an opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached
Microsoft for a DOS, because MS was already supplying the BASIC
programming language. Bill Gates quickly agreed, even though they had
NOTHING at that point.
This is all well known history.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/18/how_windows_got_to_v3/
It has a link to even a longer article. My Luddite phase lasted until '93
so I went from MSDOS to Windows 3.1 without the intervening agony. Even
3.1 needed the Trumpet Winsock shareware if you expected to connect to anytihng.
You could connect to a BBS using HyperTerminal, I believe,
but that's about it.
CrudeSausage wrote:
You could connect to a BBS using HyperTerminal, I believe,
but that's about it.
Eww. Hyperterminal. I hated that program. Thank goodness for
Teraterm, which we use constantly to this day, at work.
I remember those days. I don't recall Windows having anything built-in
to let you connect to the Internet. You could connect to a BBS using HyperTerminal, I believe, but that's about it. Unless the Internet
service allowed you shell access, there was nothing there for you.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 05:58:00 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
I remember those days. I don't recall Windows having anything built-in
to let you connect to the Internet. You could connect to a BBS using
HyperTerminal, I believe, but that's about it. Unless the Internet
service allowed you shell access, there was nothing there for you.
Back when the MSDN subscription included a book of DVDs for all flavors of Windows I upgraded to Windows for Workgroups 3.11. The machine itself was interesting.
https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/22981/Compaq-Concerto-2840A/
I don't think it was in production for more than a year. The world wasn't ready for it. My neighbor worked in a computer store and said "You've got
to see what we just got in." iirc I forked over $1500 and took it with
me.
On 1/19/25 2:32 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 05:58:00 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
I remember those days. I don't recall Windows having anything built-in
to let you connect to the Internet. You could connect to a BBS using
HyperTerminal, I believe, but that's about it. Unless the Internet
service allowed you shell access, there was nothing there for you.
Back when the MSDN subscription included a book of DVDs for all flavors
of Windows I upgraded to Windows for Workgroups 3.11. The machine
itself was interesting.
https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/22981/Compaq-Concerto-2840A/
I don't think it was in production for more than a year. The world
wasn't ready for it. My neighbor worked in a computer store and said
"You've got to see what we just got in." iirc I forked over $1500 and
took it with me.
Which would be something like $3,000 in today's money. It looks pretty
nice, but I imagine that display didn't last long.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 29:14:09 |
| Calls: | 12,107 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,240 |