Be careful when using Excel
 

I think this message can be of interest for those using Excel for antenna
calculations.

Write in one cell: =(-A1^2 + 8) Note: the exponent of A1 is 2 (and not
2+8=10) because Excel performs squaring before summing

Write in another cell: =(8 - A1^2)

They look pretty much the same

But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy

Be careful when using Excel
 

"Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message
.. .
I think this message can be of interest for those using Excel for antenna
calculations.

Write in one cell: =(-A1^2 + 8) Note: the exponent of A1 is 2 (and not
2+8=10) because Excel performs squaring before summing

Write in another cell: =(8 - A1^2)

They look pretty much the same

But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy


I see it give the correct answers!!!

eg when A1 =2 the first formula =12 and the second =4

-2 squared =4
So 4 plus 8 = 12

2 squared =4
So 8 - 4 = 4

8 - (2 squared) = 4


Jeff

Be careful when using Excel
 

--
------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Vernucci, I0JX US call: K0JX
Beacons: 50.004 MHz & 70.088 MHz
Home page: http://www.qsl.net/i0jx
e-mail: k0jx {at} amsat {dot} org
------------------------------------------------------
"Jeff" ha scritto nel messaggio
. com...
"Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message
.. .
I think this message can be of interest for those using Excel for antenna
calculations.

Write in one cell: =(-A1^2 + 8) Note: the exponent of A1 is 2 (and not
2+8=10) because Excel performs squaring before summing

Write in another cell: =(8 - A1^2)

They look pretty much the same

But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy


I see it give the correct answers!!!

eg when A1 =2 the first formula =12 and the second =4

-2 squared =4
So 4 plus 8 = 12

2 squared =4
So 8 - 4 = 4

8 - (2 squared) = 4

Yes, but the way Excel works is deceiving.

As a matter of fact, with reference to the general mathematical principle A+B =
B+A, let us have:
A= -A1^2
B = 8

Then, one would expect that -A1^2 + 8 is the same as 8 - A1^2, which is not the
way Excel works.

73

Tony I0JX

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:36:08 +0200, "Antonio Vernucci"
wrote:

I think this message can be of interest for those using Excel for antenna
calculations.

Write in one cell: =(-A1^2 + 8) Note: the exponent of A1 is 2 (and not
2+8=10) because Excel performs squaring before summing

Write in another cell: =(8 - A1^2)

They look pretty much the same

But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy

In correct mathematical convention the expression
let A1 = 2 then

-A1^2 must yield

-A1^2 = -4

otherwise we would have to write
(-A1)^2 = 4

EXCEL does it the wrong way in example 1: =(-A1^2 + 8) = 12
and does it correctly in example 2 =(8 - A1^2) = 4.
But they are from Microsoft and they can do whatever they want.

w.

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Fri, 08 May 2009 20:59:35 +0200, Helmut Wabnig hwabnig@ .- --- -.
dotat wrote:

On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:36:08 +0200, "Antonio Vernucci"
wrote:

I think this message can be of interest for those using Excel for antenna
calculations.

Write in one cell: =(-A1^2 + 8) Note: the exponent of A1 is 2 (and not
2+8=10) because Excel performs squaring before summing

Write in another cell: =(8 - A1^2)

They look pretty much the same

But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy

In correct mathematical convention the expression
let A1 = 2 then

-A1^2 must yield

-A1^2 = -4

otherwise we would have to write
(-A1)^2 = 4

EXCEL does it the wrong way in example 1: =(-A1^2 + 8) = 12
and does it correctly in example 2 =(8 - A1^2) = 4.
But they are from Microsoft and they can do whatever they want.

w.
TYPO correction
and does it correctly in example 2: =(8 - A1^2) = 4.

Be careful when using Excel
 

--
------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Vernucci, I0JX US call: K0JX
Beacons: 50.004 MHz & 70.088 MHz
Home page: http://www.qsl.net/i0jx
e-mail: k0jx {at} amsat {dot} org
------------------------------------------------------
"Helmut Wabnig" hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat ha scritto nel messaggio
...
On Fri, 08 May 2009 20:59:35 +0200, Helmut Wabnig hwabnig@ .- --- -.
dotat wrote:

On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:36:08 +0200, "Antonio Vernucci"
wrote:

I think this message can be of interest for those using Excel for antenna
calculations.

Write in one cell: =(-A1^2 + 8) Note: the exponent of A1 is 2 (and not
2+8=10) because Excel performs squaring before summing

Write in another cell: =(8 - A1^2)

They look pretty much the same

But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy

In correct mathematical convention the expression
let A1 = 2 then

-A1^2 must yield

-A1^2 = -4

otherwise we would have to write
(-A1)^2 = 4

EXCEL does it the wrong way in example 1: =(-A1^2 + 8) = 12
and does it correctly in example 2 =(8 - A1^2) = 4.
But they are from Microsoft and they can do whatever they want.

w.
TYPO correction
and does it correctly in example 2: =(8 - A1^2) = 4.

Be careful when using Excel
 

Antonio Vernucci wrote:
But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

It appears that EXCEL uses the Microsoft BASIC engine
for its calculations. Those problems are well understood
by BASIC users. Hint: use more parentheses.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Be careful when using Excel
 

In correct mathematical convention the expression
let A1 = 2 then

-A1^2 must yield

-A1^2 = -4

otherwise we would have to write
(-A1)^2 = 4

I share your opinion. But there are two Microsofts.

- for Microsoft#1, that is Excel: (-2^2 + 8) = 12

- for Microsoft#2, that is Visual Basic: (-2^2 + 8) = 4

Funny, isn't it?

Antonio I0JX

Be careful when using Excel
 

It appears that EXCEL uses the Microsoft BASIC engine
for its calculations. Those problems are well understood
by BASIC users. Hint: use more parentheses.

Yes, that is what I normally do.

Anyway it is good to keep in mind that:

- for Excel: (-2^2 + 8) = 12

- for Visual Basic: (-2^2 + 8) = 4

73

Tony I0JX

Be careful when using Excel
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Antonio Vernucci wrote:
But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

It appears that EXCEL uses the Microsoft BASIC engine
for its calculations. Those problems are well understood
by BASIC users. Hint: use more parentheses.


More Cowbell maybe?

Be careful when using Excel
 

"Antonio Vernucci" wrote in
:

Subject: Be careful when using Excel
From: "Antonio Vernucci"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Reply-To: "Antonio Vernucci"



--
------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Vernucci, I0JX US call: K0JX
Beacons: 50.004 MHz & 70.088 MHz
Home page: http://www.qsl.net/i0jx
e-mail: k0jx {at} amsat {dot} org
------------------------------------------------------
"Jeff" ha scritto nel messaggio
. com...
"Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message
.. .
I think this message can be of interest for those using Excel for
antenna calculations.

Write in one cell: =(-A1^2 + 8) Note: the exponent of A1 is 2
(and not 2+8=10) because Excel performs squaring before summing

Write in another cell: =(8 - A1^2)

They look pretty much the same

But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy


I see it give the correct answers!!!

eg when A1 =2 the first formula =12 and the second =4

-2 squared =4
So 4 plus 8 = 12

2 squared =4
So 8 - 4 = 4

8 - (2 squared) = 4

Yes, but the way Excel works is deceiving.

As a matter of fact, with reference to the general mathematical
principle A+B = B+A, let us have:
A= -A1^2
B = 8

Then, one would expect that -A1^2 + 8 is the same as 8 - A1^2, which
is not the way Excel works.

So just what were you expecting to get? Were you expecting -A1^2 to
really be -(A1^2)?

-Bruce

Be careful when using Excel
 

"Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message
. ..
In correct mathematical convention the expression
let A1 = 2 then

-A1^2 must yield
-A1^2 = -4

otherwise we would have to write
(-A1)^2 = 4

I share your opinion. But there are two Microsofts.

- for Microsoft#1, that is Excel: (-2^2 + 8) = 12

- for Microsoft#2, that is Visual Basic: (-2^2 + 8) = 4


at least they are doing what their help says they should do. in vb6
exponentiation is done before negation. in excel negation is done before
exponentiation. when in doubt use more parenthesis than you think you
should to be sure the calculation is done in the order you are expecting.

Be careful when using Excel
 

"Antonio Vernucci" wrote in
:

I think this message can be of interest for those using Excel for
antenna calculations.

Write in one cell: =(-A1^2 + 8) Note: the exponent of A1 is 2 (and
not 2+8=10) because Excel performs squaring before summing

Write in another cell: =(8 - A1^2)

Do you realise that the '-' in both expressions are quite different in
meaning, one is a unary negation operator, the other is the binary
subract operator.

No magic there, force the - to be a unary operator, and it behaves
consistently, eg 8+-2^2 gives 12.



They look pretty much the same

Not to a programmer!

Owen

But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy

Be careful when using Excel
 

Do you realise that the '-' in both expressions are quite different in
meaning, one is a unary negation operator, the other is the binary
subract operator.

I realise, but Microsoft apparently does not:

- for Excel: (-2^2 + 8) = 12
- for Visual Basic: (-2^2 + 8) = 4

They look pretty much the same
Not to a programmer!

I would expect that some programmers may get confused, due to the inconsistency
of software products of the same company.

Tony I0JX

Be careful when using Excel
 

"Antonio Vernucci" wrote in
:

Do you realise that the '-' in both expressions are quite different
in meaning, one is a unary negation operator, the other is the binary
subract operator.

I realise, but Microsoft apparently does not:

- for Excel: (-2^2 + 8) = 12
- for Visual Basic: (-2^2 + 8) = 4

They look pretty much the same
Not to a programmer!

I would expect that some programmers may get confused, due to the
inconsistency of software products of the same company.

Do not assume that all languages or all products use the same operator
precedence rules.

The Excel rules are spelled out in the Excel help.

The key thing is that there is a difference in the meaning of '-' in the
uses as the negation operator and subtraction operator, same symbol, two
meanings, you need to understand that when looking in the list of
operator precedence.

Excel spells out clearly that unary negation has higher precedence than
exponentiation, and subtraction is lower than both... so keep that in
mind when writing formulae.

If you are writing VB, use the precedence rules for VB. The VB rules
clearly state that exponentiation has higher precedence than negation,
and subtraction is lower. This may have its roots before the existence of
Microsoft.

Many languages do not have an exponentiation operator, requiring
functions instead (often pow()). Such use eliminates the operator
precedence issue.

PERL does have an exponentiation operator, and it is higher precedence
than unary + and -.

FORTRAN90 does have an exponentiation operator, and it is higher
precedence than unary + and -.

It is part of the programming landscape... algebraic expressions are not
universal, they need to be written for the specific language.

Now, I hear that you think that is a bad idea, but it isn't likely to
change. It is most unlikely that a new version of any language will
change operator precedence, it has too many issues.

Owen

Be careful when using Excel
 

"Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message
...
Do you realise that the '-' in both expressions are quite different in
meaning, one is a unary negation operator, the other is the binary
subract operator.

I realise, but Microsoft apparently does not:

- for Excel: (-2^2 + 8) = 12
- for Visual Basic: (-2^2 + 8) = 4

They look pretty much the same
Not to a programmer!

I would expect that some programmers may get confused, due to the
inconsistency of software products of the same company.

Tony I0JX

REAL programmers know the difference and add extra parenthesis just to be
sure the processor does what we want. for instance, i would NEVER use a
unary negate without adding parenthesis to be sure it was applied properly.
In most cases i would write that equation like: ((-1*A1)^2)+8, or even more
obvious in excel: power(-1*a1,2)+8

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:36:08 +0200, "Antonio Vernucci"
wrote:

I think this message can be of interest for those using Excel for antenna
calculations.

Write in one cell: =(-A1^2 + 8) Note: the exponent of A1 is 2 (and not
2+8=10) because Excel performs squaring before summing

Write in another cell: =(8 - A1^2)

They look pretty much the same

But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy

It's an INTENTIONAL Microsoft bug. See:
"Formula Returns Unexpected Positive Value"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q132686/

Although this article applies to Excel 97 and earlier versions, the
problem is still there in later versions of Excel.

The article indicates that:
"The order of evaluation of operators dictates that a minus
sign (-) used as a negation operator (such as -1) is evaluated
before all other operators. "
which in my opinion, is wrong. The MS order of operations is:

: Range
space Intersection
, Union
- Negation
% Percentage
^ Exponentiation
* or / Multiplication or Division
+ or - Addition or Subtraction
& Text Operator
= = = Comparison Operators

Note that the negation (negative sign) operator comes before any
arithmetic operators.

I haven't checked how Open Office 3 and others do it. My guess(tm) is
that they all treat the negation operator the same as subtraction
which would be (correctly) evaluated AFTER exponentiation,
multiplication, and division.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Sat, 09 May 2009 16:48:19 +0000, Jim Higgins
wrote:

The proper precedence of mathematical operations is "PEMDAS," meaning
Parenthesis, Exponentiation, Mult/Div, Add/Sub.

Yep. The MS precidence is:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/25189/EN-US/

: Range
space Intersection
, Union
- Negation
% Percentage
^ Exponentiation
* or / Multiplication or Division
+ or - Addition or Subtraction
& Text Operator
= = = Comparison Operators

Note that the negation (negative sign) operator comes before any
arithmetic operators. The problem comes from Excel inventing some
kind of distinction between negation (negative number) and
substraction. For arithmetic, there is none. For C programmers,
there is a difference (in the way the data is stored). More on the
subject:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/69058.html

That minus in front of the A1 is a unary negation, which is a
multiplication by minus 1, so it should be performed AFTER the
exponentiation, i.e; -A1^2 = -(A1^2)

Excel performs it before the exponentiation, i.e.; -A1^2 = (-A1)^2

The Excel answer is incorrect.

