Make Undo stacks track per workbook instead of globally
Undo stacks are currently global between all workbooks that are open at a given time, so pressing undo on one workbook might undo a change in a different workbook. As someone who frequently has multiple workbooks open at a time, it would be much more helpful to be able to step through the edits made on each individual workbook.
Thanks again for all the passion on this issue – we hear you and we’ll get someone on the team to dig in to the issue. I’ve seen a few related sub-issues while scanning over the comment section for this one, so we may reach out to a few of you for clarifications. Thanks again for all the votes, and keep them coming for the issues you care about!
Ed Hansberry commented
Roy, MDI and SDI don’t affect the number of instanced of Excel. Still one instance. SDI allows us to move files between monitors though.
Hey guys... they solved this already!
This has to be what SDI is all about, right? If every file is opened in its own instance of Excel, then every file has its own Undo stack, right?
For MDI rather than SDI, see:
but, hey, don't support it! It solves Undo completely! Yay...
Please sort out multiple sheet open undo - it's frightening
add this feature as soon as possible! I don't think is to difficult to do
Simon Weaver commented
One of the most obtuse stubborn software shortcomings I've ever come across.
Find an intern. Give her all summer to fix it!
Office does not use the Clipboard the way Windows pushes it to others and never has. They did other unfortunate programming along the same veins. The "Undo stack" is one of them. They took the core of the program and made the shortcuts when they reset it as Excel and positioned it to work properly in Windows. They "rolled their own" instead of using their own Windows tech. So now... it'd too deep to rework easily. And I, for one, suspect they DON'T muc like things that don't lend themselves to "easily done."
Accordingly, this kind of request simply involves too much effort on their part. If they could have rewritten their usage, they would have decades ago.
Nothing has a higher level of votes. Or a higher level of frustration and pain. And yet, even though THIS suggestion has been here, buoying to the top endlessly, you'll note the Admin comment came 2½ years after it existed. And the comment is a pseudo-"we're looking into it, we really are" kind of comment meant to string us along rather than either promise solution to the problem or meaningful commentary on how they are noticing, after getting into the meat of what needs done to solve it, that there are several strains of interest and therefore several problems they need to work on.
Instead, we see a mendacious comment about sub-issues meant to: a) Temporize, and lull us for some length of time, and b) To imply there really are sub-issues ifurther implying "boy, this will take some time here" and "it really isn't one thing, so all those votes are really not so impressive"...
Thank you "John, Excel" for your shilling effort.
But there is ONE single issue here, ONE single need, and there are absolutely NO sub-issues. There isn't even anyone with legacy work that would be destroyed, or someone who just doesn't want to change 30 years of keystroke habits. No one is arguing any point at all in these comments. No one thinks we are better off like we are. There are absolutely NO sub-issues to balkanize the support or to complicate solution efforts. This is NOT like the people yammering to return to every file opened is in a new instance of Excel and can only (poorly) use the Clipboard for interaction and after every one of those suggestions, a following one demands a return to every file opened is in one instance of Excel and nothing is shielded from the rest. There is ONE SINGLE DESIRE here: Undo stacks for each file, nothing to do with each other, and if you want changes reverted in more than one, you do that, yourself.
And they don't even promise a solution, just that after getting a stunning number of votes and 2½ years of being noticed by them (yea, I know, good boy John is suggesting they just noticed there in March), they are going to use mendacity to ease us along for another year or two (it's been another ½ year already).
This has ONE root: their own programming choices decades ago. For the love of God, they should just add code to work as desired and trap the calls to the sad legacy work sending them to the nice, modern code yielding the nice, modern (30 year old modern) need.
Mendacity. It ain't just a funny word from "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof" Excel. It IS pathetic though. Sad.
But yeah, Anonymous, it is an EMPTY response.
> is this issue being currently fixed or is it an empty response?
I think it's a wishing well - click the vote button, throw your two cents in, and make a wish.
[Deleted User] commented
is this issue being currently fixed or is it an empty response?
Notgiving Mydata commented
Why has this not been resolved yet Micro$oft??
Tony Hernandez commented
Please fix this issue.
Crazy. Why would you want to undo something on a workbook you are not actively working on? FIX please or at least give us an option to have undo ONLY for the active file. I discovered this insanity as I've just move over to 365 office version on Mac (as support for the older version was withdrawn) - previously undo was only ever for the document you were working on - which make sense, this doesn't.
"Oh, I just realized there is something wrong on this workbook, let me undo everything I've done on other workbooks to rewind, fix that error then redo everything else I had to undo to get to that." - Mrs. Sarcasm
Oh, sorry, I was rolling way past my fingers in the lower 640K thing... I didn't mean to point it as if I meant no one thought computers would ever have more memory or that anyone could write a program that needed more. Because people said that was so much, professionals, not users, it was why would anyone spend the money (that sense of why would anyone ever buy more than that). Just buy 192K, say, and run the little programs of the day. You're unloading each one to run the next, so it's all there for it! Err... except for the footprint from DOS. But seriously, set the lowest 384K for the system instead of the highest... IF there is any... and now you're forcing people to buy 384K for that alone, then more and more to be able to run programs.
So the guy with 192K for programs would have had to buy three times as much to have that. (It warn't cheap either.) NOT the best idea to underpin your marketing on. For all I know, IBM knew and approved. And people did write worthwhile things in space like that, though lots wanted to have infinite memory. Another for all I know is that MS nannied that by forcing them to limit size and therefore shiftless programming.
But whatever the set of concerns, the 640K thing blew up on the DOS world but was NEVER EVER fixed. Because of ALL the compromises and ALL the "dishonest" programming (Did I do that? Address hardware directly? Yes, "Urkle, Excel", you did.): fix it and every program addressing that memory would fail. So it was never fixed, just bumbled along. Like this and a few other things.
Anyway (rolling again), lots of folks would've bought a Mac if they could have gotten a second mortgage instead of a PC if they had to spring for a ton of memory or else. That was the meaning I meant to convey. And Lord, a Mac world is just all we need. (No need to even bother with the SARCASM() function for that last sentence!)
Lol, they hear us.
This is one of those things whose underlying reasons were no one programmed "honestly" once upon a time, for Windows, not even the owner of Windows, and then there were choices one had to make that limited one's future options because something limiting was chosen and then inserted deep into the code.
(For limiting, remember how the obvious choice of using lower memory for DOS programs (Because who would ever buy more than 640K, right? And by then, they'd be migrating upward and away from DOS and replacing every program anyway... yeah, remember the telephone company mode of progress? And cell service providers today?) led to years of limitations? And who ever chose those ridiculously small memory heaps for running Windows? "Resources" is a four-letter word to my gneration.)
For an example of something with a wonderful utility (possibility) that wastes along, fairly (not completely) useless and never upgraded to its logical wonderful capability and launched across Windows:
Buried too deep to drop and too deep to make sing with greatness, it limps along and makes a few of us happy, but mostly makes anyone who thinks about it... just sad...
Don't get the idea this last year or two is the only time period they've hear (or seen) complaints of the quantity and quality herein. It's been something to hate for decades now and surprise... it has been! Even the laziest users ever that still have enough gumption to say "Well, what if I change that value? What could go wrong? I'll just UNDO it in a second, oh, hello boss, yeah, let me bring that other spreadsheet up..." has regretted this and sworn at MS for it. And his little boss too.
So thank you "John, Excel" (who has a middle initial of "," anyway???) (oh... need that SARCASM() function again, to wrap that kind of thing in, or a set of related functions... a lot of people would hate the "invalid argument" error message when trying to use (misuse) the IRONIC() function, eh?) but you folks ain't doin' nothin', not soon nor never. Except gladhanding us along. I'm less than 60 and I will die in my sleep before you do. So keep that gladhanding to yourselves please:
HOPE springs eternal, they say, so even the above hurts. A "corporate lie" is still a lie "John, Excel." And the hurt is the same.
Unfortunately this has been around for a very long time, so must be some reason Microsoft considers this a 'feature' but is unwilling to introduce an option to make it workbook specific. I use the alt-click to launch a new instance of Excel, which has an independent undo history.
Kasey Pilcher commented
Why is it taking so long for this issue to be resolved? The Admins should provide another update. It has been since MARCH. It is ridiculously inconvenient and should have been predicted as an issue by Microsoft.
charles moore commented
Please make global/per sheet Undo an option. The software's refusal to allow a decision makes for a tremendously frustrating experience.
And while opening multiple copies does offer a workaround, the need for one speaks loudly of this poorly designed aspect of the product. (Not to mention all these comments.)
Matthew Youmans commented
Oooh, is that anyone in my company or anyone anywhere? I vote the latter.
New! Excel has introduced a new feature. When hitting Undo, why apply it only to your own work? Now when you hit Undo you will undo the last action done by anyone else using Excel at that time.
jeffrey Weir commented
When did Microsoft introduce the ability to open multiple workbooks? Last century? Because the current functionality embarrassingly points at a mentality stuck in that long-distant era. C'mon MS: plug this historic hole already.