Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!ags From: ags@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Bug in EXCEL v. 2.2, and a flame Message-ID: <3554@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 2 Aug 89 22:37:39 GMT References: <959@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <3531@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <16497@ut-emx.UUCP> Reply-To: ags@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) Distribution: usa Organization: Purdue University Lines: 25 In article <16497@ut-emx.UUCP> bill@emx.UUCP (Bill Jefferys) writes: >In article <3531@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ags@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) writes: >#But since it was claimed that Excel 2.2 on a Mac II >#did not agree, I decided to check it out. >This is NOT what I claimed. I said that the result on the Mac II is >correct (when you widen the field to 16 digits). Another poster >showed that on the SE/30 the answer is correct. APPARENTLY THE BUG >ONLY SHOWS UP ON A MACHINE WITHOUT THE COPROCESSOR. IT IS DEFINITELY >THERE ON A MAC+. I didn't say who made the claim. It wasn't you. Because of your typing error (which I noticed only after posting previously), everyone was posting answers that were very close to the Mac+ result and considerably different from what you gave as the Mac II result, generally with sarcastic comments about how so many different calculators were all getting the same "wrong" answer. I have verified that the bug exists on a Mac Plus. Changing the format and widening the cell does not make the displayed result any more accurate, as it does on the II. -- Dave Seaman ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu