Excel 2007's Undo Feature



  • If you have two workbooks open, to make things easy I'll call them Book A and Book B. Make a change to Book B, then switch to the Book A (yes workbook, not sheet) and then press Undo, guess what happens? It will switch back to Book B and undo your change there instead of disableing the Undo button (because there's nothing to Undo in Book A).

    It's dooing undos across books. I can't make sense of this. Can someone please explain!? When would this be useful or desired?

    This is a "feature" in Microsoft Excel 2007, it may also exist in other versions as well.



  • It's acting like one big application with two windows instead of two instances of one application.  Excel does that pretty consistently.  Try opening two spreadsheets with the same file name someday.



  • Hmm, oddly enough, I see where you're coming from, BUT Word 2003's undo acts as expected (only undoing in the current document), while Excel 2003 has the same cross-book undo feature.



  • @Jaime said:

    Try opening two spreadsheets with the same file name someday.
    God that fucking annoys me.  If that isn't fixed in 2010, I'm going to burn down the universe.



  • @bstorer said:

    @Jaime said:

    Try opening two spreadsheets with the same file name someday.
    God that fucking annoys me.  If that isn't fixed in 2010, I'm going to burn down the universe.


    Better start collecting matches, cause in the beta version of Office 2010 that I have here (14.0.4536.1000) it's not fixed



  • @Shondoit said:

    @bstorer said:

    @Jaime said:

    Try opening two spreadsheets with the same file name someday.
    God that fucking annoys me.  If that isn't fixed in 2010, I'm going to burn down the universe.


    Better start collecting matches, cause in the beta version of Office 2010 that I have here (14.0.4536.1000) it's not fixed

    You know what? I think I might be able to save the Universe here, it's not perfect but:

    - Start -> Run "Excel"

    This opens a second instance of Excel, and it will allow you open a workbook with the same name as a workbook in the original instance of Excel.



  • @bstorer said:

    @Jaime said:

    Try opening two spreadsheets with the same file name someday.
    God that fucking annoys me.  If that isn't fixed in 2010, I'm going to burn down the universe.

     

    It won't be fixed neither in 2010, nor in 2100. Get a lighter, you'll need it.

    The reason is that VBA programs may reference data in other spreadsheets by file name only, without path and extension. So allowing to open multiple files with the same name would screw up thousands of existing VBA programs in most exciting ways. The current limitation, however inconvenient it may be, is relatively easy to work around, so the choice is pretty obvious.

    UPD: seems I was wrong about extensions, book.xls may coexist with book.xlsx . However, for the files in different folders you still have to fire up a second Excel instance.



  • @cell18189 said:

    You know what? I think I might be able to save the Universe here, it's not perfect but:

    - Start -> Run "Excel"

    This opens a second instance of Excel, and it will allow you open a workbook with the same name as a workbook in the original instance of Excel.

    Only if you're the freakish type of person who opens files using the Open menu item, instead of the normal type of person who just double-clicks the file icon. I mean, yes, we all know you can manually open a second instance of Excel-- the point is that you shouldn't have to. It's freakin' 2010!!

    Now I know some changes Excel refuses to make are for backwards-compatibility purposes. (For example, that's why VBA isn't threaded properly.) But I can't see any backwards-compatibility justification for that moronic behavior.

    The only thing positive I'll say about how Excel handles windows: it's still slightly smarter than PowerPoint.



  • @cell18189 said:

    @Shondoit said:

    @bstorer said:

    @Jaime said:

    Try opening two spreadsheets with the same file name someday.
    God that fucking annoys me.  If that isn't fixed in 2010, I'm going to burn down the universe.


    Better start collecting matches, cause in the beta version of Office 2010 that I have here (14.0.4536.1000) it's not fixed

    You know what? I think I might be able to save the Universe here, it's not perfect but:

    - Start -> Run "Excel"

    This opens a second instance of Excel, and it will allow you open a workbook with the same name as a workbook in the original instance of Excel.

    Shift-clicking works, too.  But that's hardly the point.



  • @bstorer said:

    @cell18189 said:

    @Shondoit said:

    @bstorer said:

    @Jaime said:

    Try opening two spreadsheets with the same file name someday.
    God that fucking annoys me.  If that isn't fixed in 2010, I'm going to burn down the universe.


    Better start collecting matches, cause in the beta version of Office 2010 that I have here (14.0.4536.1000) it's not fixed

    You know what? I think I might be able to save the Universe here, it's not perfect but:

    - Start -> Run "Excel"

    This opens a second instance of Excel, and it will allow you open a workbook with the same name as a workbook in the original instance of Excel.

    Shift-clicking works, too.  But that's hardly the point.

