Nobody likes to be called a dummy by a dummy.

Crappy Excel

It won't let me open two files with the same name even though they are in different folders!
Permalink son of parnas 
April 5th, 2007 4:05pm
Yea, that is an interesting one, hehe.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
April 5th, 2007 4:09pm
I think the restriction is tied to VBA's being able to reference workbooks by name.

Something like Workbooks.Item("NAME") can be used. I supposed it blow that all to hell if you could open two.

Actually, I just tested it and I am even more certain of this.

If you open another instance of Excel you can do it. Just not within the same instance. ;)
Permalink JoC 
April 5th, 2007 4:14pm
...Different instances of Excel would have different workbook collections, so array indexing by name can exist in harmony.
Permalink JoC 
April 5th, 2007 4:16pm
Warning in Toyota manual: do some fucking obscure reason nobody cares about, no two blue cars can be on the road at the same time. So sorry.

It screws up my automated naming scheme. Now I have to include the host name.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 5th, 2007 4:22pm
Odd, since I gots me a blue Toyota.

Would your automated naming scheme work if you couldn't reference elements by name?
Permalink JoC 
April 5th, 2007 4:25pm
The thought occurs to me... You should go post on JoS and say it sucks ass. :)
Permalink JoC 
April 5th, 2007 4:25pm
Ah, well, at least you have a work-around.

My version of Excel-97 also only allows 65535 rows, which quite often hoses up my directory/file traversal data.  I hear they've finally fixed that in Office 2007.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 5th, 2007 4:38pm
> only allows 65535 rows

Probably so as not to compete with SQL server.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 5th, 2007 4:44pm
Probably because if you had a workbook on a Pentium with more than 65,000 rows...

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/03/01/1775759.aspx

Honestly, that's really true today, the increase from 256x65000 to 65000x1,000,000 was honestly mostly because they could. If you really have a million rows of data to crunch, you should be crunching it in an RDBMS, an OLAP cube, or SAS or some other specialized tool on a multi-proc server with lots of RAM...

"I was thinking of driving in the Daytona 500 - which has more horsepower, the Audi A6 or the Honda Accord?"
Permalink Send private email Philo 
April 5th, 2007 5:55pm
Actually, it's not that unreasonable. If you record experimental data it's not hard to have more than 65,000 data points; lots of rows but maybe only a few columns. Excel should be a good numerical analysis tool for such data.
Permalink Send private email bon vivant 
April 5th, 2007 6:05pm
Microsoft is great, the fact the Bill Gates wipes his ass with $100 bills is proof positive. If you don't like some Excel feature, you're doing something wrong.
Permalink Send private email Duff 
April 5th, 2007 6:07pm
Lotus 1-2-3 Release 9.8 worksheets only supports 65,536 rows

wha, whaa, whaaa, whine, whine, bitch, bitch....
Permalink bob's your uncle 
April 5th, 2007 6:11pm
Open Office Calc 2.2 worksheets only supports 65,536 rows

wha, whaa, whaaa, whine, whine, bitch, bitch....
Permalink bob's your uncle 
April 5th, 2007 6:18pm
I am so fucking happy I dropped MS Word for latex. No more rejigging everything everytime you fart. The output from the standard templates is awesome. And the rest of it.
Permalink $-- 
April 5th, 2007 6:28pm
I am the most popular poster in the world.
Permalink whine, whine, bitch, bitch 
April 5th, 2007 8:12pm
I didn't SAY you should be using an Excel spreadsheet to record File/Directory data, now did I?

Sheesh, you people wouldn't recognize Irony if it kicked down your front door and made off with your cat.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 6th, 2007 10:14am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: April, 2007 Other topics: April, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics