<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Excel Date Conversion (Days from 1900)</title>
	<link>https://www.kirix.com/stratablog/excel-date-conversion-days-from-1900</link>
	<description>Application Spotlight</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:51:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>https://www.kirix.com/stratablog/excel-date-conversion-days-from-1900#comment-695</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:12:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://www.kirix.com/stratablog/excel-date-conversion-days-from-1900#comment-695</guid>
		<description>That Excel "Year 1900 bug" in Excel was not a bug but a real feature: When Excel was designed, it was far from being the market leader, and 1-2-3 was the de-facto standard for spreadsheets and macros.

Excel was designed to be compatible with 1-2-3, but initially corrected the 1-2-3 "Y1K" bug, but this broke several macros during testing, and during the realease meetings, Bill Gates requested that the bug be reinstated to insure 100% compatibility with 1-2-3 spreadsheets!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That Excel &#8220;Year 1900 bug&#8221; in Excel was not a bug but a real feature: When Excel was designed, it was far from being the market leader, and 1-2-3 was the de-facto standard for spreadsheets and macros.</p>
<p>Excel was designed to be compatible with 1-2-3, but initially corrected the 1-2-3 &#8220;Y1K&#8221; bug, but this broke several macros during testing, and during the realease meetings, Bill Gates requested that the bug be reinstated to insure 100% compatibility with 1-2-3 spreadsheets!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>