    As always, the answer is to totally fuck up your file extensions/associations. Instead of .xlsx files opening in Excel as normal, have them point to an Excel VBA macro (or other program) that checks if an instance of Excel already exists with an open workbook using that filename and, if so, opens a new instance.

    Alternatively, I believe there are registry hacks, command line switches, and possibly even an options-setting within Excel to configure the behaviour. I think you can set it to open a new instance by default whenever you open or create a file, but I don't remember how and I don't care enough to check.



  • @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    @bstorer said:

    @cell18189 said:

    @Shondoit said:

    @bstorer said:

    @Jaime said:

    Try opening two spreadsheets with the same file name someday.
    God that fucking annoys me.  If that isn't fixed in 2010, I'm going to burn down the universe.


    Better start collecting matches, cause in the beta version of Office 2010 that I have here (14.0.4536.1000) it's not fixed

    You know what? I think I might be able to save the Universe here, it's not perfect but:

    - Start -> Run "Excel"

    This opens a second instance of Excel, and it will allow you open a workbook with the same name as a workbook in the original instance of Excel.

    Shift-clicking works, too.  But that's hardly the point.

    As always, the answer is to totally fuck up your file extensions/associations. Instead of .xlsx files opening in Excel as normal, have them point to an Excel VBA macro (or other program) that checks if an instance of Excel already exists with an open workbook using that filename and, if so, opens a new instance.

    Alternatively, I believe there are registry hacks, command line switches, and possibly even an options-setting within Excel to configure the behaviour. I think you can set it to open a new instance by default whenever you open or create a file, but I don't remember how and I don't care enough to check.

    Or you could just use OpenOff-- BWAHAHAHAHA!



  • @bstorer said:

    Or you could just use OpenOff-- BWAHAHAHAHA
    Careful now. Much as I despise fanbois of any kind, I am something of a fan of Excel. Is there any other common piece of software for any platform that replicates a Universal Turing Machine as part of its base functionality? I think not. If you had some reason to, you could replicate the functionality of every program on your PC with an excel macro/spreadsheet/set of workbooks. You'd have to be barking mad to try, but saying that, the CRM software at my last place of employment was so bad that I got a long way towards writing an Excel system to replace it. Before I left, and climbed back out the rabbit hole to a world where that no longer seemed sane.



  • @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    the CRM software at my last place of employment was so bad that I got a long way towards writing an Excel system to replace it. Before I left, and climbed back out the rabbit hole to a world where that no longer seemed sane.

    You know Visual Studio Express versions are free, right?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
    the CRM software at my last place of employment was so bad that I got a long way towards writing an Excel system to replace it. Before I left, and climbed back out the rabbit hole to a world where that no longer seemed sane.

    You know Visual Studio Express versions are free, right?

    When I say 'I got a long way towards writing it', I mean I got a long way towards writing it, not a long way through writing it. I sat there staring into space thinking about how it would work, and when my hand got 90% of the way to the mouse, I woke up and went back to doing what I was paid for. But by that point, I knew what it would need to be, and believe me, I was scared for the world. It named itself: Damien CRM.

    Seriously, though, Excel would actually be a far better front end display/interface application than IE for a lot of (damn, already used the word) applications like CRM software. If you have a form that sticks data into a database on a local server, you ought to be using a program that's good at data-handling instead of one that fights you the whole way. Obviously my totally-Excel-based solution is a perverted abomination - a database structure should not include the concept of Windows Explorer folders - but if someone wanted to write a proper version then they might stem the flow of ghastly web apps. I don't mind that you'll start a new trend in programming, become a guru, and make huge wads of cash off my conceptual genius as long as I never have to use that CRM software again.



  • @bstorer said:

    Or you could just use OpenOff-- BWAHAHAHAHA!
     

    I use OO because I don't actually do anything useful with spreadsheets. It's perfectly fine for that.



  • @bstorer said:

    @Jaime said:

    Try opening two spreadsheets with the same file name someday.
    God that fucking annoys me.  If that isn't fixed in 2010, I'm going to burn down the universe.

    Activate the magma cannons, it's the only way to be sure!



  • @dhromed said:

    @bstorer said:

    Or you could just use OpenOff-- BWAHAHAHAHA!
     

    I use OO because I don't actually do anything useful with spreadsheets. It's perfectly fine for that.

    Apparently SIAG (Scheme in a Grid) is pretty good. It actually supports direct connections to databases, and scripting in like 7 different languages.



  • Speaking of Excel and filenames, does it still refuse to save files with []] in their name (IIRC, might be () instead)?



  • @dhromed said:

    I use OO because I don't actually do anything useful with spreadsheets. It's perfectly fine for that.
      Removing superfluous words is the first step to good writing.



  • @bstorer said:

    @dhromed said:

    I use OO. because I don't actually do anything useful with spreadsheets. It's perfectly fine for that.
      Removing superfluous words is the first step to good writing.

     

    Agred, but, let us remain factual, shall we?



  • Dhromed, did you piss someone off by voting SP?



  • @badcaseofspace said:

    Dhromed, did you piss someone off by voting SP?
     

     

    As bstorer always says (which he yes-man-copies from morbius):

    @bfreedomer said:

    In Soviet Europe, everyone is socialist



  • @dhromed said:

    @badcaseofspace said:

    Dhromed, did you piss someone off by voting SP?
     

     

    As bstorer always says (which he yes-man-copies from morbius):

    @bfreedomer said:

    In Soviet Europe, everyone is socialist

    That's not true.  Some of them are fascists.



  • You must call us liberal or we will burn down your house.



  • @badcaseofspace said:

    You must call us liberal or we will burn down your house.
    No deal.  I have it on very good authority that you guys are socialists:



  • Awesome. That will make a nice wallpaper. Wait, was that postcard traded for a TDWTF mug? Damn traitors.

    I will now retreat in my government-funded home.



  • @bstorer said:

     

    A socialist poster with a rising money sun?

    What the ƒuck?



  • @dhromed said:

    @bstorer said:

     

    A socialist poster with a rising money sun?

    What the ƒuck?

    Is that what that is?  I figured it was some sort of socialist swastika or something.  Still, the important thing to take away from this is that political posters of the 1940s were fucking awesome.



  •  @bstorer said:

    I figured it was some sort of socialist swastika or something. 

    Close enough; it's a wolfangel, also used by the Dutch Nazi party NSB in and before WWII.



  • @b_redeker said:

     @bstorer said:

    I figured it was some sort of socialist swastika or something. 

    Close enough; it's a wolfangel, also used by the Dutch Nazi party NSB in and before WWII.

    Okay, now I'm actually confused.  Was the NSB really that much further left than the German Nazi Party, or did they just seriously overinflate the importance of the word "socialism" in National Socialism?



  • @bstorer said:

    Okay, now I'm actually confused.  Was the NSB really that much further left than the German Nazi Party, or did they just seriously overinflate the importance of the word "socialism" in National Socialism?
     

    The full quote was "Our nationalism, your salvation. Our socialism, your
    future." NSB stood for National Socialistic Movement, so they clearly modeled themselves after the NSDAP, the German Nazi's (originally without the antisemitic stuff but later that changed). 

    This particular slogan was used to try to convince the previously socialistic unions that the NSB were in fact the rightful heirs to that ideology. They had similar slogans to convice people to fight at the eastern front; obviously you didn't do that to help the Germans (which wasn't very popular), you did that because you were a true Dutchman, or else to combat Bolshevism.

    So yes, the use of the word socialism was overinflated/completely misused.




  • @b_redeker said:

    The full quote was "Our nationalism, your salvation. Our socialism, your
    future." NSB stood for National Socialistic Movement, so they clearly modeled themselves after the NSDAP, the German Nazi's (originally without the antisemitic stuff but later that changed).
    Right, but my question is whether they were really classical socialist, or at least significantly more so than the Germans.  Hitler ultimately came to regret using the word.

     @b_redeker said:

    This particular slogan was used to try to convince the previously socialistic unions that the NSB were in fact the rightful heirs to that ideology.
    That makes sense, but I'm still wondering how much of it they really meant.  For example, was this really their ideology, or just lip service to try and sway the country's leftists?

    @b_redeker said:

    They had similar slogans to convice people to fight at the eastern front; obviously you didn't do that to help the Germans (which wasn't very popular), you did that because you were a true Dutchman, or else to combat Bolshevism.
      Yes.  That Nazi dhromed supports the same thing.  I have proof. ↓↓↓



  • @bstorer said:

    That Nazi dhromed supports the same thing.  I have proof. ↓↓↓
     

    ↑↑↑

     

    AGAINST!



  • @bstorer said:

    For example, was this really their ideology, or just lip service to try and sway the country's leftists?
     

    Lip service. It depends on your actual definition of socialism of course, but they were clearly a fascist organisation.

    Although they were the only officially allowed party in the Netherlands during WWII, they were despised by the Dutch and mostly ignored by the Germans. To call some an NSBer still means they would rat out their grandmother to the authorities at the drop of a hat.

    @bstorer said:

    I have proof. ↓↓↓

    Yes, that poster irks me a bit, having read about the eastern front quite a bit recently.

     


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.