Excel 2007

Assume you're long the bund a 112.20, the last price was 112.18.

If you are down 2 ticks, you close.

In Excel this could be:

A1=112.20
A2=112.18
A3=IF(A2-A1=-.02, "Sell","")

However, you would still be long because the soution =-0.0199999999999960.

This is the case with Excel '97, '02 and '07 and appears to be imprecise for quite a range.

Grant.
 
Quote from Grant:

A1=112.20
A2=112.18
A3=IF(A2-A1=-.02, "Sell","")
However, you would still be long because the soution =-0.0199999999999960.
This is the case with Excel '97, '02 and '07 and appears to be imprecise for quite a range.
Grant.
More...
Typical double precision arithmetic....easily "fixed":

A3=IF(Round(A2-A1,2)=-.02, "Sell","")
 
Syswizard,

Thank you for the reply.

The point is, this is a(nother) error, found by accident. How many more are there?

Given the ever increasing complexity and pointless features/enhancements (charting in '07, for example), it's pretty poor that the basic premise of a spreadsheet (simple arithmetic) is problematic.

Your solution works fine but this depends on knowing a fix, and knowing where it's necessary.

Fundamentally, '07 is not much of a progression from my first spreadsheet, Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS

Grant.
 
Quote from Grant:

Syswizard,

Thank you for the reply.

The point is, this is a(nother) error, found by accident. How many more are there?

Given the ever increasing complexity and pointless features/enhancements (charting in '07, for example), it's pretty poor that the basic premise of a spreadsheet (simple arithmetic) is problematic.

Your solution works fine but this depends on knowing a fix, and knowing where it's necessary.

Fundamentally, '07 is not much of a progression from my first spreadsheet, Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS

Grant.
More...

The non-responding mode is normal.

I have a huge 35 MB workbook with no links...
That takes about 45 minutes to re-calculate...
And it goes in the tank like that at least half the time.

For most applications...
There is no progression at all between Excel 97/2000 and Excel 2007...
Because this technology was optimized a long, long time ago.

It certainly wouldn't be any faster.

I'll be using Excel 2000 for the foreseeable future...
Because it's the last one you can install on unlimited machines.
 
QuantPlus,

Exactly. With or without dde's '07 is still slower than eg, '02.

Screw the fix - I'll stick with '02.

Grant.
 
Quote from Grant:
QuantPlus,
Exactly. With or without dde's '07 is still slower than eg, '02.
Screw the fix - I'll stick with '02.
Grant.
More...
I actually heard this and discussed it with the Excel product manager. He is well aware of it and they are attempting to tune Excel 2007 in future service pack releases.
My experience shows Excel 2003 is pretty darn fast, including DDE links; but COM/ActiveX is both buggy and slow. The easiest way to blow-up Excel is to reference COM components that employe event callbacks.
 
Tried Excel 2007 after using Excel 2003. I didn't like it at all. A lot of the functions were moved to different places just for the sake of change. It just seemed like what my mother used to do. She would rearrange the furniture every year just to make things look new.

A lot of the functions in Excel 2007 used to be written in English, now they are written in pictures. I can read, what do I need pictures for that take up valuable screen space?

There might be some improvements but I didn't see any point in spending all that time relearning how to use the program. I'd rather spend my time working at improving my trading.
 
Sam,

I agree. Somtimes feels more like a an acid trip.

Why I would like to see is Excel presented as stripped down programme with the option to install all the bells and whistles.

My first Lotus 1-2-3 was on a single floppy. And apart from maybe a few functions, I don't need anything else.

Grant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top