Feedback by UserVoice

Roy

My feedback

  1. 2 votes
    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)

      We’ll send you updates on this idea

      Roy supported this idea  · 
    • 11 votes
      Sign in
      Check!
      (thinking…)
      Reset
      or sign in with
      • facebook
      • google
        Password icon
        Signed in as (Sign out)

        We’ll send you updates on this idea

        Roy supported this idea  · 
        Roy commented  · 

        It's a broader problem in Excel.

        Another example is, for Excel 2013, if I set an indent for a column (horizontal positioning), then later changed the vertical positioning, the indent disappeared, just gone. I was force-upgraded by the boss so now I have 365 and it does not happen there.

        So these things exist across the product but it seems they CAN be fixed. With any luck, they'll do this one soon.

      • 815 votes
        Sign in
        Check!
        (thinking…)
        Reset
        or sign in with
        • facebook
        • google
          Password icon
          Signed in as (Sign out)

          We’ll send you updates on this idea

          Thanks for all of the votes – the team has definitely taken notice of the activity around this issue. We moved to SDI as a result of customer requests, but it looks like we’ve got work to do to really nail the use cases people care about. From a read over the comments, I see a number of cases that we will want to investigate further as we think through MDI vs SDI. We’ll get someone from the team to take a deeper look, and we may reach out to some of you for more clarification as we go. Thanks again for all the voting and passion here!

          John, Excel

          Roy commented  · 

          @Deanna... Please Deanna... broken up? Have you never seen a YouTube video of Bill Gate$ patiently explaining to us all why monopolies are incredibly good for an economy, and let's not forget, for a society?

          It seems that a monopoly can make decisions against the desires of consumers, for the better, of course, forcing them along the path from their current miserable existence to the shining future the monopolist, in his benevolence will allow them to have. I mean give to them, oops...

          'Against the desires of consumers' because they control the market and will still make tons of money regardless. The phone companies planned for us to be moving out of ISDN lines roughly now. That sort-of-128Kb transfer speed would still surely be better than today's 100Mb transfer speeds. If only we weren't so greedy, we could still be living their vision. Bad consumers!

          Roy commented  · 

          Of course, John commented nine months ago and there's no update on anything, no rumors, no experiments forced on 365 users so... it just doesn't look good.

          Roy commented  · 

          You had a window open for each file with a full set of tools. You could ALWAYS position them however you liked, move them to different monitors, tile them, cascade them, whatever you liked. Multiple monitors weren't any kind of issue if my plain vanilla equipment in XP, Windows 7, and now Windows 10 could do it.

          You could always open a whole new instance or three if you liked. Files with the same name, say.

          It wasn't like the old days when there was one window with the program interface (menus and such) and every file open had to share the real estate below that because they couldn't be drug out of the instance's basic framework window.

          So PRECISELY AND TRUTHFULLY, how was there ever an issue?

          Obviously, the Undo stack was shared by all the open files in the instance and that sucks, but that is a separate thing to fix.

          Then... SDI... Every file opened is in a whole new instance. Even with the registry fix, I can't open an attached spreadsheet from Outlook, their own directly related program, without doing it in a new instance. And others that I can open in the running instance have to be drug onto its window. I can't click to open them or... whole new instance.

          It is a nightmare. There are VBA issues. There are issues with files that depend upon each other. YOU try explaining to the boss that he now has a new level of difficulty to work with to use your nice spreadsheets. We used to be able to group spreadsheets and open them in sequence. Took that away. Very quick and handy it was. Now it's write a unique macro for every set or deal with the links that don't/can't update even though the files are open. In the context of this development, I have to think they took that away some time back because of things that led to this issue or because they chose to follow a path to here that along the way lost us this capability.

          Worse yet, the instances seem to be "owned" by the application that opened them. If I open an Outlook attachment and the new instance starts, I can keep opening Outlook attachments and they all open in that instance. That somehow has to be figuring into this as well.

          There is NO control over how the new instances open. So instead of maximized and on the monitor of my choice, they come up literally willy-nilly on their choice of monitor and always just a stupid "normal" window that I then have to maximize. Not to mention the dead one that opens and launches the new file. Sometimes it closes when I close the file, sometimes it stays. It is always present in the Task Bar, until closed.

          There is and was NO monitor issue unless it was very weird and almost certainly limited to a small slice of users. If plain vanilla has/had no issues, then there just wasn't an issue.

          I will note though, that we finally read something from John that is certainly true-ish. When I first came here, there was a steady whine, though NOT a roar, about having changed FROM SDI to MDI. Made no sense to me because it had never existed for me: My experience since the ribbon has all been what I described above, 10 years of it, until I got stuck with this version. Even 2013 was the good stuff though everyone says no it wasn't. Strange, that. But there were constant cries to return to SDI though they always petered out with a few votes. Sad that more than a few votes doesn't seem to take us back.

          Seems like it should be a choice in Options. Or at least with some registry fixes. (I'd be thrilled if the attachment opening could be fixed that way, or the dead window each new instance starts, or the window state when they open, or the whole having to drag because clicking would open a new instance thing... or all of them...)

          Hmm... maybe MS is trying to hide performance issues in Excel by forcing each file into a separate instance? Whole new set of resources... alleviating performance issues some? Fix this MS or you won't have any reputation left as we think of more reasons why you're doing this to us. And if you go the way of 123 and Quattro Pro, WE will write the story of miserable failure to consider your market instead of your own weird ideas. Right or wrong, just like those who wrote the 123 stories, we will write how it looked to us and then it, like you, would be history.

          Be nice if you chose a different fate. We DO actually like Excel, for the most part.

          Roy commented  · 

          @Doug: Sorry to hear that... I would say though, for two reasons: 1) With it in the registry and set to 0 I at first thought it had no effect (the longer story is below somewhere) but eventually realized it DID have some effects, just not a wholesale changeover back to MDI. I could, for instance, drag a file from Explorer onto the running instance of Excel and it would open in that instance where without the key, it would not even open in a new instance. I cannot drag from Outlook, and maybe other places, oddly enough. However, before the key, if I opened a file and a new instance was created, that instance persisted after closing the file while now it 90% does not. I still cannot click on a file without a new instance. Also, files opened from inside the instance, say via a hyperlink, open in the existing instance where before they started a new one. So... maybe like me at first, the changes, not change, were not noticed because we were both looking for a "change" not "some changes for the better, but still sucky-ish"? And 2) The Support article does not explicitly say so, but strongly implies, it should work for anything affected from 2013 onward. Not definitive by any stretch, but maybe worth a shot.

          But if not, I feel for you. SDI SUCKS. And weird things seem to happen. And to think I used to think it was nice I could have it when I wanted it (say, for two files with the same name... another thing MS is pathetic about given there's no way on God's green earth it should present even difficulties, much less be utterly not permitted... you can't even achieve it by accident without a fresh instance of Excel) which wasn't often, but I wish now that no one at MS had ever had the idea cross his mind.

          Sounds like MS is beginning to look at Home the way some providers look at Evaluation copies. Sad, for something they sell for a pretty penny and certainly do not state is crippled.

          Roy commented  · 

          Something I've seen as a topic here, bearing on the discontent with the subject, that I'd like to point out is NOT necessarily what people have said it to be:

          "The investment of time in switching to a new spreadsheet would be just so huge that I have to have satisfaction here, or live with suckiness forever."

          Well, for those not old enough to have gone through it, people said that about Lotus and Wordperfect once upon a time.

          More tellingly, Lotus and Wordperfeect said that about Lotus and Wordperfect.

          What are those programs? Something used in WWII to break German codes? Maybe Apollo used them for the lunar landings? No. Those programs were given to us by God as the only things that could ever be used, but they are gone now. Admittedly, a large part of that was an aspect of monopoly power, but I'd say Google, at least, is in a position to do the same thing. And guess what? Their spreadsheet is free too.

          MS had better get it right. I ditched 123 for Quatro Pro, learning curve be d*mned and then Quattro Pro for Excel because they broke them, literally, broke and not paying bills, but still learning curve be d*mned. I gave up Locascript for WordStar and then Wordstar for Word, learning curves be d*mned. All of them lesser programs, at the time of shifting, than what I had been using.

          And another for the record: the competition uses Windows, unlike MS in competition back then so no advantage to MS there. Arguably, because I hate it, but have no power to change it and it must change to this for society's sake anyway, the fact that Google has built to use the cloud (storage and app farms, to anyone who remembers Lotus and Wordperfect, "magic" to anyone who remembers Locascript and Wordstar) while MS is slumping its way there, in poorly conceived ways, and maybe not for another decade (the threatened sea changes in their engine, vis-a-vis the seven new wonder-functions, which it is hinted will make using older versions impossible as backward compatibility isn't part of the functions but rather a backward compatibility ("xlfn.") engine that is NOT mentioned despite being pretty revolutionary (and in place for a little while now) and that can be clipped out of the program in a second. With a SNIP... no more effort than that... no more backward compatibility.

          At that moment, several hundred billion spreadsheets would be dead... except that Google stands ready to help. Lotus and Wordperfect all over again.

          And in the coming move to a big iron cloud that you only interact with, seldom running things at your own desk, and having incredible implications for the cell phone market as well (important in itself, but also a thing utterly beyond MS control, which is how ideas win - Blu-Ray won the moment its capacity increased significantly as suddenly why would anyone buy a few hundred million computers with 60% of the optical storage - nothing to do with movies like the HD people aimed at - the whole second, unrelated market thing is massive in economics), Google is poised, like MS remembers itself, to go from a few percent of the market to 90% in a couple years, then enjoy 20-30 years resting on their laurels, milking it. If they make the milking choice, knowing their end would come similarly, someday.

          So a big iron cloud, with no Windows needed, and a competitor built on that model... what is MS's profit going to do under those circumstances?

          Or they can do a wee bit of work and satisfy both sides of this issue (there is an argument in here the OTHER way around, though it gets little interest as they are winning right now and not anticipating having to argue their side again). Stave off the liquidators a while longer.

          Or not. But it is not actually that hard to shift major programs. We've done it before, as a society, and we will do it again. Here? Maybe? If we have to. It's a pain, but not an unending one and makes room for a whole new generation to rise bringing new (old) ideas with them. So... whatever MS. IGNORE us. P*ss on us with mendacity (read ol' Johnny's message to us) and outright lies. See where it gets you.

          I will have a perfectly functional spreadsheet to use whether it is yours or Google's. To steal from NFL Films: "YOU make the call."

          Roy commented  · 

          Yep, that's the one.

          In the Support article it implies/makes clear that if the entry does NOT exist, you have MDI. MAYBE that is the case in a version that has MDI for a default. Hoever, my Excel 16 has SDI as a default and I was strictly limited to File|Open or everything created a new instance. After creating the entry and giving it the value of zero, rather than no entry at all, I got some capabilities back, for instance, being able to drag a file from Explorer onto the instance of Excel and it would open in that instance where before creating the entry, it would open its own instance.

          So take the "no entry at all is the same thing" that they either say or imply with several grains of salt.

          Roy commented  · 

          @Doug Reid:

          Sadly, it is no longer my most recent registry edit and it seems to have been deleted from here, a whole string of comments and comments back, 6-7-8 by different people. So I cannot say for sure.

          However, based upon memory, it was in a key in the Office structure and that key had a LOT of entries. In addition, it was a DWORD entry.

          So I will say it is the following key you want to add it to:

          Computer\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\16.0\Excel\Options

          or whatever corresponds in your system. It has entries for Custom Margins through Monitor Topology Fingerprint through Use System Separators.

          The name to add is, I believe (not from memory this time, but because it seems to fit best and EVERY other one there is pretty clearly not it):

          DisableMergeInstance

          and the value to give it is zero ("0").

          (Because it is asking if you want to DISABLE merging instances which would disable all the MDI characteristics it will let you have. So 0 = False, as disbaling is NOT what you want to do, and should leave things enabled.)

          As I mentioned, it is not a return to MDI, and I went back and forth on it and deleted it too, hinking it had done nothing. Even thought it was a "ha ha" comment from a jack*ss until one of the comments had a Microsoft link for it (the real kind, one of their notes on how to work around their *****-ups, which, to be fair, though not happy, they DO come up with and offer while lots of others don't at all). Then I put it back in and suddenly caught on to the wording.

          The wording is like the way people write ballot initiatives, so a vote against turns out to be a vote for...

          Given the other stretch of comments is gone, I'm thinking this will only last so long and then be gone too. Stupid, really, given that I am less aggravated now I have this much, and one would expect others would be too, but... "beauro-think," aside from being the oxymoron of oxymorons, is a strange thing.

          Roy commented  · 

          The registry modification DOES help out a bit. Now I can drag a file from Explorer onto the instance of Excel I have open and it will open in that instance where before the modification, it just wouldn't.

          However, that's aggravating to do. Clicking on the file in Explorer still launches a new instance of Excel. Don't get me wrong, I'm not undoing the modification but it isn't MDI.

          Further, I still can't drag an attachment onto the running instance of Excel and have it fire up. Won't open it at all. And every method of actually opening it opens a new instance of Excel. So... not MDI in the least.

          Lol, boy, they sure showed all of us "How could you not have a separate Undo stack for each file" people, didn't they? With SDI, it's completely not a problem...

          Lord, the way some people apparently think...

          Roy commented  · 

          Yes, this is about "Unless I PURPOSELY choose an opening method that starts a new instance of Excel for opening some new file, I want every file I open in the same instance of Excel, NO MATTER HOW I DELIVER THE INSTRUCTION TO OPEN."

          So I open 50 spreadsheets? They are ALL in one instance of Excel. I might have used File|Open, I might have clicked on a desktop icon, I might have "Explored" for the file and clicked on it, I might be opening an attachment in an email: WHATEVER way I told it to open, it opens in that one instance of Excel.

          If that causes problems, they are my problems.

          Further, the idea this has to do with solving some issue with two monitors is either very particular to certain situations or I have, without the least effort or knowledge on my part, hit upon, utterly by chance, the better solution to it because for two years using 2013 I never experienced the issue. That reallllly suggests it is only in certain very particular situations, eh?

          And I can't even get the functionality by being careful in limiting how I open things. For example, I can "Explore" for a file and drag it onto the window for my single instance of Excel and I get the desired result though certainly not by just clicking on the file as I'd prefer. BUT... an attachment from Outlook simply WILL NOT open that way. I have no choice at all but to accept the second instance. So I cannot, through great care and effort even simulate the way it should work without effort. I imagine I shall find other instances in which this is the case.

          Further, we often have pairs of files we need to open here and for it to be done by users with no interest in learning the least thing about Excel. Until now, we could set up a couple icons, label one "Whatever-First" and the other "Whatever-Second" and they'd handle THAT flawlessly. Now that is going to open them in two different instances of Excel and quite fail to make one available to the other. Yay.

          And this back and forth business... New version of Excel? Oh yeah... it reverses the decision made on this in the last new version. So we have to go back and forth with this issue and when people have different versions... Spreadsheets are supposed to be quick-ish and simple-ish solutions to problems, especially ad hoc problems, not a new source of problems!

          They won't make simple, obvious changes to functions (like CHOOSE()... we ought to be able to give it a range and it would choose from the elements of the range... but it treats the range itself as an element... if we want to select from the cells in the range, we have to type each cell or its contents individually: i.e.: should be CHOOSE(3,A1:A4) returns A3's contents, but now we get an error and must use, say, CHOOSE(3,A1,A2,A3,A4) to get A3's contents) because, oh my, it could affect millions of users and their now "legacy" work. OK. Pretty valid, as a starting point. BUT... how is it something like this which is extraordinarily basic to usage can be changed willy-nilly with not just one sea change, like I mention for CHOOSE(), but with each new version hitting the streets??? Back and forth, back and forth.

          Of course, given the reponse to our desires and comments (as opposed to the useless and mendacious "attention" they get), maybe I should just be grateful the back and forth could have some very small component of responsiveness to the other side of this argument... Grateful to the gods that I got a crust of bread three weeks ago rather than railing at them for starving the three weeks since?

          That's not acceptable.

          And it wasn't really responsiveness to preference and utility that the other side claimed/claims anyway. It was that multiple monitor situation. Those folks railed for a long time, like we are now, and some still do because they still have versions that do what we like, and never really got a response. People with a "real problem" got a response, and the rest of us got slotted into a group called "whiners" and, you know, you can never content a whiner so why try at all, right?

          Well, since the last comment was meant to clarify so that some don't provide comment arguing for the opposite of the idea (Hope I haven't somehow misunderstood myself... could be I need to find a different suggestion to follow and support... by now I could be arguing against myself!) further clouding the issue though MS clearly understands each side of it and would be indulging in mendacity if they claimed we don't even know what we want.

          What I want is at the start of this comment: one instance with natural opening via all the ways Windows and Excel provide for opening files yielding them all open in the one instance and the ability via, among other possible ways, of forcing multiple instances by using Ctrl-Click on the Excel icon. Only intentionally opening a new instance would do so, not that being the default. (Hope I'm in the right place to support that... it'd be embarrassing as well as non-productive if I'm not...)

          Roy commented  · 

          Good Lord. Some loser keeps putting posts in with the "F" word for two out of every three words (you've seen them by their dozens), and I put "S a t a n" (do I need to say "without the spaces?) in and THAT gets asterisked out???

          This place is ****. I live in a world filled with ****-a-holics. Find a 12 Step program and work it you clowns. Just... do NOT come around to me in whatever step that "make amends" step is. Just live with that blot on your soul.

          Roy commented  · 

          Just how hard a concept is this? This has even more support than separate Undo stacks for each open file.

          And the opposite choice is just as supported.

          So... Jesus... OPTIONS... a simple setting in Options people, pick the one you want.

          Pick Always SDI and that's what you have. Pick Always MDI and that's what you have. Slight extra for the MDI folks: you can always CHOOSE to open a new instance of Excel and then open a file in it and so have SDI when desired.

          And then it's all over. Everyone is happy. Each gets his desire.

          My world was fine until IT overwrote my Excel 13 with Office 365 (32 bit even instead of 64 bit... who even thinks like that?). Now I am back to the evil world of SDI. Lived in that world four to two years ago, then lived in heaven, now today I'm back watching for ***** to come striding by.

          OPTIONS. Man o man people, just how hard is this?

          Roy supported this idea  · 
        • 1 vote
          Sign in
          Check!
          (thinking…)
          Reset
          or sign in with
          • facebook
          • google
            Password icon
            Signed in as (Sign out)

            We’ll send you updates on this idea

            Roy commented  · 

            That will work, sort of, if you drop the ROW() part. But it will use ALL columns in rows 1 through 10. It DOES faithfully do it though, so if you really want ALL columns in rows 1 through 10, just use:

            =SUMIF(INDIRECT("1:10"),"<5") (no need to use CSE to make it an array formula)

            (It creates an array for the INDIRECT() result containing all the values in rows 1-10, then performs the test "<5". Since arrays inside formulas are limited in size, it might mislead you if you are inspecting results inside the formula using the F9 trick since you are forcing Excel to try to type out the array it is creating. But left alone it will do its thing.)

            Because it creates an array of values IN the cells from the INDIRECT() portion, ROW() has no actual references to work with. Since it isn't needed, just remove it.

          • 2 votes
            Sign in
            Check!
            (thinking…)
            Reset
            or sign in with
            • facebook
            • google
              Password icon
              Signed in as (Sign out)

              We’ll send you updates on this idea

              Roy supported this idea  · 
            • 2 votes
              Sign in
              Check!
              (thinking…)
              Reset
              or sign in with
              • facebook
              • google
                Password icon
                Signed in as (Sign out)

                We’ll send you updates on this idea

                Roy supported this idea  · 
              • 2 votes
                Sign in
                Check!
                (thinking…)
                Reset
                or sign in with
                • facebook
                • google
                  Password icon
                  Signed in as (Sign out)

                  We’ll send you updates on this idea

                  Roy supported this idea  · 
                • 4 votes
                  Sign in
                  Check!
                  (thinking…)
                  Reset
                  or sign in with
                  • facebook
                  • google
                    Password icon
                    Signed in as (Sign out)

                    We’ll send you updates on this idea

                    Roy commented  · 

                    I like that, never thought of it:

                    =VLOOKUP(A3,A2:D5,MATCH("Baker",A1:D1),FALSE)

                    (If "Baker" happened to be a column heading). Have to use the column the lookup values are in too, of course, or add "1" to its result, but otherwise, it is a sweet way to do what Excel used to do naturally.)

                    Thanks!

                    Roy supported this idea  · 
                    Roy commented  · 

                    I do more or less what Sergei does, but my usage would be:

                    COLUMN(AM1) - COLUMNS(A:E)

                    (You could use "AM:AM" but that's extra for no good reason. And you could use "A1:E1" but that's... you get the idea. And using a range that covers column A through the last column before the table starts avoids the "+1" which is extra...)

                    If you will only be looking up the one column, or just a few (you be the judge of "a few"), you can create Named Ranges for them. If not using the ranges for any other purpose, it doesn't matter what cell/s are in the range, so simply using AM1 for the Named Range (call it "ColumnAM" maybe, here anyway) lets you use: (with Named Range "NotUsed" = A:E)

                    COLUMN(ColumnAM) - COLUMNS(NotUsed)

                    But maybe the solution could include the idea that in this kind of context COLUMN() would return the number of the column relative to the range just specified AND let us use the column name. So:

                    =VLOOKUP(A2,F:AM,AM,FALSE)

                    would number F:AM as 1-34, not 6-39 and AM as the column to return would be numbered as 34, not 39 s ocould be directly specified.

                    Actually, however they'd do it internally, of course, but it would look that way to us. They essentially do that now, but make US number the column relative to the table. Since the functions we could use, like COLUMN() are outside the lookup's context, we can't return the column relative to the table directly. So we have this disconnect. Makes more sense for THEM to regard the table as having columns 6-39, not 1-34 as they do now, so the USER can use functions whose context is the bigger world of the whole sheet.

                    They could maintain backward compatibility, instead of breaking a trillion existing spreadsheets, by adding an argument after "True/False" which would specify the 6-39 idea if entered, or the current use if missing (as all current uses of the functions (VLOOKUP has relatives, a brother and a cousin, so to speak) would present). That would even cover ad hoc lookup ranges created using the "CHOOSE({1,2,...},...)" technique.

                    But this alone would pretty much do all that I guess... I'd just like the bigger issue made more sensible as well. Definitely deserves my vote!

                  • 523 votes
                    Sign in
                    Check!
                    (thinking…)
                    Reset
                    or sign in with
                    • facebook
                    • google
                      Password icon
                      Signed in as (Sign out)

                      We’ll send you updates on this idea

                      Thanks to Graham for starting this conversation. If you would also like Excel to maintain named range references and structured table references in the “applies to” field for Conditional Formatting rules, please add your comments and vote this one up. We will prioritize accordingly.

                      Thanks,
                      Steve (MS Excel)

                      Roy commented  · 

                      Absolutely with the Named Ranges.

                      Two things to remove:

                      Example setup: Range is given as A1:E10 (which it ALWAYS changes to $A$1:$E$10 and THAT needs to go away too). Test cell is the D column. D1 controls the formatting for all five row 1 cells, and so on down the table. I copy a cell from the D column, one from INSIDE the table, not AX348, and paste it on D1 and now the range covered is modified to exclude cell D1. It is considered in the test, but not for the formatting. That is just... poorly conceived. And monstrously ruinous. In any case, a cell should be able to take any pasting and while its "real" formatting would take on the copied cell's "real" formatting, but all that has nothing to do with the conditional formatting engine's work which is applied afterwards, like a layer. It never "belongs" to the cell and so should be utterly unaffected and should make no changes in its behavior. Certainly it should not delete the cell from the range affected!

                      Second thing and some related guff associated is implicit intersection with a relative position touch in the operation of the formatting. If I say, with the selected cell being D1, cell D1 is to be tested (say... =D1<>""), no $ characters, and put material in the other four cells, they all take the formatting. If I then edit the rule to be the range I've been using, it instantly changes to be NOT "if cell D1 is such and such" but rather that the third cell from the starting cell is to be tested for the starting cell (D1 controls A1, E1 controls B1, F1 controls C1, etc. Change the condition to be "D$1" A1 and B1 take the formatting but not the rest (in row 1), and B1 is back to looking at E1, and so on. There's no question of what the active cell is after the rule is set up, pick one outside the range and it's the same, so it is looking at the EXPLICIT thing you typed and taking it relatively (this is more complicated and literal implicit intersection also takes place). You type it literally as something and it is still "interpreted." there doesn't seem to be much a priori reason to be this way. After people all get used of course, maybe... but it sure makes it obnoxious...

                      Roy supported this idea  · 
                    • 4 votes
                      Sign in
                      Check!
                      (thinking…)
                      Reset
                      or sign in with
                      • facebook
                      • google
                        Password icon
                        Signed in as (Sign out)

                        We’ll send you updates on this idea

                        Roy commented  · 

                        @RL: You are DEAD wrong. Lots of us LOVE MDI. See:

                        https://excel.uservoice.com/forums/304921-excel-for-windows-desktop-application/suggestions/11706627-restore-mdi-file-handling-open-all-files-in-one-w?tracking_code=f368ca87ec8c46369c18ba20d75eae9a

                        Word still uses MDI. No matter how I open documents in Word, even opening two files from Outlook, I have a single instance of Word running (see Task Manager) though Word PRESENTS them in separate windows, as one would expect. ONE instance of Word, lots of windows, no problem. Me likee.

                        If I open two Excel files from Outlook, they are in utterly separate instances of Excel (see Task Manager), utterly independent of each other (separate Undo stacks even and one can do this with several copies of files having the same name: because they are in separate instances of Excel).

                        It's a nightmare for lots of reasons including whacked behavior with VBA, inability to truly copy and paste between them, formulas that need the second file open can't work because it is in a whole different world...

                        We want the MDI world back.

                        I can even use the Spike between the Word documents which I cannot do if I force two separate instances to open. That's MDI, no matter how many windows are open, it is still just a single instance of the program.

                        It replaced a mess of programs that opened single instances for each document OR opened them all in a single window (like Excel's Panes still do). Now the windows were independent of the program and could be shifted about even onto different monitors and carry the program framework (like the Ribbon) with each instead of having to share the program's real estate.

                        Supposedly, and I doubt this as I have plain vanilla equipment and never experienced it, SOME, not even all (definitely not me either way) folks had problems getting them onto their second or fourteenth monitors and Excel changed back to SDI to solve that. Since that would have only been a few (say 100,000 stockbrokers and day traders vs. 2 billion other users) it seems mendacious. It DOES solve bigger complaints like the common Undo stack (not now, separate programs, eh?) and not being able to open, at the same time, two (or more) files that have the same name. So it seems more likely they had that kind of thing in mind, but that's like butchering the baby and then throwing it out with the bathwater: no kind of desirable thing at all.

                        Don't misunderstand SDI: it has NOTHING to do with opening windows for each document. Nothing at all. It is about opening the new instances (which are as completely separate as opening one of Excel and one of Lotus 123 would be).

                      • 3 votes
                        Sign in
                        Check!
                        (thinking…)
                        Reset
                        or sign in with
                        • facebook
                        • google
                          Password icon
                          Signed in as (Sign out)

                          We’ll send you updates on this idea

                          Roy supported this idea  · 
                        • 2 votes
                          Sign in
                          Check!
                          (thinking…)
                          Reset
                          or sign in with
                          • facebook
                          • google
                            Password icon
                            Signed in as (Sign out)

                            We’ll send you updates on this idea

                            Roy commented  · 

                            Yes indeed.

                            Starting the 100 year window at 1930 made some... sort... of sense in 1980-ish, but clearly needs to be moved forward a decade every decade. Should NOT be hard to do either.

                            Roy supported this idea  · 
                          • 2 votes
                            Sign in
                            Check!
                            (thinking…)
                            Reset
                            or sign in with
                            • facebook
                            • google
                              Password icon
                              Signed in as (Sign out)

                              We’ll send you updates on this idea

                              Roy supported this idea  · 
                            • 11 votes
                              Sign in
                              Check!
                              (thinking…)
                              Reset
                              or sign in with
                              • facebook
                              • google
                                Password icon
                                Signed in as (Sign out)

                                We’ll send you updates on this idea

                                Roy commented  · 

                                As a minimum, it should be upgraded to include a second argument: a date formatting string to tell Excel exactly how the input string is formed.

                                At present, it seems to use the computer's Windows setting for date to interpret the input string. So their own example of Feb 23, 2011 works for me if entered as "2011/02/23" but does not if entered as "2011/23/02".

                                That is ridiculous, if one thinks about it. A spreadsheet not only could be USED by a few dozen variations on that theme, presumably breaking it when the users' formats don't match, but also because its input data could be SOURCED from around the world.

                                This forces one to have to clean data that might already be perfectly clean and well-formed. Wonderfully consistent in its creation. But useless until worked on either by hand, formula, or macro.

                                For its display, it seems like the cell's formatting would be good, but one could argue that some.

                                But any way you look at it, it HAS to be upgraded.

                                Going off-subject a small bit, but related:

                                There's another Suggestion out there, "cousin" related, that I'm told (by its author) I misunderstood but I like my thought better. That would be that Excel would present every language version of Excel date formatting using language appropriate characters (if Sri Lanka uses "j" for month, then instead of "mmm" to show, say, "Feb", they'd format using "jjj"). HOWEVER, Excel itself would represent the formatting internally in one single way no matter the language version (perhaps "mmm" in this case, perhaps something else). Send the spreadsheet to a customer or co-worker in Mexico and using a Spanish language version and when he opens it, those formatting characters would display to him appropriately for Spanish (maybe "mmm") and any edits he made would have the same thing happen and when you then opened it afterwards in your Sri Lanka language version, you'd still see characters appropriate to your language.

                                Roy supported this idea  · 
                                Roy commented  · 

                                Or simply add a format value to the formula formation: =DATEVALUE("20170802","YYYYMMDD") or for someone else perhaps it would be: =DATEVALUE("8/2/2017","MM/DD/YYYY"). One would obviously use only date specific codes in the second parameter, but those would easily tell Excel how to parse the first parameter's data. And it could easily allow reference to cells where the date data is or formulas that resolve to a date format (so one could us IF() to deal with a variety of formats in the date data (not all input data is clean) or to add the year to a month and day source. One might even create a second parameter that forces a mask: =DATEVALUE("20170802","MM/15/YYYY").

                              • 763 votes
                                Sign in
                                Check!
                                (thinking…)
                                Reset
                                or sign in with
                                • facebook
                                • google
                                  Password icon
                                  Signed in as (Sign out)

                                  We’ll send you updates on this idea

                                  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!

                                  John, Excel

                                  Roy commented  · 

                                  Guys, I'm done arguing the point with the following last bit:

                                  No. And further, I have two instances showing up in Task Manager and Ending one's process leaves the other open and happy.

                                  That is from opening them by opening files from Explorer one at a time. One istance opens, then the second. And third. I did the screen capture after Ending it so it doesn't show there.

                                  Normal file opening techniques yet separate instances like when you forced them for years if you had to make Undo not a problem. NOT NOT NOT opening normally and creating separate windows but really being one instance.

                                  And no related Undo stacks.

                                  Well, I guess I don't see how to add a file to the comment, so no screenshot.

                                  Roy commented  · 

                                  @Dave:

                                  Yes, exactly... IF you have a single instance of Excel open. For instance, I can open Excel, then open a second file in that instance with File|Open. Those two files will behave precisely as you relate.

                                  However, if I open an instance of Excel, and a file in it, then open a new instance of Excel (using Ctrl-Click for example, in the wonderful version I used to have that supported MDI), and open a file in it, the two files I have open are UTTERLY separate when it comes to the Undo function.

                                  This has been the case for a very long time, and for those of us who had to edit a couple spreadsheets at the same time (editing one, say, and the boss calls and wants you to edit a second one right then), we would open a second instance, on purpose, with Ctrl-Click. And the two would be safe from each other.

                                  The problem happens when Excel releases versions that do NOT support MDI, they are SDI only, out of the box. Then the Undo stacks are separate, by default. Hey! This problem is solved! No more whiners like me!

                                  People claim it was meant to solve some esoteric problem that I've never seen or heard of involving two or more monitors. Maybe. But I have plain vanilla equipment and never saw any problem yanking maximized Excel windows from monitor to monitor or even extending the workspace over both, so I don't buy it as a big enough problem to need solved over MY back.

                                  And htough I meant the below comment about them doing it to solve this problem as a bitter, bitter, joke, the longer I think about it, the more it seems like they meant it to "solve" this problem.

                                  Rememmber, if the second instance you open does not have a problem with your Personal spreadsheet already being open, then it is simply a new window for the first instance, not a separate instance like we see.(Or you don't have a Personal workbook. Lol. there's that possibility.) Open something, then open (Ctrl-Click) a second instance, see the warning about the Personal spreadsheet being in use already, then open a new something there. Then check the Undo function like I mentioned.(Maybe the mention is in the MDI suggestion.) You'll see what I mean.

                                  Roy commented  · 

                                  "Anonymous" posted the Support link I could not remember:

                                  https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/help/3165211/how-to-force-excel-to-open-in-a-new-instance-by-default

                                  (posted it after my comment in the MDI suggestion:

                                  https://excel.uservoice.com/forums/304921-excel-for-windows-desktop-application/suggestions/11706627-restore-mdi-file-handling-open-all-files-in-one-w?tracking_code=854d5e956e3785f7b97ddcbdb33bd5c0

                                  )

                                  Adding my comment, because he was doing more than giving us the exact link:

                                  "Yep, that's the one.
                                  In the Support article it implies/makes clear that if the entry does NOT exist, you have MDI. MAYBE that is the case in a version that has MDI for a default. Hoever, my Excel 16 has SDI as a default and I was strictly limited to File|Open or everything created a new instance. After creating the entry and giving it the value of zero, rather than no entry at all, I got some capabilities back, for instance, being able to drag a file from Explorer onto the instance of Excel and it would open in that instance where before creating the entry, it would open its own instance.
                                  So take the "no entry at all is the same thing" that they either say or imply with several grains of salt."

                                  tl;dr? Make the entry even though it implues (or states) you don't need to. The instance above that I mention as probably when no entry is fine will NOT be the case for anyone suffering from the SDI issue so make the entry.

                                  Roy commented  · 

                                  @Ed Hansberry:

                                  No. If I have two instances of Excel, they have completely separate Undo stacks.

                                  I just experimented in case I was wrong. Completely and absolutely separate. If I fill four cells in one and four cells in another, the hit Ctrl-Z eight times, the first four are still populated. Fill the second four back up and hit Ctrl-Z, the fourth one empties. Switch instances, and Ctrl-Z empties the fourth celll in the first instance. So, no. They are NOT interrelated.

                                  I meant it as a joke anyway, of the bitter variety. (Which is why I experimented before replying, in case my observational memory was not utterly correct.)

                                  As to SDI allowing the movement of files between monitors, well, maybe it does. HOWEVER, as I noted a few weeks ago, I could ALWAYS do precisely that between my two, completely cookie-cutter monitors and my one built on the Dell motherboard graphics card. Maybe people with better hardware have issues, but I never did and I absolutely will not buy that I have some "perfect storm" of hardware, coincidence, and providential choices with bizarre setup otions that every other person in the world missed.

                                  So... No to that as well. Whatever it DID alleviate, it was not an endemic problem with multiple monitors. To be honest, it was probably a stock watcher complaint. Gamers. People using systems meant to run on obscure combinations of settings because full-bore, cutting edge tech just isn't perfect. The rest of us, I'm betting, experienced what I always did and never bought the other anyway.

                                  And finally, SDI means one instance after another of Excel. Literally the same as opening Calc and Excel give you separate instances of programs for spreadsheets. MDI allows a hundred files to be opened in one instance using ANY method of opening Widnows itself supports, not just opening from that instance's File|Open method.

                                  With that registry fix I mentioned, I have some of that back. Just not all, and since one glaring one lacking is opening atachments from Outlook, it's still a huge problem for me, not just an occasional annoyance.

                                  But no, the first thing is completely wrong. And the second is not a matter of any concern for any average user. Nice they fixed it for a few unhappy people, but did they have to ***** 130,000,000 others to make 50,000 stockbrockers and day-traders happy? No.

                                  Roy commented  · 

                                  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:

                                  https://excel.uservoice.com/forums/304921-excel-for-windows-desktop-application/suggestions/11706627-restore-mdi-file-handling-open-all-files-in-one-w?tracking_code=ed54178708d5ae046e142c16184f5720

                                  but, hey, don't support it! It solves Undo completely! Yay...

                                  Roy commented  · 

                                  'Tis empty.

                                  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.

                                  Roy commented  · 

                                  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!)

                                  Roy commented  · 

                                  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:

                                  Word's "spike"

                                  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.

                                  Roy commented  · 

                                  Indeed, about cross-workbook links. It is hard to see how, when the work is always one-way (note that linking back and forth is two one-way flows, not somehow a single flow).

                                  Link from A to B and the work is in A's undo stack. And vice-versa. Not complex at all, and I doubt complicated either.

                                  The truth is that this must be a function that is utterly buried in original programming and MS fears what they might break by attacking it. But that need not be a problem. One simply programs the good Undo stack approach using what I s'pose would be called a new stack, distinct from the old stack's place in memory, and adds a bit of code to make the old approach's stack simply a dead end - anything that reads it is directed to the new stack.

                                  "Simply" being... semi-loosely defined of course.

                                  But it would make the old code dead since it can't affect anything, and give us a properly functional, modern if you will, Undo stack. With code that can be accessed in the future.

                                  Roy commented  · 

                                  Wow... all we have to do is keep voting! Over two years since ADMIN pumped us up with that "Under Review" and 509 votes and about 1 person in 10 even comments...

                                  ... and ... here we are still wishing without even a mendacious update from ADMIN to keep us pumped up...

                                  Seems to me I remember Pavlov's experiment had some data showing dogs, after conditioning, still having some degree of salivary response that was measurable as far as 10,000 trials without rewards. Something to consider?

                                  Since nothing else seems to be getting considered here.

                                  Roy supported this idea  · 
                                • 124 votes
                                  Sign in
                                  Check!
                                  (thinking…)
                                  Reset
                                  or sign in with
                                  • facebook
                                  • google
                                    Password icon
                                    Signed in as (Sign out)

                                    We’ll send you updates on this idea

                                    Roy supported this idea  · 
                                  • 135 votes
                                    Sign in
                                    Check!
                                    (thinking…)
                                    Reset
                                    or sign in with
                                    • facebook
                                    • google
                                      Password icon
                                      Signed in as (Sign out)

                                      We’ll send you updates on this idea

                                      Roy supported this idea  · 
                                    • 204 votes
                                      Sign in
                                      Check!
                                      (thinking…)
                                      Reset
                                      or sign in with
                                      • facebook
                                      • google
                                        Password icon
                                        Signed in as (Sign out)

                                        We’ll send you updates on this idea

                                        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!

                                        Thanks,
                                        John [MS XL]

                                        Roy supported this idea  · 
                                      • 203 votes
                                        Sign in
                                        Check!
                                        (thinking…)
                                        Reset
                                        or sign in with
                                        • facebook
                                        • google
                                          Password icon
                                          Signed in as (Sign out)

                                          We’ll send you updates on this idea

                                          Thanks for the suggestion Nick. We’ve got some related work we’re looking at soon, and we’ll be sure to carefully consider if we can get a fix in for this then. As always, more votes helps – so keep voting for the things you care about most.

                                          Thanks,
                                          John [MS XL]

                                          Roy supported this idea  · 
                                        • 239 votes
                                          Sign in
                                          Check!
                                          (thinking…)
                                          Reset
                                          or sign in with
                                          • facebook
                                          • google
                                            Password icon
                                            Signed in as (Sign out)

                                            We’ll send you updates on this idea

                                            Roy supported this idea  · 
                                          ← Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8

                                          Feedback and Knowledge Base