Thread View: comp.apps.spreadsheets
1 messages
1 total messages
Started by Erich Neuwirth
Tue, 08 Sep 1992 13:06
Re: 386 vs. 486 : Different Excel Formats?
Author: Erich Neuwirth
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 13:06
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 13:06
35 lines
1973 bytes
1973 bytes
------------------------- Original Article ------------------------- Path: news.univie.ac.at!hp4at!mcsun!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-sta From: agrawal@ecs.umass.edu Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets Subject: 386 vs. 486 : Different Excel Formats? Message-ID: <18382.2aab2348@ecs.umass.edu> Date: 7 Sep 92 09:39:20 GMT Lines: 24 I have a peculiar problem with the way Excel formats ASCII data read from a file on 2 different machines. The ASCII file contains numbers. In one case, the real numbers are treated as text, while in the other, they are treated as numbers. Integers are treated as numbers in both. In the case where the real numbers are treated as text, The "Format All" Menu selection shows the format to be "Standard". In the other, it is shown to be "General". I am using Excel Version 4.00 with Windows 3.1. The PC that has the "General" format is a 386 with no math coprocessor, while the one that has the "Standard" format is a 486 (with a math coprocessor.) I have loaded Excel on 2 more 386 machines without a math coprocessor and got the "General" format. Can the difference in format be due to the architecture of the machines? Any help will be greatly appreciated. -Sanjay Agrawal Ph: 617-484-9920(work) did you check the decimal point vs. comma? in some nonEnglish cultures (German e.g.) the instead of a decimal point a decimal comma is used. if excel is configured according to that it might misinterpret noninteger numbers
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads