Created attachment 110442 [details]
wrong attachment,.... ;-(
I created two test documents in Excel 2013 with only one cell filled with the date '1-1-1900'
When opening the xlsx version, the date is shown correct.
When opening the xlsm version, the date is show as 31-12-1899, which is wrong.
Created attachment 110443 [details]
Created attachment 110444 [details]
tested under Win81 x64 with LO 188.8.131.52 and 184.108.40.206 master
I see 31/12/1899 in both files using LO
I see 01/01/1900 in both files using MS Excel Viewer
which is your O/S?
Windows 7, LO 220.127.116.11
I dont know what happened 2 days ago, but now i'm seeing the same as tommy27 is seeing. In LO: 31-12-1899 en in Excel2013 01-01-1900
BTW, on Linux, LO version: 18.104.22.168 i'm also seeing 31-12-1899
When opening this on a Mac, LO version 22.214.171.124, i also see 31-12-1899
opening with 'Numbers' on that Mac, shows 01-01-1900
(Mac has version 10.10.1 Yosemite)
same issue with LibO 3.3.3, OOo 3.3.0 and AOO 4.1.0
all those versions show 31.12.1899
bug is inherited from OOo.
edited summary notes.
(In reply to tommy27 from comment #5)
> same issue with LibO 3.3.3, OOo 3.3.0 and AOO 4.1.0
> all those versions show 31.12.1899
> bug is inherited from OOo.
> edited summary notes.
No. Bug is in Excel.
Pretty all spreadsheets apps knows that 1900-02-29 do not exist, except Excel.
So all dates between 1899-12-31 and 1900-03-01 are offset by 1.
Don't use Excel for dates < to March, 1st of 1900.
great!!! I suspected that and I CC'ed Italo Vignoli who told me something like that few days ago... you anticipated his confirmation so I set status to RESOLVED NOTOURBUG.
Thanks for the clarification!
The worst thing happened when i checked this.
Microsoft puts the blame for this mistake to someone else
A primary goal of computer programming is to write bug-free code. But did you know that Excel programmers created an intentional bug?
It's true. According to Excel, the year 1900 is a leap year. So if you enter the following formula, Excel won't complain, even though 29 February, 1900 is not an actual date:
The reason for this error is compatibility. In the early days of personal computing, Lotus 1-2-3 was the most popular software available. Lotus programmers made the leap year mistake, and Microsoft programmers reproduced it so they could use the same date serial number scheme as 1-2-3.
Therefore, the days of the week prior to 1 March, 1900 are incorrect (e.g., 28 February, 1900 is really a Wednesday, not a Tuesday as report by Excel). In actuality, this is not a big deal because Excel doesn't even support dates prior to 1 January, 1900 -- which itself is an oddity.
Microsoft claims, perhaps rightfully so, that fixing the bug would create many more additional problems.