Yep. However, MS is not about to create problems by fixing the
problem. It would be a bad thing to have existing spreadsheets,
suddently give different results when run on updated and fixed
versions of Excel. Compatibility with old bugs is one reason that
bugs tend to be perpetuated. Old bugs and sleeping dogs should be
left alone.

73 de Jim, KB3PU

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Be careful when using Excel
 

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 May 2009 16:48:19 +0000, Jim Higgins
wrote:

Yep. However, MS is not about to create problems by fixing the
problem. It would be a bad thing to have existing spreadsheets,
suddently give different results when run on updated and fixed
versions of Excel. Compatibility with old bugs is one reason that
bugs tend to be perpetuated. Old bugs and sleeping dogs should be
left alone.

73 de Jim, KB3PU


I sure am glad they finally fixed the simple calculator that Windows came
with. It had a major bug in it that if I remember correctly if you
substracted 3.1 from 3.11 you got zero. There were other numbers like that
also.

I think Intel had to recall a bunch of chips because of an error in the math
coprocessor part at one time.

Microsoft products are so full of 'problems' that if they ever put out an
error free product it would seem to be a mistake.

Be careful when using Excel
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

....
It's an INTENTIONAL Microsoft bug. See:

It is certainly popular to blame Microsoft with lots of things, whether
they were responsible or not matters little.

Keep in mind that Microsoft did not 'design' the algebraic operator
hierarchy for Excel, Excel was released with a claim of 100% cell formula
compatibility with the then leading spreadsheet Lotus 123. (Microsoft's
compatibility was so good, it was subject of a famous court case.)

It was much later that Microsoft conceived VBA and added it to their apps.
IIRC, Visual Basic for Applications inherits its algebraic operator
hierarchy from the BASIC language which was conceived around 1964 and
enriched progressively.

The "intentional Microsoft bug" perspective looks like just prejudice.

Owen

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Sat, 09 May 2009 20:41:52 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

...
It's an INTENTIONAL Microsoft bug. See:

It is certainly popular to blame Microsoft with lots of things, whether
they were responsible or not matters little.

Sorry. Bad choice of wording. From my perspective, a bug is
something that works in a manner that would be considered unexpected
or fails some form of standards compliance. The order and precedence
of operators was well established and includes no distinction between
negation and subtraction. I cannot imagine an example where a
distinction would be necessary (although I am willing to be
enlightened). Whether MS can be blamed for creating the distinction
is subject to some debate, however I doubt that MS can be praised for
creating it.

Keep in mind that Microsoft did not 'design' the algebraic operator
hierarchy for Excel, Excel was released with a claim of 100% cell formula
compatibility with the then leading spreadsheet Lotus 123. (Microsoft's
compatibility was so good, it was subject of a famous court case.)

Chuckle. I once made good money cleaning up a mess of old Lotus 1-2-3
and Symphony spreadsheets so that they would run under Excel. This is
for Excel 2003:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/HP051986941033.aspx
There are also comparisons between other version of Excel and Lotus
1-2-3, but I can't find them. Different versions seem to have
somewhat different differences, which makes me wonder if Excel has
"evolved" their standards.

Quoting:
"Lotus 1-2-3 evaluates the exponentiation operator (^) before
the negation operator (–); Excel evaluates negation first."
So it is written, so it must be. Web pages are never wrong.

It was much later that Microsoft conceived VBA and added it to their apps.
IIRC, Visual Basic for Applications inherits its algebraic operator
hierarchy from the BASIC language which was conceived around 1964 and
enriched progressively.

Yep. Even standards change with time. It's the de facto standard of
the moment.

The "intentional Microsoft bug" perspective looks like just prejudice.

Nope. I like Microsoft. If MS actually produced a bug free,
reliable, and fully functional product, I would be out of business. As
it stands, I expect to see considerable business from MS customers, as
new versions seem to introduce more features and functions, than fixes
to old bugs. After all, features and functions sell upgrades, but bug
fixes do not. 2.999999 cheers for Microsoft.

Incidentally, the company motto is "If this stuff worked, you wouldn't
need me". None of my customers have ever disagreed.

Owen


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 14:15:19 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

I think Intel had to recall a bunch of chips because of an error in the math
coprocessor part at one time.

Close. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
for the details. Never mind that the fixed chips arrived after the
release of the next generation of Pentium processors, making
replacements for the older and slower chips a waste of effort. I had
several servers running the buggy Pentium 60 and 66Mhz chips.
Incidentally, they ran unusually hot and required extra cooling. I
applied to Intel for 3 replacement chips. By the time they arrived,
the server motherboards had been replaced with something better and
faster, so the new chips just sat around.

Microsoft products are so full of 'problems' that if they ever put out an
error free product it would seem to be a mistake.

I beg to differ. Microsoft bashing seems to be the national sport in
computers. Yet, they're the most successful computah company in
history. In addition, they did it without any ties to proprietary
hardware. They must be doing something right.

In my never humble opinion, 99% or more of what MS releases is done
correctly and works well. The 1% that doesn't is what we're all
complaining about. Because MS has such a huge number of products and
technologies, it's fairly easy to find bugs and problems. However, if
you compare the MS bug lists with those from other companies, the
ratio of bugs to product complexity is very favorable for MS products.
I have had to deal with OS's and apps from smaller companies. Methinks
they're far worse than MS. Also, there may be plenty to complain
about, but most products are sufficiently functional to be usable for
the intended purpose. What bothers me about MS is not the quantity of
bugs, it's their tendency to add features and functions instead of
fixing bugs. This tends to make the product grow into a bloated
monstrosity of useless features, with far too many semi-permanent
bugs.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:32:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

Also, the Foof bug:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F00f


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Be careful when using Excel
 

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

I beg to differ. Microsoft bashing seems to be the national sport in
computers. Yet, they're the most successful computah company in
history. In addition, they did it without any ties to proprietary
hardware. They must be doing something right.


Microsoft got so big the same way Walmart did. They put out a cheeper
product.

Digital Research had a much beter product when IBM produced the PC. I think
they wanted about $ 150 for it and MS wanted $ 50 for their product. They
basically put DRI out of business and also some other companies that had
their ideas incorporated in to the MS product line.

Be careful when using Excel
 

On May 8, 12:36*pm, "Antonio Vernucci" wrote:
I think this message can be of interest for those using Excel for antenna
calculations.

Write in one cell: *=(-A1^2 + 8) * Note: the exponent of A1 is 2 (and not
2+8=10) because Excel performs squaring before summing

Write in another cell: *=(8 - A1^2)

They look pretty much the same

But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy

Computer Science 101 taught me that various computer compilers do not
always handle complex equations as I would expect and to break
equations down into steps using multiple lines of code. Compilers dont
even follow basic rules of mathmatics, if they did you would never be
able to code a = a + 1. They allow the programer to ASSIGN values to
variables and it is up to the programer to follow the rules.

Jimmie

Be careful when using Excel
 

JIMMIE wrote:

On May 8, 12:36Â*pm, "Antonio Vernucci" wrote:
I think this message can be of interest for those using Excel for antenna
calculations.

Write in one cell: Â*=(-A1^2 + 8) Â* Note: the exponent of A1 is 2 (and not
2+8=10) because Excel performs squaring before summing

Write in another cell: Â*=(8 - A1^2)

They look pretty much the same

But give A1 any non-zero value and see what happen.

73

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy

Computer Science 101 taught me that various computer compilers do not
always handle complex equations as I would expect and to break
equations down into steps using multiple lines of code. Compilers dont
even follow basic rules of mathmatics, if they did you would never be
able to code a = a + 1.

The expression is an equation in mathematics and an assignment statement in
programming. Two different concepts on two different contexts. The meaning
of an expression can easily vary based on the context.

Consider 'x'; it can mean any of the following.
An abbreviation for a religious figure
An abbreviation for trans (xmit)
multiplication (2x3)
location of a pirate's treasure on a map
a kiss
one letter in a word

So, expecting a spreadsheet to follow the all rules of math is unrealistic.


The original post reflected confusion over operator precedence. Operator
precedence is usually documented. Not paying attention to how a spreadsheet
works is the user's fault. If there is doubt, parentheses can be added to
make sure the calculations are carried out as desired. Verifying the
calculations by hand is also a good idea.



They allow the programer to ASSIGN values to
variables and it is up to the programer to follow the rules.

Jimmie

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 22:51:37 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .

I beg to differ. Microsoft bashing seems to be the national sport in
computers. Yet, they're the most successful computah company in
history. In addition, they did it without any ties to proprietary
hardware. They must be doing something right.


Microsoft got so big the same way Walmart did. They put out a cheeper
product.

They weren't always the biggest and baddest company in town. The
software departments of the major big iron makers were much larger
than MS in both manpower and revenue for most of the 1980's. Any one
of them could have produced a consumer grade operating system and
usable apps at the time and wiped MS off the map. They didn't because
they didn't believe that there was money to be made in essentially
consumer retail (i.e. off the shelf) operating systems and apps. They
also didn't know how to do it. I still recall the DEC Rainbow, where
customers were expected to buy pre-formatted floppies from DEC at
outrageous prices.

MS may also be very economical for OEM PC operating systems and
desktop apps. However, I note that a superior and totally free
operating system, while quite popular, has not produced much of a dent
in Microsoft's OS dominance. MS is also not currently the cheapest
OS. Apple OS/X Leopard retails for $130 while Vista Ultimate is $219.
Digital Research had a much beter product when IBM produced the PC.
I think
they wanted about $ 150 for it and MS wanted $ 50 for their product. They
basically put DRI out of business and also some other companies that had
their ideas incorporated in to the MS product line.

Yep. In 1981, CP/M-86 was better than PC-DOS 1.0. I was there.
CP/M-86 sold for $150. PC-DOS 1.0 sold for $60. Most of the early
IBM PC 5150 adopters bought both. I vaguely recall paying about
$4,000 for mine. $100 difference wasn't going to make a huge
difference.

CP/M-86 did more, but was more difficult to use. PC-DOS (er... QDOS)
was crude and simple. At the time everyone was waiting for DRI to
clean up the OS or at least make it more user friendly, while PC-DOS
was treated as a temporary expedient so IBM could sell PC's that were
suppose to run mostly apps in BASIC. Also note that PC-DOS included
MSBASIC, while CP/M-86 would sorta run the older CP/M-80 apps. CBASIC
came later. The IBM PC 5150 came with cassette BASIC in ROM. However
BASIC in ROM was not easily accessible from CP/M-86. Within months of
introduction, there were literally hundreds of new and ported apps for
PC-DOS arriving at Computerland. Meanwhile CP/M-86 was still
struggling with porting CP/M-80 apps. I had customers running some
bookkeeping application on CP/M-86 well into the late 1980's. It was
a struggle under CP/M-86. When they finally purged the machines and
switched to PCDOS, things went more smoothly. For example, relinking
the CP/M-86 operating system to install a new device driver was not my
idea of fun. With PC-DOS, it was just adding a line in config.sys.

All this has something to do with ham radio antennas, but the
connection escapes me for the moment.






--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Sun, 10 May 2009 16:19:22 +0000, Jim Higgins
wrote:

I disagree. Negation is not a subtraction operation; it's a
multiplication operation.

It varies by position. At the front of a string of arithmetic
operations, it's multiplication. In between the terms of an equation
or values, it's subtraction. This article covers some of the problem:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=109516
Humans can usually make the distinction by context. Too bad computers
can't do the same.

Either way Microsoft Excel implements it incorrectly because in either
case exponentiation has a higher precedence in the science of
mathematics.

Agreed.

Agreed that it's too late to go back now, but bugs perpetuate because
they aren't fixed promptly when encountered. This issue isn't new and
it was fixable when first encountered in the very first release of
Excel.

I can sorta tolerate perpetuating mistakes. However, Microsoft's
attitude toward precedence operations reeks of damage control and of
trying to create a secondary standard by sheer number of users. The
first step to fixing the problem should have been to admit that they
were wrong. That never seems to have happened.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Sun, 10 May 2009 16:21:02 +0000, Jim Higgins
wrote:

I could be wrong, but I don't recall a case involving MS and Lotus
over Excel/123. I recall Lotus vs Borland over 1-2-3/Quattro
though... and that wasn't about details like precedence of operations

Nope. It was Borland versus Lotus over the look and feel of the
spreadsheet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland

There was also Apple versus Microsoft over the Windoze look and feel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft

However, none of this had anything to do with the operation of the
spreadsheet. That's because the original spreadsheet operation was
defined by Visicalc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visicalc
Visicalc and spreadsheets were NOT patented and therefore not the
subject of litigation over function or operation:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20050812/1835229_F.shtml

Fun reading on who sued whom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Be careful when using Excel
 

Jim Higgins wrote in
:

....
I could be wrong, but I don't recall a case involving MS and Lotus
over Excel/123. I recall Lotus vs Borland over 1-2-3/Quattro

Lotus did not like Excel's compatibility with 123, and targeted
specifically the / command key in Excel as knocking off Lotus' IP. The /
key was removed in later versions, and IIRC the help sections that were
designed for 123 users.

Yes, those were the days of people suing people for too much looking and
feeling. Ashton Tate were right up there in the DBase lookalike race, but
pretty much everyone was into it, and just recently we hear that SCO
didn't really own the rights to their flavour of UNIX.

