39 votes4 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Formulas and Functions · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
672 votes76 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Formulas and Functions · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Great suggestion – thanks again for taking the time to put it on this site and for the thoughtful followup comments. This is pretty related to some other work we’ve got going and already has a fair number of votes, so we’ll work on getting plans in place now and hope to get started on this soon.
John [MS XL]
A null value would be different than the current blank.
"Blank" being what you get if you, for example:
1) Enter ="" in A1, the copy and paste values back on it, or to some different cell
2) Have a formula in A1 that returns "" as its result.
3) Have some value in A1, then select it and hit Delete or Clear Contents
and some other things.
Anyway, Excel is currently able to distinguish between a cell that has a history but is currently blank in the English language sense of blank: literally nothing entered in the cell, and those cells which have never, ever, had a value in them. So it should currently have no issues distinguishing, in program, between types of "blank" or "empty" it encounters.
Alright, you have A1 which has never had an entry, ever. Presently, "=A1" would return a 0 in whatever cell or formula it is in. "=ISBLANK(A1)" would return TRUE. Put "=F10" into A1 and now A1 would return 0, =A1 would return 0, but ISBLANK(A1) would return FALSE (after all, there's a formula there now). References to any of these cells would produce currently expectable results.
Now delete the entry in A1 and you're back to the original. However, Excel can still see that though it is blank, it has been used and will act accordingly, saving information for it and doing things like sorting it into a different place than it would if it had never been used. (Ever delete the last 10,000 rows of a data set and find Ctrl-End still sends you to the last cell in them? That is Excel still realizing they've been used. Just blank, not empty.)
Now close all that and open a new spreadsheet, then put the formula I mentioned in B1 (assuming a NULL() function now exists). Excel would return a truly empty cell result in B1, not a zero. That result would be precisely what is thinks about A1 itself since we have never entered anything there and it's really empty. So =A1=B1 would return TRUE as the value of the never used A1 and the NULL() function's result of a true null is the very same thing. If you enter =B1 in D1, D1's result would be a true null (as in "empty, never used") as well. So "empty" from your choice of that or zero.
Notice the effect of the formula was to pass onward a null value for B1 even though it has a formula in it. Of course, there are functions in Excel, like FORMULATEXT(), that need to return the underlying material, but they already are programmed to ignore the result and evaluate the underlying material. A Table would also have to look at it this way, else one might have odd effects if a formula in the first cell of a row looked utterly unused to the Table. Or maybe not. But whacky things like that could crop up with issues. Don't mind a wait while things like that are gotten right. DO mind a wait if it's just "you're only 671 people out of our 800,000,000 person user base so..."
Well, first off, the current situation has sucked for 30 years. I'm completely willing to spend the next wrapping "=A1" to get "=IF(ISBLANK(A1),NULL(),A1) and have a result that Excel treats as it does never used cells. NOT A PROBLEM dude.
Second, Most of us asking for this almost certainly do NOT have any misunderstanding about the return and therefore how we'd have to use it.
Third, part and parcel of any real solution would be for MS to treat any blank as it treats never used cells. Presumably, it stores only a cell address and value (in a simplified version of things) and would simply have to not store such if blank. "Blank" = empty: either never used, or contents deleted or cleared. "0" would need to be treated as an actual value, not all the absences of a value as well as an actual entry of "0". Since what's stored likely includes more information than I imagine, things used internally, not just formatting and values and such, the simple version is unlikely and Excel would have to make provision for a value of NULL and handle it however works best for them. Then deleting/clearing contents would set that value, not just leave no value at all.
But fourth, we'll all of us be pretty happy if they just work out the FUNCTION asked for rather than a fuller solution. Nice if they did the whole enchilada but if we could just have the function and Excel acted properly (or at least "as expected") on its use, we'd be really happy.
"Properly" ("as expected") would mean things like sort a set of data and NULLs appear at the bottom of the sort result just like never used cells would rather than as a separate grouping, above those.
Also, considering sorting, it is clear Excel can already distinguish between current NULLs (never used cells) and blanks, but also it can clearly already distinguish between 0's and blanks as well. So since it can already distinguish all three "values" and so MIGHT be able to already do the underlying work the function would need.
No one's even asking for perfection, just better, by this much.
Hey guys, take heart. Even though they've had 3½ years to have a change of their own hearts, they still consider it PLANNED... no downgrade!
What's the gift type for four year anniversaries again?
Especially to Lori, but in general:
The USE CASE is needing a cell without data to BE a cell without data to EVERYTHING.
Until that is the case, nothing has been solved.
And if you want to use the result of "nothing" as valuable data to what you've written, then don't add the NULL() wrap.
Or... with luck, the null would be a complete, true, default in all cases blank and you would set your flag to have it be non-blank... sigh... no, that last would break tens of millions of in use spreadsheets. But the rest of us deserve this and future spreadsheets could use it instead of old workarounds thereby spreading world peace and allowing all children to go to bed by 9:30pm so the beauty contestant queens could finally be happy and choose other answers. This would benefit the world!
He wants a FUNCTION(), something we can wrap other functions in and produce a NULL if the output of the wrapped formula is "" (with perhaps an option in the NULL() function itself to do so if it is "0" also?), OR to give as an element of something like the IF() function.
NOT looking for a general underlying change to Excel so that all such give a true null as the default. Everyone understands a 30 year base cannot permit that kind of approach.
Actually, a middle between the nice first part and the rather extreme general default might be a page option (why can't "pages" be generally formatted directly rather than by selecting all first?) that works like the display 0's option. Then charts could act upon the data as displayed (blanks treated as nulls, if so selected), regardless of the literal cell non-content. Or not. An option in setting up the chart.
(That could also be done solely in the chart's options, but as a page display option, it could let Excel treat non-content cells as nulls WITHOUT having to wrap results in a NULL() function. If one cannot use that due to 30 year base constraints, one simply wouldn't.)
How would this break anything for you? YOU simply would not use it. The rest of us would.
Instead, you'd have the rest of us contort ourselves, making UDF's and having to overcome VBA-resistance in many places we send spreadsheets to? Making poor folk doing charts continue to use workarounds for the reason that you'd have to use it because it existed instead of simply... not using it yourself?
I am clearly missing the logic here.
2,531 votes675 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Viewing / Navigating Workbooks · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Thanks everyone for all of the passion about this suggestion! The number of votes has increased greatly in the last couple months and we’re taking notice! We’ve got a bunch of other Excel endpoints behaving this way already and we’re evaluating getting it done in the Windows versions sooner based on the number of votes it gets – so keep the votes coming!
Eric Patterson (Program Manager – MSFT)
Because we're funny, the way we act all like maybe it could happen, then salivate as it's promised and talked up and never delivered, then rage, then get all hopeful for another moment.
Then rinse and repeat.
Their Christmas parties would not be as much fun without the UserVoice Gag Reel.
So yeah, that's why. Fits available data to a "T"...
Well... there's supposed to be about 800,000,000 Excel users around the world, so they probably figure about 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 votes to be something that should be addressed.
Judging by how much they seem to address other Suggestions, that seems plausible.
Lack of smooth scrolling also makes improvements/innovations like cells that can be larger then their row/column's settings possible.
Consider being able to have a cell taller, or reaching farther down than its rowmates. This could be winked at by letting cell contents "spill" in the new terminology ('cause "run over the cell edge" doesn't sound pretty enough) downwards until hitting a cell border for a cell with contents, much like text contents can run past the right border presently. Fully in place, not just "buzzing the tower" implemented, one could maintain the religious basis of Excel with identically sized cells in each row/column, yet allow for improved display.
Personally, I'd like the option to let those cells overlay anything I tell them too, hiding those contents with their own contents. Several things I could do with that.
Anyway, nothing of the kind can ever be possible if those cells cannot be read because nearby cell-sizing causes portions of them to always be off-screen, up/down/right/left, some portion always off-screen.
And cell's displayed in the current herky-jerky manner would do precisely that. So things of this kind, wished for elsewhere and not even thought of as related are in fact very related.
Of course, either way, Distributed Indent still has a bug that lets you lay its contents overtop neighboring cells. Can't take that away apparently, no smooth-scrolling or not no smooth-scrolling. Wise choice MS, wise choice...
Thanks, I have been wondering how it is with it.
Also, for sure, not Mac vs. PC. I've just noticed previously people jump to the conclusion I am a "Mac fanboy" when I mention how the Mac has this because of the Mac operating system with Excel simply needing to ride those coattails. So any Mac comments were meant to cut that off before it started. (I really have never even seen a Mac in 35 years of using desktop computers. Did use a II-e for several weeks in 1983 and my wife has one from her childhood in the basement somewhere. No Macs though.) Oh, and to attempt a little humor with it too.
We should NEVER divide and conquer ourselves! Never make it easier for MS to point and say "sure, they gots them some votes and comments, but half are hating it." An honest opinion that does oppose, or that wants the dialogue to shift to a more "this could happen someday so we should shift, maybe, to thinking real implementation; that the period when voices 'off point' are not weakening the issue, but rather strengthening it by saying 'just how do we want this to be when presented and have to be lived with' " kind of path are fine, I believe (so I presented one), but divisive "You're a pig, and have relations with pigs" screeching is to be avoided no matter how mild it begins because: 1) It lets the folks at MS who don't want to lift a finger do just that and, 2) It always gets nasty with us killing and eating our own.
Definitely not a Mac vs. PC thing, though we do all envy THIS feature in the Mac...
I looked at my notes and it was Distributed Indent and formatting then of at least one character in the text in the cell. And checking following my notes, it turns out it still happens. I must've not tested right when I thought they fixed it.
So someone changed something but no one fixed it. Or... maybe it has existed decades. I guess I don't know.
So ignore my attempt at rebuttal about making changes at a fundamental level...
Oh, if interested in something pretty bizarre:
Not only do the cell contents extend to WAY past the cell border, that first one in the attached pic is just two words, but see how it breaks up? The "363" you see is the cell next to it. I increased the cell height so it can format centered up and down and not be written over by the extending contents. But see also the 1294 below it, that you can see is simply written overtop of. Well, you can see.
OK, I wasn't THAT curious about what goes on in the head of a Mac user! Yikes. Did western civilization fall at the end? That was dark and... well, I supposed they think "artfully twined" where "twisted beyond belief" pops into MY head...
J/K. Lol, that was good Anonymous! Hope it's flawed somewhere in there though.
They HAVE mucked about with the text engine side of things. There was a very strange bug in the Justify Distributed formatting that caused cell contents to be wildly wider than the cell if you also did at least one edit in the cell's text contents. That disappeared about... 3-4-5? monthly revisions ago. So someone DID something to cause it, then someone fixed it.
Of course, that could be the burn that causes them to never touch the beast again, but I sincerely think they are actually in the process of making some pretty fundamental changes and trying to carry them back to fundamental parts of the program 'cause they are buggy or kludgy bolted on.
And I think those efforts are tying up a fair amount of payroll so many other things are getting short shrift. And they are also being looked at as being the new bolted on stuff AFTER the fundmental change stuff is done.
But I'm just making a wild guess I guess. I'm not a mind-reader, sadly. (Or luckily, 'cause I like Walmart being beastly to everyone who can't vote for lawmakers or who is a small polity compared to the other 300 million of us and thereby saving me 17¢ on stuff. I'd hate to not be able to go there and read some of the customers' minds accidentally...) But I really do think they have something like that going.
Pardon me a second, gotta refill the Kool-Aid pitcher, getting thirsty.
Here's hoping something good comes of this suggestion though.
I got a headache:
We differ on the first sentence. I do. And for a very sound and useful reason. Though as I do say, it's really the idea of moving a set, reasonable amount per down arrow so the next material pops up EXACTLY where the previous material did kind of thing. Cell by cell if it has to be that to achieve it. I have been called an odd duck, but folks, my blood is red, I've never been in a room with a Mac, I'm not a communist, and I think "tldr" should have the "l" replaced with an "s" (for "stupid"). I am simply NOT even close to being the only person who has conflicting needs and wants both capabilities for the PRECISELY same usability concerns all of us who are asking for smooth scrolling have.
Ask a Mac Excel user sometime if their having smooth scrolling (from the operating system, not Excel) means Excel can't scroll cell by cell, and if he has both, ask him if he'd like to give one up for no real reason other than to see it, like the world, burn.
I can't. I don't know any Mac users. But let me know. I am curious. (I mean, as curious as anyone can really be about what goes on in the head of a Mac user. But a little, anyway.)
I do NOT want to have to count 1-one thousand, 2-mississippi, then pause a pregnant moment, and release the down arrow to achieve that.
But I do want scrolling in those cases to be untied from slavish the cell by cell movement conceptual basis.
Anyway, your last point is, of course, the thing they are talking about in the old saying "some days the bear gets you, some days you are gotten by the bear." MS just don't care.
Since we are getting near to MS actually considering some work on this (looks like only 6-7 more years before they think about where it might fit into the "road map")…
I DO want some scrolling by cells. Just not always and not in a horribly "children with big, thick kindergarten pencils" way.
When normally scrolling TO MOVE ABOUT I am fine with scrolling up/down a cell at a time or over a column at a time. More exactly(!): I am fine scrolling approximately one default cell height up/down and one default column width right/left. NOT 7,208 points (I know, 409.5 or whatever, this is exaggeration for effect and clarity) and not not 43 screens of material right/left because one column is 32 inches wide.
Moving about in the spreadsheet, I'm good with about 1½ screen inches right/left at a time and about ½ screen inches up/down at a time.
However, when scrolling to work with material, two situations, more or less, arise for me. One is where all the rows, say, are identically sized and I down arrow once and the next row moves up to put itself EXACTLY where the last row was so my eyes note the change did occur and begin evaluating again.
Both the first thing, moving about, and this, would be MADDENING to lose if MS replaces current scrolling with, say, pixel scrolling, like 3 pixels at a time. I'd lose functionality in a huge way and HATE it.
So there's that, and it is real functionality no one really wants to lose except where he can have only one or the other and his private circumstances push him to the pixel scrolling. Otherwise, no one wants to lose either of the above.
BUT there is one other side of this second thing and that is when not all the rows are the default (or some "regular" size) height, similarly for columns, some being MUCH wider than others. And this is the case a whole freaking lot.
In those cases, I'd like pixel scrolling (of some fineness) but more especially, at least, to divorce the scrolling from cell by cell to something more like the ½ inch of screen height at a time kind of thing. As you know, so that I can read a cell from top to bottom, or left to right, in a stably changing environments like I would scrolling in Word, say. No part permanently refused to me just because it is more than a screen high (what's with the 409.5 pt thing anyway… I know the last can't happen, exaggeration for clarity, etc… but still, why can't one be pleasing even to Mad Max's Lord Humungous?… I know, he's dead, but again…)
And reading in cell is worse: limited to one or three lines at a time with even more horrible jumping and the last 2-3 versions ruined some of the text handling in reading a cell that way so there's that, and at least half the time Alt-Enter has been pressed in a cell navigation is locked up and you can't even edit it… it's just worse all around than reading it from outside the cell.
So… how to have both? I propose a refinement to the request/suggestion: a button to click (AND a Ctrl or Alt shortcut for those of us who hate the ribbon and having to hunt all over to find a thing… oh, silly me, that ended when they took out the menus… everything is a single click away above your work, always right there… well, not… ribbon = menus sheeple, it's the same thing, only it takes up more screen than the menus!)
OK… back on point… a button in easy reach or a shortcut easily typed, and the scrolling mode would switch from cell by cell, column by column, to a smooth default of, say, ½ screen inches up/down, and 1½ screen inches right/left. Maybe a second button to get pixel scrolling.
Couple other things on it. I'd like the column by column thing to just go away. Columns are sized oddly almost always, so it is far more definitive than row by row. Also, I know "screen inches" could be taken too literally, though Excel can read your monitor's resolution from Windows even when screens are moved about and work with the spirit of that. If I can't have the mix from above, I'd rather have the default this, default that movement I talk about. If they do it in Windows, like how it's done on the Mac, not in Excel, I'd still like the default amount of movement thing, or the current herky-jerky as the norm with a Ctrl/Alt shortcut to easily turn on and apply the Windows smooth scroll when needed. Shooting for the best of all things, not an either/or that sucks either way or the other.
I wonder how it works when you set two windows on a file, and synchronize their scrolling and one comes on a row that is, say, 12 lines high while the controlling window has a normal-size row? 'Cause if they handle that by moving the secondary window view up a single line-ish amount, really maintaining the synchronization, then completely as the next row has to come up, and so on, then maybe that could be built on as the engine to replace the herky-jerky thing. Easier to do should mean sooner to do…
Indeed sir, you have the right of it!
I have often noticed MS paying more attention to those who act grown-up and... oh...
(If only it were so though... that the secret to getting everything in life were to just act all grwon-up... "Act" that is, ain't bein' no sell-out! The man may have the power but he ain't got my soul!)
I mean, you know, for anything north of, say, a couple million dollars, he could but I hope he never offers... Bend-over money isn't too far north of losing your soul money, and that might be a slippery slope (ba-RUMP-BUMP... had to capitalize RUMP there, right?), and I sure don't want to go that far north!
I agree, we can't be eating each other. That's Divide and Conquer done by the dividees and conquerees. But some humor, hard to see how that hurts. The truth in it... well, the truth hurts sometimes Jobo, but MS has lots of tissues to mop up the tears.
Say, wonder if MS likes us having a place to vent and he's now a [Deleted User] 'cause they thought he'd hurt that? Though that WOULD require paying attention to us enough to notice...
That's uncalled for!
Experience has shown me politicians are esssentially all ******** verminous scummy bottom feeders from whom I should have NO expectation of anything valuable or thoughtful of my needs.
Microsoft on the other hand, has... oh...
Never mind sir. Carry on.
Careful now... some lines should never be crossed...
Are we saying... User Voiice needs its own User Voice suggestion site?
I don't know if I can be that Meta... I wasn't that Metal back in the 80's, not sure I can be that Meta now...
Indeed, Spot on. SPOT on.
There are even MS moderated sites, though with volunteers (I understand) doing the authoritative answering, which literally say this is the only way anyone using a spreadsheet could actually want it — gosh, a spreadsheet is cell-centric by definition, who could ever want it to scroll up a partial cell instead of a whole one?
Granted, that WOULD be aggravating, if one couldn't and got fooled thinking the whole cell is showing and it's not... but then, if your material forces a cell over what, 409 pts is it?, then you might easily think you're seeing the whole thing when you're not... but THAT'S all right, that is, that's just something different you understand... 'cause then that'd be an unreasonable maximum cell height limit and it just isn't!...
Hmm... maybe hoping to always be able to display a full cell was how that limit got hard coded in to begin with. Yay.
Needs fixed! 'Cause it ain't a good thing now.
It works on the Mac because the Mac OS offers a smooth scroll feature that Excel taps into.
For whatever reason — whatever stupid reason — they can't or won't get the Windows OS people to produce the same feature so they can tap into it.
So we suffer.
You'd think developers would have been braying for a similar feature for decades so they wouldn't have to write it themselves for their programs. Apparently not, or it's been as ineffective as our hopes here have been.
The built-in bias to using Excel has to be overcome. For us really old folks, the rough equivalent was pushing buying toward Compaq (and then Gateway, then Dell, largely) ratheer than costly and underpowered IBM PC's. It was summed up for folks thinking of attempting it as "No one ever got fired buying IBM."
1. There has to be a reason to do it or there's no point in broaching the subject at all. So list out the reasons you and others have. Pick the compelling ones. "Excel don't care no more than Honey Badger used ta" is not compelling to the bosses.
Compelling reasons include a noticeable cost or degradation of efficiency that results in identifiable monetary losses OR not being able to satisfy a customer or to even offer a service due to Excel.
2. There has to be an alternative. Maybe more than one, but more means confusion for them. They will get "the bottom line" on alternatives as they apply to the compelling reasons, but are looking to YOU for the decision on what to offer them. To be fair to them, that's their job, not doing the original work.
So go in with a full decision made on one, maybe two alternatives. Connect directly to all the compelling reasons. Show the cost vs. their costs. The bosses think Excel is free. And a huge number of people do come with Excel experience and skills. Yes… "um, to a degree..." but it is Excel high schools teach, and Excel with a lot of Google hits when searching on a problem. They are aware of this, and training has a cost. Ignore it and they'll have to wonder what else you're ignoring.
3. Be clever regarding alternatives. They don't have to be spreadsheets. You might have six compelling cases that DO need addressed but the solution might be to take them out of the spreadsheet world. Could off-the-shelf software address one or more? Would MS's PowerApps or similar solve things? Perhaps a real database? A program written for you? Just a front-end for the Excel data store? Perhaps breaking the problem into parts. Is data acquisition and low-level use is suitable for Excel but the analysis needs PowerApps or a front-end. Does it really require some things be mixed together? Maybe just change the literal problem areas leaving the main body in place.
YOU must figure that out for your presentation and present proper costs and difficulties. Show how your chosen solution not only directly saves money, but is the basis for efficiency that will present opportunities in the future, either altogether new ones, or enhanced current offerings. Avoid utterly correct "it'll pay for itself in 9 months" points: no one believes them anyway, and the costs you will often be looking at here are going to be labor costs. Those people are still going to be working there, just on other things, so the bosses know that money will still be spent anyway. Perhaps show how they can spend the time saved on a particular new capability or two.
Along with front-ends and other bespoke software, off-the-shelf software, and such, consider environments. Not just SharePoint and its ilk, but, as an example, there are programs out there which use regular programming tools and languages, then create spreadsheets for you that accomplish your programming. They might support the 300 most used Excel functions, but on the other hand, reporting of data is usually incredible compared to Excel's capabilities, not to mention bringing together disparate sources. Reporting, by the way, is simply presentation of data and usually can be offered for use as if the user were in the spreadsheet data itself. No need to look for smooth scrolling, data validation, user rights and access... the list goes on. And changes are written back so... Many multi-user problems just go away.
So I'm saying make it a real project to push your point. Do it right, remember bosses are there to approve the well-thought-out work of their subordinates. Not do it themselves. So do it, be right, and a large part of convincing them is accomplished.
Final thought: AVOID offering to trial your solution, especially in bits and pieces. You have the entire overhead of learning the solution well enough to even decide on the best approach, the entire overhead of learning the tools you will use, and then turning all that over to the person who will do the nuts and bolts of it. A nightmare that will have some bug in it that everyone frets over. Showing it working at a colleague's place of employment perhaps, but don't go down in these flames.
Cool. MS doesn't even have to divide and conquer since we are perfectly willing to eat ourselves.
By the way, Excel's purpose is to be an easy and general interface to programming a computer to solve your non-huge needs. (Like it or not, a spreadsheet is a programming interface.) Things that one cannot or for whatever reason, will not, bite the bullet on and have a purpose-built program written for. Then, like most things of any value in life, they grow.
So for a webiste with this one's (stated) purpose of asking Excel for new features or imporvements, it is wrong of folks to step up on a soapbox and preach to all around about how certain things simply should not be done. Find a website for that kind of thing. Well, find several, maybe several dozen: people who like that kind of thing tend to be utterly religious about their "thing" and you will be thrown out and purged from the sites soon after some tiny opinion that is at odds with the master ("little Hitler") of the site.
And all of that has no place here. This is for what one would like to see added, removed, or improved. Not for hassling folks for the things they must do (you know, at the places that do have lots of Indians instead of all chiefs?).
Excel is cell-based and MS has been clear about that and some of the things that means. Of course, that does not mean things must be done one way and never another. My most common use, for example, that is affected here is plowing through data that has poor input controls. So, like 10,000 rows in a column might have 745 oddnesses to chivvy into shape, not just 13 main ones and another 10 or so here and there ones (think street addresses or names). Moving down the rows, visually, looking for new ones to automate a fix for works best when the rows click along smoothly so my eyes can keep focus on the same point (like an old-time astronomer comparing telescope pictures side-by-side to see if anything moved). If a row somehow has two or more lines when most have one and it leaps into view rather than smoothly bumping up, that flow is shattered.
Another big use of this idea is I prepare things for others to enter data into. It's a simple fact that they seem to prefer, and do better with, forms that scroll up smoothly so the labels for each data entry cell do best when they are all the same number of lines:
if they are mainly one line, or the latter if they are mainly two lines. Then things scroll up "smoothly" visually, no jumping 2-3 lines sometimes. This is a human thing. You design something like Excel, or a public park, making the best choices that occur to you and then take input and make changes as possible to better suit what users really turn out to want. Which can evolve too. No one ever (should have) said it's simple. Even the preachers in here don't seem to disagree with the basic desire here.
But guys... the preachers are welcome, just not the preaching. There's no place in a site with a purpose like this one's for "well, you shouldn't be doing that anyway": people are, people will continue, it's often not theirs to choose, and they are Suggesting improvements based on their realities.
4 I have a fever:
The behavior you hate in #2) can be turned off. Go to File | Options | Advanced. The very first choice there is to turn Enter's movement off completely, or to assign it ANY of the four basic directions. You'll want to set the first six of Advanced's options every time you get a new computer with a new installation of Excel.
If you occasionally do desire Enter to work that way, you can always turn it back on for however long it is needed.
Or highlight the cells you wish to move between (doesn't have to be contiguous either) and pressing Enter will move you from cell to cell in the highlighted area. Until you forget and press an arrow key... Experiment with that if you use it for multiple row/multiple column blocks at the same time to make sure it goes as expected. HOW the cells were highlighted can make a difference, and ALWAYS makes a difference if things are not contiguous.
If you define a range, you can select IT and only move between those cells. Useful for both data entry and data flushing (choose the range and hit Delete, your data entry cells are fresh again). Especially good for widely separated cells. Again though, how they are selected (order, whether highlighting on the fly, or typing the cell names when setting up the range) will make a difference in what order you move through them and that funny thing Windows does with filenames where one enters a string of, say, four filenames and it does them 2-3-4-1, not 1-2-3-4? Same thing happens here so put the cell you want to start in after selecting the range LAST when setting it up.
Weird, eh? But mostly, just shut that horrid behavior off with the first option in File | Options | Advanced.
Live in the shallow waters then my friend. Your offspring will evolve into sentient life while mine will still be sharkbait. I guess. Reading more than one or two lines without an insult in them to liven up the mood is a chore.
Live long and prosper y'all.
I have LITERALLY never touched, nor even seen a Mac in my life. Unless I saw something from the corner of my eye passing the one Apple store sort of in the area while walking in that mall. IPads and so on, sure, but never a Mac. I did use a 2e back in 1983 for a few weeks one summer but that was not a Mac.
In any case, the Mac OS allows pixel by pixel scrolling of anything on the screen. MacOS Sierra, version 10, as an explicit example according to the last last answerer to this StackExchange question: (worth reading all the answers here for tips on how to get some of the needed functionality)
"user3524289" last answer, 9/12/2017
So instead of having to live with Excel's "snap to a cell, always" approach, Mac users can scroll in the way desired here. Because the operating system has the functionality and Excel doesn't override it. They see a good thing and ride it, not override it.
As to Excel's institutional concept, the following is a volunteer moderator whose base reaction is "I'm afraid this is not how Excel works. The anchor point is always the top left corner of a cell." which reads like "So it is written, so let it be done." to paraphrase a little.
Lower (open the replies, and go down toward the bottom, not the couple repeats along the way) and she... well, you have to read it, the circle of pointlessness won't close until you do:
As to Mac users, from all I have read here and elsewhere, they do get this one thing, but suffer the absense of a bunch of functions() and more. So I don't really envy them.
As to Macs again, since computing has moved to the "buy and use a toaster" stage, or at least significantly closer, many of my reasons for hating Nanny Apple are just "so yesterday"... but they are still a vile company with a vile corporate culture and that never changes. I will never own or use an Apple product. It's a sacrifice, no doubt, they are nice pads and phones and pods and so on, but someone has to draw a line and suffer if it brings suffering.
Excel internally uses a tiny base measure for sizing everything, one that according to Allen Wyatt (no citation from his site, search there is pretty whack) is something on the order of 1,880 or so units per inch. But not exposed to us via any aspect of Excel, not even VBA. They have the internal measure in place to enable programming that references it, but are not interested, it would seem, in taking advantage of that.
A workaround, a bit beastly, that few mention, would be to copy the cells one needs to examine against each other to a word processor and examine them there. Too bad no one has written an IDE to write Excel formulas in, complete with at least coloring of text in a better way than Excel does, the ability to indent and so on, all the lines you need, not three, all the possible IDE bells and whistles, then to let you click a "copy" button that collects it all and let you put it back into Excel with "F2, paste, and be happy."
(Mac or Apple fanboy? Even Lot's daughters weren't more wrong than that.)
Excel uses the Mac's operating system to do precisely this. How or why is not the real point. That's how it does it. It is not written into Excel.
Ergo my conclusion.
Make your own. It's a free country.
It works smoothly on the Mac because the operating system provides for such smooth, small increment movement.
Windows does not.
Excel uses operating services for scrolling rather than its own programming for it. Hence, smooth on a Mac, obnoxious on Windows.
There's no likelihood that (relying on the operating system rather than programming for it as a feature) will change, so until Windows provides the smooth, small increment movement required, Excel on Windows will continue as is.
Roy wishes... IF PowerApps was as easy as Excel, and IF it were a one price for all, like Excel, and IF it didn't have its own amateur limitations (apparently, most database sources are not handled properly and have a limitation of about 5,000 records...)... well, IF all those things, especially the second, I might be...
Two things though, one new and possibly of use sometimes:
1) A reminder that this works nicely on the Mac because the OS provides the service. There's a very good chance this will never happen inside Excel, but rather depends upon the Windows folks adding fine scale movement to Windows. Not only would that be a different programming interest group to inflluence, but there could be legal issues, or worse, to get around legal issues (given the monster Apple is, the monster MS cannot just "Disney" this competition by besetting them with dozens of lawyers attacking or defending, depending) Windows might end up with a less graceful feature. Still, better than this!
2) New thing... I came across a Stack Exchange Super User post last night that has some interest for me, and maybe others. The gist of it is that Excel jumps the screen based upon the height of the row that the cell selector is in. How does that help?
Well, if you have religious type feelings on the subject of merged cells, this cannot help you. If you have the tons of practical reasons to hate them, this probably can't help you.
But if you can live with them, and can use a merged set of cells without a lot of trouble, AND you can navigate with the cell selector NOT in merged cells, you could be in business.
Picture a five column table, A-F, and the big row maker is in column A, if it matters. When you enter any big row, the screen jumps. But if the big row was whatever, say 23 rows, and the big cell was a merging of all the rows in that cell, say A101:A123, AND you insert a narrow column that will not have merged cells (I figure the other four columns would have to have their cells merged too, to match the offender cell), and you navigate using the narrow inserted column, it will work naturally, going up a little by a little. The navigation can also be done by mouse and goes row by row as one clicks, like it does now. I cannot test it fully because I live in a happy world where my monitor is too tall to let 409.50 points (546 pixels, 1 pt = 4/3 px, What? Why is that?) take the whole height. Looks like it solves the jumping, and the never seeing the bottom material (without F2-editing the cell to see it).
Obviously, hugely limited, and who wants to go about making all those cells (ALL columns for proper display, probably) to make it work. Not to mention how formulas would work and propogate... And could it even work right with Tables? And all the other difficulties merged cells bring.
But maybe someone can use it. I might point out the Super User Answerer was bringing a technique from Google... seeing if it would work in Excel... and then reporting it.
First sign in the wind of the, oops... "AN", not "the", surely?... intellectual shift from Excel?
Folks, this is not "the" place where they come for things to do. Nor is it "a" place. 99% of the things that do end up happening happened because they were going to anyway, had some other internal motivation (like how to push you to PowerApps), or...
because large enterprise users, who blithely pay subscription fees without any real critical attention at any level outside accounting, and who might decide one day to just walk away, and use something else. (I don't mean other spreadsheets necessarily, alrhough it could include that, but rather biting the bullet and properly programming a function removing a swath of their need for Excel which could lead to big drops in subscriptions — the last thing MS needs is for their business here to become a churning, roiling mess like cable companies ended up having: that doesn't play well with financial markets, or pride.) Eventually that might mean subscription revenue loss, but even more, those folks will never be forced over to PowerApps and a tripling of their subscriptions.
So the last poster has a HUGELY good point, not just here, but for all the popular Suggestions here:
Make it an Enterprise argument. NOT 1,904 users out of 800,000,000 million users worldwide, 1,904 representatives of enterprises of all sizes, arguing for this on the basis of dollars and how they represent 5 or 58 or 2,847 users via their enterprises.
By the way, for just the price of $8 or so dollars a month, for every possible user plus each designer, for every important shared workflow spreadsheet you currently have for every month of every year, forever, you could have a PowerApp for each one... PowerApps don't have this scrolling problem, nor does it have any other of the problems we find at this site! It's just money folks...
The Mac solution is not in Excel. That's why they have a solution and we don't in Windows.
The operating system provides and Excel just rides along for free, so to speak.
I'm perfectly happy for Windows to solve the problem...
Instead, all 12 people who use touch screen monitors are given new "Ink" things to do. Priorities, you know.
By the way folks, consider how you ever found this "forum." WHEN you even learned it existed.
I've used Excel for 28 years now and only learned of it a year-ish ago, have to look at my posts and votes, maybe two years?
Consider there being 750,000,000+ users of Excel around the world and how many of them each of our votes represents. My estimate is in the 10,000-100,000 people are represented by each vote we make here. Willing to allow down a factor of ten if folks insist, but... I don't think I'm off by too much and it may be on the high end, nearer to the 100,000.
I understand MS would say, no, we have 749,998,200 happy, content sheeple, but that simply isn't true. Why do they count sheeple anyway? We are all people, with hopes and dreams, favorite football teams, children and other pets, to consider us sheeple is insulting, at best.
Ahh, mendacity and talking about things that neither matter or exist... I have a future as an official response guy in here!
You don't have any neighbors in vans or rivers nearby do you?
Handmade is always best though, try to see this as an opportunity to let your artisanship shine in an increasingly factory-made world! You will see this as a blessing, someday, really...
Hopefully not a big blessing though, 'cause with BG's benevolent monopolies happenin' (find it on YouTube), Ms will soon be running life itself andif you have a BIG blessing, you could jump scroll right past it and never experience it all...
C'mon MS, that "oh we're on it NOW" post above is, sadly, now a year old and I'm still seeing it and not the solution...
Lol, yep, a joke, no doubt. To slightly adapt Roy Clark (RIP man), if it weren't for bad jokes, we'd have no jokes at all... Gloom, despair, and agony on me...
Just yesterday I was starting a bit of research on another SORE point getting the same mendacious treatment and at a MS site (Answers.something.or.the.other.MS.com), the MS person charged with responding to the question cheerfully suggested the asker go to this site and weigh in his vote in the other SORE point's main line...
And of course, it has no meaningfull response, just mendacity like the above (same cut-and-paste source?), from the same kind of year, year and a half ago time period.
As if. Ah well, first world problem, right? If I were in Rwanda, someone would've been along already to cut off my arms and legs with a machete and r*pe my children next to me as I laid there dying. So I DO understand my fortune in having this complaint vs. other complaints I could have. But it still does not excuse this treatment by MS.
Even a simple, straightforward message of "Get bent" along with the closing of the suggestion's comment ability would be a step forward, to somewhere, which would be better than limbo.
What is quite surprising about the lack of response by them is that they love to trot out the
"Excel is not presentation software like Word, Power Point, Publisher, etc. It is for and about serious work with numbers."
line they use so much. Usually hesitation with that line only comes when asking why I can't make a cell 1.08" wide in normal editing. Then, of course, it somehow IS all about presentation.
Their internal measurement system, used for presenting things, apparently has about 1800 units per inch. Clearly such a granular control could easily offer true scrolling, not "Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump! (Every screen jump)"
(Sorry House of Pain, had to change a word there.)
Oh, and MS guys and gals... it ain't hard for a couple CPU cycles to be used for checking monitor resolution. Even with multiple monitors.
I used to paste long, long formulas into tall, wide cells so I could see the whole thing. Once upon a time. Since you can't see more than three lines in the formula editor.
Gave up on that years ago when they often pushed other cells off the screen and once in a while were bigger than the screen so became a nightmare to get any value. I've used Notepad since.
It's not even that though, just so obnoxious that they jump all over the place and leave you in a worthless situation.
And the Mac lets you do it right because the operating system has the required pixel by pixel feature, apparently. Yay. Everything else of use has been copied back and forth by the two companies, so why not this one? I don't care if it's Windows that fixes it or Excel, but it's a mess.
We're all wrong though, right? All we have to do is reduce size... go to say 50%, right? If one could even read the cell then the way text is butchered when downsizing. We're all just whiners... Wanting special treatment when there's already a feature no doubt planned just for this... All smoke, no fire. I fell so ashamed.
3 votes1 comment · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Formulas and Functions · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Used to be able to do that, treat the top row of a block as labels and the left column as well. then just:
(if those were a column and row "label") to get the intersection's value. You can still do it but have to define Named Ranges. Ad hoc choices, or choices arising from selecting or "building" the column or row header/label to use are not on the table anymore.
Of course, Named Ranges let you use blocks rather than single cell intersections, but we used to have both!
Without this, implicit intersection is a pale shadow of the past. Sadly, when they first announced the "spill" functions, they also said implicit intersection was going away. Not just be unnecessary but going away. They have not kept at pointing that out so maybe it won't, but if it does or is, you can count on never seeing this, in a function or just as general functionality. Sadly.
Got my vote though!
301 votes62 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Formatting · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Thanks for the suggestion Levi! We’ll be taking a look at this along with some other asks around conditional formatting. It’s a big help to see the things with the most votes, particularly within areas like formatting. So please keep the votes coming for things you want us to do sooner!
John [MS XL]
It'd be nice to be able to select a style vs. building the formats for every rule piece by piece each rule. Would cut down on the proliferation of ever so slightly different formats in a spreadsheet, if nothing else.
Be nice too, to be able to link a list (a "series" I guess) to those built-in CF's, rather than building a several rule set for every variation that arises. Grading scales, for instance. Soooo many different scales, and a big lower end compared to the slices for grades higher than "F"... my bet is that applies to a few million non-grading data sets.
You know, about that F2 thing, if editing a cell formula (normal editing) required us to hit F2 a second time after entering the edit mode or seeing it act like it does in Conditional Formatting or Named Ranges, we'd still be using 1-2-3 for DOS and Quattro Pro for Windows. Although, conceptually, in a way, we DO have to do that... arrowing around from cell to cell, then hitting F2 to make the mode change to arrowing about inisde a cell... that's actually precisely what we do do isn't it? For the love of all things holy... well, I guess those two programs were doomed to die at the feet of the monopolist.
Actually, you CAN edit normally in their little box. You just have to know something they don't really stress anywhere: if you have entered the box you can press F2 and suddenly all the normal movement becomes possible. You can mouse about if desired as well, but the arrow keys now work. The F2 key is a toggle in this situation, so hitting it again restores the horrid mouse-only approach.
Most of us likely do do any halfway long or complicated formulas outside, then copy in. However, that presents some issues one must be aware of. The first is that unless you carefully go through the formula first, you probably don't have all the absolute addressing you could want. You must consider that before pasting in. The second is that you may not have the relative addressing you need unless you carefully consider two things: 1) partial absolute addressing, and 2) precisely where you were (what cell) when you wrote the formula. The first of those is fairly obvious when you think about it, it's just you have to think about it. The second is more complicated.
The second can also affect the first, by the way. The second creates trouble in the following manner. Say you want to affect cells starting with A1. You write the formula in C2. Any relative addressing in the formula will affect a cell offset from the current cell by -1 row and -2 columns. So when you paste it into the CF formula box and save, then expect it to apply to A1, you'll find it applies to something like XFC1048575. The trick here is to write it where convenient, C2 in this example, but then select the cell that precise writing should apply to, THEN enter the CF manager and paste that into the formula box. Then the references should be fine.
With thoughts like that in mind, yeah, why ever write anything other than simple conditions in that miserable little box, eh?
Oh, and an Add-In could create those NR's one specifies if they do not already exist. Further ease our pain.
I don't use VBA much, and when I do I'm more like a "hunt and peck" typist than a "touch" typist, so to speak. So I don't know the tools it has for addressing CF. I DO know that CF is not attached to cells in the way normal formatting is, i.e.: the tools for formatting and working with formatting don't even reveal its presence, apparently.
However, the places that say that last part seem to indicate it CAN be addressed, so perhaps there is a reasonable minimum of tools. If so, it seems an instruction to define a range to apply the CF to would be near the top of the "these be basic" list.
Assuming so, one could create NR's for all the "applies to" boxes that could change, or simply all that are in one's CF (I know, that'd be a bear for some folks' CF-ing, but even still, this would greatly simplify their making sure the ranges stay right), and write a macro that changes the "applies to" for all rules by applying the appropriate NR to each.
If a standalone macro, one could run it any time, especially right after a change one made that one feared would change things. It could be called from an OnOpen macro to make sure they are set right upon opening the file.
So whatever happens, running it would simply reset them all to their NR's: I know Excel will instantly convert them, but who would care at that point? They'd be right, either way. Oh, "drag and drop" orphans would be lost, but again, who among us cares? We are not the people doing that.
Someone with the skills and time could write an add-in that might list the rules interactively, let you define the NR's to use and where, and provide the macro to update them whenever along with an option for OnOpen.
And someone at Excel could do that too, offered along with distributions the way the Analysis ToolPak is (Why would anyone ever not want that loaded? Why is it an option to load rather than to unload when first installing?).
1 vote0 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Other · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →Roy shared this idea ·
8 votes3 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Viewing / Navigating Workbooks · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Ahh... if only Excel had such a thing. But it doesn't.
PPT, sure, but not Excel.
3 votes0 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Formulas and Functions · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
2 votes1 comment · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Formulas and Functions · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
They'd be most useful in Tables due to the manner in which new rows are populated with formulas when being initiated.
Outside of Tables, they'd not be much use in a pre-populated area as they'd take on a creation moment value that wouldn't really match a first-use situation. If one knew already what to put there, they'd be unneeded, so either way... In a user-created situation, like a VBA initiated creation, a simple line or two of code would solve that as it could enter the values desired when creating whatever is being set up. Only if the user is copying and pasting or writing the formula directly would they help then.
Perhaps handier would be a broader thought: a FREEZE() function that calculates once, then never again. Tricky to logic out, but inside an IF() it could test for things like completeness of a record (for example, a full row of data vs. a not yet full row of data, in whatever manner made sense to the creator), and once the IF() found itself executing the FREEZE() option, it would calculate and never do so again.
Well, something like that. But there ought to be a way to make DATE() or TIME(), at least, calculate once and never again without user intervention via some manner of editing or pasting over the cell contents.
2 votes1 comment · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Editing · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
My God yes, this has aggravated me for decades.
63 votes7 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Formulas and Functions · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
It's been literally a year and three months since announced and currently all those nice functions have not "spilled" even to all Insiders, much less to the world.
(Let's hope they are actaully trying to get them right and not that they have unsolvable issues, yes?)
Until then, let's hope for a simple, easy to do, solution that should have been here 25 years ago.
Also, a number of those functions won't help in many instances (not necessarily this one, but many) since they have to "spill" and many uses won't have room for that. One of those, hoepfully intractable rather than unsolvable, problems, one hopes. An inability to be the sole cell the formula is in anyway rather than requiring the whole potential range of cells the data would take if in all of them, when the concept of a menu, say, suddenly appearing and dropping open is decades old, means fitting into existing as well as future work isn't possible. I'm not leaving 2,500 cells, say, empty just so a function can spill into them, sometimes yes, sometimes no. So...
An easy to create, needed, should have been here 25 years ago, function like this seems very desirable.
6,325 votes441 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Macros and Add-ins · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Thank you to all those participated in our survey. What an amazing number of responses, many of them with very deep content. We’re processing the over ten thousand responses(!), and already appreciate the time so many of you took to answer with passion and experience.
Please know this survey is used to help influence various topics – both on Python as well as other related topics that the comments started to bleed into. Given the passion, I want to be clear this remains an area of exploration for us, without any specific timeline.
We’ll provide updates as we progress on this feature request.
Lead Program Manager
Well, VBA is dead to MS. There HAVE been small, small changes after the point they said it was done, would not be advanced further. (That, in itself, wasn't a bad thing as Excel is not chiefly used by programmers but rather by non-programmers so a set, unchanging VBA landscape had and has tremendous appeal to many.) But there is no growth, no new directions to accomodate more recent programming approaches, and no new or updated features. Nor will there be.It is NOT (ever going to be) "evolving."
For those great many though that DO want an evolving programming language, Python seems to fill the bill. For MS, the workload to accomodate it after the inital accomodation would be minimal and only necessary because the likely don't wish to expose that aspect of Excel... or Python developers would surely get right after doing that for them as well.
I acknowledge the current "others" but if I wanted to write code inside Excel that could reach out to a program I also wrote, or just use, that will do the real work hidden from users by being, well, a program, yet still be interactive at a very basic (ouch...) level with Excel so it can at the minimum be a front end if I like, well, something a lot like Python might be my choice. For many, many things.
It literally cannot hurt unless you don't have a grip on the important spreadsheets your organization owns. Which happens, yes, but so does money dropped on the ground and poor registration of organization passwords too. But you'd consider that bag of cash you have to be something that cannot hurt, eh?
84 votes9 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » PivotTables and Power Pivot · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Thanks for opening this one, Jon. I’m looking forward to seeing lots of votes on this to boost the priority of this great ask.
ash [Microsoft Excel]
197 votes22 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Formatting · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Great suggestion, thanks David! And thanks to other people who took the time to clarify/comment on this one. There’s definitely room to tighten this experience up in a number of places. We’re getting a lot of traffic on the site, so please keep voting for the things you care about most to help us do a great job of prioritizing.
John [MS XL]
262 votes21 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Data Import · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Thanks for logging this suggestion. Yes, this could be quite useful. Others that’re interested in this, please do log your votes so we’ll prioritize this work appropriately.
Lead Program Manager
277 votes25 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Data Import · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Hi Joana & others,
Thanks for logging this suggestion. Yes, being able to protect your queries would be quite useful indeed for delivering solutions. We’ll prioritize this based on the interest, so if you’re reading this and haven’t voted as yet, please do so.
Lead Program Manager
3 votes1 comment · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Formulas and Functions · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
1 vote2 comments · Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Formulas and Functions · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
There are two ways:
1. BUY a support program that allows you to inform them about bugs. Yes, pay THEM to help them improve. I guess 'cause they regard it as you paying them so you can whine.
2. Find someone who desperately needs that function to work right AND is already paying them for a support program... Get that person to file the bug for you.
This has to do with the math Excel does, not conditional formatting.
In the second instance, due to the 16 bit number convention they've used literally forever and that was a well-established standard even in 1985, there will always be glitches between the binary values Excel uses to really do the arithmetic and the ten-digit values we enter.
Additionally, Excel maintains only 15 digits of precision (so 0.123456789012345, but NOT ever 0.1234567890123456) and errors creep in because of this.
Oddly though, respected people report solid evidence that Excel uses as many as 35 places internally when doing arithmetic. Apparently one must to cover the possible range the 15 digit thing allows. Then dumb it down to the 15 places.
Why does your example fail? Very simply: Add those numbers in your second example with binary arithmetic and 15 digit values for each entry and it does NOT end up equalling 0.
Well, actually, on my copy, both work out fine. But use 2.99 and .01 uinstead and it "succeeds" at failing to add up to 0. It equals 0.000000000000000213370987545147.
Which is pretty REMARKABLE, so I shall remark upon it.
Until this moment, examples like this would always yield something like 0.000000000000002. Just some other digit than 0 in the 15th place. But now there's a whole 15 digit value there, starting at digit 16. This might be good, in a way, in that one could always simply truncate values at 15 places, however hard that might be to achieve. That would cut off values like this giving 0 as an end result, like it should give.
Further experimentation shows something interesting about how Excel really stores values. Always figured it was literally dropping leading 0's and lagging ones, to shorten the value and take less space, then cram it into some kind of byte arrangement. But this result suggests Excel stores them as the scientific notation version and that stupid choice, not capriciousness or "this is machine intelligence helping little you out"... That's a hugely interesting thought.
But the problem you have is due to the convention, the binary arithmetic, and the binary vs. decimal issue.