Disney Count support may be spotty from here. We apologize for the inconvenience.

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