The early versions of Excel did have very good compatibility. One cannot
say that about OpenOffice, last time I looked it did not support VBA, and
I use VBA to a great extent in many of by spreadsheets, so not being
prepared to port and test all the content, the brave new OpenOffice is
for beginners who don't have a large investment in VBA code.

Irrespective of the heritage of these things, it is an inexperienced and
naive programmer who doesn't check the operator precedence for the
language environment being used.

Owen

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Sun, 10 May 2009 20:10:46 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

The early versions of Excel did have very good compatibility. One cannot
say that about OpenOffice, last time I looked it did not support VBA,

VBA support was added in Open Office 2.x:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VBA

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Be careful when using Excel
 

"Ralph Mowery" wrote:

Microsoft got so big the same way Walmart did. They put out a
cheeper product.


What cheaper product was that? After CP/M and similar OS's died
decades ago, the earlier PC-DOS and later Windows were the only
commercially distributed OS's available unbundled from hardware. Thus,
Windows really had no significant competing product to be cheaper
than. The hardware to run those Microsoft OS's was occasionally
cheaper, but Microsoft had no great influence in that.

stewart / w5net

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:35:41 +0200, noname wrote:

"Ralph Mowery" wrote:

Microsoft got so big the same way Walmart did. They put out a
cheeper product.

What cheaper product was that? After CP/M and similar OS's died
decades ago, the earlier PC-DOS and later Windows were the only
commercially distributed OS's available unbundled from hardware.

SCO Xenix. Microsoft started Xenix *BEFORE* IBM arrived and bought MS
BASIC. IBM wanted an operating system, so Bill Gates sent them to DRI
for CP/M. When IBM and DRI couldn't agree on anything, IBM came back
to Bill Gates. Bill knew that Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer
Products had something called Q-DOS (quick and dirty operating
system). QDOS was suppose to be a temporary kludge while waiting for
DRI to deliver CP/M-86. PCDOS grew so quickly, the Xenix was put on
the back burner for a while. Eventually, Xenix was licensed to SCO,
IBM, and others. It was far more expensive than PCDOS or MSDOS but
also far more useful and reliable. For example, Xenix had support for
RAM above 1MByte, long before EMS/XMS arrived for PC-DOS. I still
have customers running SCO Xenix 2.3.4. Xenix also had a rather
fanatically loyal following. When SCO tried to promote Open Desktop
as a Xenix replacement and proceeded to try and kill Xenix, the
dealers almost rebelled. It took over 10 years for Xenix to fade
away, mostly because of simple neglect.

There were plenty of other Unix v.7 ports by other companies at the
time (long before Linux).
http://www.levenez.com/unix/
For example, IBM and DEC both sold Venix on their low end hardware in
1984.

There were also a mess of general purpose non-Unix and non-DOS
operating systems (not tied to hardware) released over the years.
Minix, GEM, GEOS, QNX, Netware, OS/2 are the ones I can recall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_systems_timeline
Most of the general purpose OS's were roughly in the same price range
as MSDOS. Therefore, price was not a major factor in their demise.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Be careful when using Excel
 

"noname" wrote in message
...
"Ralph Mowery" wrote:

Microsoft got so big the same way Walmart did. They put out a
cheeper product.


What cheaper product was that? After CP/M and similar OS's died
decades ago, the earlier PC-DOS and later Windows were the only
commercially distributed OS's available unbundled from hardware. Thus,
Windows really had no significant competing product to be cheaper
than. The hardware to run those Microsoft OS's was occasionally
cheaper, but Microsoft had no great influence in that.

stewart / w5net

The very first operating systems were either DR or MS products. MS was
cheeper than the DR product.
Then MS incorporated softwear like Double Space (big lawsuit over that so
win 3.11 came out ) Internet explorer is standard now. Pushed out many
other internet programs.

Be careful when using Excel
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 20:10:46 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

The early versions of Excel did have very good compatibility. One cannot
say that about OpenOffice, last time I looked it did not support VBA,

VBA support was added in Open Office 2.x:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VBA


Thanks, that is good to know... I will try it out.

73
Owen

Be careful when using Excel
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Yep. In 1981, CP/M-86 was better than PC-DOS 1.0. I was there.

I was there also. Some of the future CP/M-80 guys
worked for Intel while I was there. They tried to
get Intel to develop their ISIS-80 software
development system program into an open architecture.
Intel decided most of the money to be made was in the
hardware chips and that there was not much money to be
made in microcomputer operating systems and computer
boxes.

Those high-caliber software guys moved from Silicon Valley
to Digital Research over on the Pacific coast and the rest
is history. Intel could have been the behemoth supplying
the microcomputer chips, operating system, AND the
computer box.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:25:13 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Yep. In 1981, CP/M-86 was better than PC-DOS 1.0. I was there.

I was there also. Some of the future CP/M-80 guys
worked for Intel while I was there. They tried to
get Intel to develop their ISIS-80 software
development system program into an open architecture.
Intel decided most of the money to be made was in the
hardware chips and that there was not much money to be
made in microcomputer operating systems and computer
boxes.

Not exactly. Gary Kildall and others wrote some simple games for the
4004 that ran on what later became a development system. They tried
to get Robert Noyce to sell it. Nope. Noyce thought there was more
money in digital watches which Intel never produced. At the time
(1971) nobody had the slightest idea of what to do with a general
purpose microprocessor. Even the dynamic RAM business was almost an
accident when Intel discovered they couldn't sell micros without the
necessary glue chips and memory. In it first few year, Intel didn't
have the slightest idea what they were going to manufacture.

Somewhat later, he tried to hang some storage onto an MCS-4 chipset
demo board with limited success in adapting his PL/M operating system.
That morphed into CP/M in order to distinguish it from the Intel
effort. There's probably something on the topic in the book "Fire in
the Valley". Worth reading methinks:
http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Valley-Making-Personal-Computer/dp/0071358927
Ouch. It seems to have become a collectors item. I think I paid $10
for my paperback edition. (Someone stole my hardback edition). At
least the used copies are affordable.

Those high-caliber software guys moved from Silicon Valley
to Digital Research over on the Pacific coast and the rest
is history. Intel could have been the behemoth supplying
the microcomputer chips, operating system, AND the
computer box.

Yep. I'm not sure they could have handled the rapid growth in too
many areas. At the time, Intel's gross was growing about 40% per
year, which is about at the limit of which they could fund growth with
revenue and loans. To diversify into adjacent areas would have
certainly been opportunistic, but would have drawn resources better
spent on cranking out chips. Diversification through acquisition is
safer. Craig Barrett tried unsuccessfully to diversify the company,
while Paul Otellini sold off divisions and diversions. Intel does
well with its core business, but not much elsewhere. Remember the
Santa Clara bubble memory division (with the giant plastic bubble in
place of a picture window in conference room)? That's where the term
"economic bubble" may have originated.

It's interesting to note that the general purpose operating systems
that were *NOT* tied to a hardware platform have survived far longer
than those attached to a manufacturers hardware. Apple OS/X is an
exception in that it's 75% portable (Mach) Unix, and about 25%
proprietary Apple. It would not have survived in it's original MacOS
form. Well, OS/X is a somewhat portable operating system:
http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook

All this has something to do with antennas, although the connection
currently escapes me.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:32:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

I beg to differ. Microsoft bashing seems to be the national sport in
computers.

It wasn't a sport that was invented for Microsoft, however. They came
by it honestly.

Yet, they're the most successful computah company in
history.

Arthur Anderson had the same reputation for bookkeeping; GM for
building cars; GOP for ... well that's Noah's flood under the bridge.

In addition, they did it without any ties to proprietary
hardware.

Never heard of the IBM PC?

They must be doing something right.

This would only provoke the enumeration of companies listed above.

In my never humble opinion, 99% or more of what MS releases is done
correctly and works well. The 1% that doesn't is what we're all
complaining about.

99% is actually pretty abysmal. Ma Bell could rightfully claim 5 9s
(99.999%) for service generations ago. Software bugs that 1% of your
user base encounters are evidence of incredible sloppiness.

Having to guess (before you break the seal) which 1% is broken is like
playing Russian roulette ever day for a year - and hoping to live to
Christmas.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Be careful when using Excel
 

Richard Clark wrote:
snip
99% is actually pretty abysmal. Ma Bell could rightfully claim 5 9s
(99.999%) for service generations ago. Software bugs that 1% of your
user base encounters are evidence of incredible sloppiness.

snip
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

And those days are gone, but not the way you'd think. Current Ericsson
cell switches in Europe run ERLANG, one of the successors of PLEX, and
they are getting 11 9's or better.

ERLANG is a very interesting language and has been released as open
source. See

http://erlang.org/

tom
K0TAR

Be careful when using Excel
 

On Mon, 11 May 2009 18:41:31 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

ERLANG is a very interesting language and has been released as open
source. See

http://erlang.org/


Hi Tom,

Tell me more (a quick synopsis). My group has been working on the
Netflix Prize in Python.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC