Working with doc w/links to excel, between Widows and Mac

[Thermofonz]

Version: 2008
Operating System: Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)
Processor: intel

I work full time on Windows PC and we work with Word documents that have linked excel objects in them. I want to send these files home to my Mac to continue working on them.

In Windows, when I link an excel sheet to a word doc, I pick the excel workbook, and select a range. For example, I want to link the Balance Sheet tab to a word doc, I type in Balance Sheet!Print_Area, which will show the print area within the word doc.

I send the files home and fully expect simply change the link to the new location, on my Mac hard drive, and get bad results.

I'm not sure that it recongnizes Balance Sheet!Print_Area on my Mac.

Why isn't the Mac product fully compatible?

FYI, the files are all in the format(docx, xlsx)

 

[CyberTaz]

Sorry, but there a number of gaps in the information you supplied, without
which it's impossible to guess

What do you mean by "bad results"? Detailed & specific descriptions are
necessary because we can't see over your shoulder.

*How* do you "fully expect simply change the link"? What are you doing, how
are you going about it?

Which specific versions of Word & Excel on the PC?... On the Mac?

 

[Thermofonz]

Sorry,

I am using the 2008 on the Mac and 2003 on the PC.

What I am specifically doing is:

There are 8 different excel sheets linked into my doc. They are all in the same excel sheet. On my PC if i wanted to change the source of one of the excel sheets, I go to Edit>Link>Change Source. I then choose the excel file that I would like to be the source for the linked excel sheet. In windows, there is an "Item" button after you choose the file, that enables you to get more specific to a particuar sheet within an excel file, and a particular range within that sheet.

For example, if I want the source to be the "Balance Sheet" tab, I type Balance Sheet. I usually, in windows, type Balance Sheet!Print_Area, and the print area of the particular sheet will show up in the doc.

So anyway, I sent the two files home, the doc and the excel sheet, and tried to switch the source to the excel file on my Mac, and the link in the doc ends up showing the last tab in the excel sheet. Not the one I specified. That's what I meant by the bad data.

 

[John McGhie]

Yes, I am afraid this Windows/Mac compatibility is all fairly badly broken
in Office 2008.

If you still have a copy of Office 2004, I would put it back in. It is a
lot safer for "Windows at Work, Mac at Home" users.

There are a whole lot of fixes on the way, but some of them are going to
take time...

Cheers

Sorry,

I am using the 2008 on the Mac and 2003 on the PC.

What I am specifically doing is:

There are 8 different excel sheets linked into my doc. They are all in the
same excel sheet. On my PC if i wanted to change the source of one of the
excel sheets, I go to Edit>Link>Change Source. I then choose the excel
file that I would like to be the source for the linked excel sheet. In
windows, there is an "Item" button after you choose the file, that enables you
to get more specific to a particuar sheet within an excel file, and a
particular range within that sheet.

For example, if I want the source to be the "Balance Sheet" tab, I type
Balance Sheet. I usually, in windows, type Balance Sheet!Print_Area, and the
print area of the particular sheet will show up in the doc.

So anyway, I sent the two files home, the doc and the excel sheet, and tried
to switch the source to the excel file on my Mac, and the link in the doc ends
up showing the last tab in the excel sheet. Not the one I specified. That's
what I meant by the bad data.

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Sydney, Australia. S33°53'34.20 E151°14'54.50
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[CyberTaz]

OK, now I have a better idea - thanks for clarifying!

Unfortunately I don't have any type of simple solution. The fact is that OLE
is not as richly implemented in Mac Office as it is on the PC, and one of
the things it's lacking is the ability to link to specific ranges in the
Excel file... You either link to the *file* or you *don't*. Whatever sheet
is in the foreground when the wkbk was last saved is what displays in the
linked object. As you've probably noticed, when you create the link you
aren't even given a list of sheets or ranges. When you use Edit> Links -
Change Links it simply allows you to link to a different file, not to a
different range within the same file.

I believe there may be a way to edit the LINK field to specify a range but
I'm very fuzzy on how you'd go about it. I just played around with a few
possibilities but couldn't get more than an invalid reference:-( If I come
up with anything that works I'll post back with the info or point you to a
web page.

In the meanwhile, the only way I can suggest to get around that is to
actually go into the wkbk, select & copy the desired content, then use
Edit>Paste Special to create the link, replacing the previous link.

Although I don't argue with John's recommendation to keep 2004 around this
is one issue where it won't do you any good... 2004 has the same limitation.

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[Thermofonz]

Thanks for the post.

I'm almost positive that 2004 will allow you to do what I'm trying to do. I had 2004 on my machine and I think it worked. I don't remember having trouble with this.

It is a shame that the Mac version isn't up to par in so many areas.

I have 2 Theories.

Either Microsoft doesn't think Mac users are business people, and don't need complex functions,

or

Microsoft doesn't want to allow Macs to work side by side with PC's in the business world.

But either way, the fact is I can't work between a Mac and Windows.

 

[CyberTaz]

Well, not challenging your memory but I still have 2004 installed here &
checked before I replied - OLE implementation hasn't changed... For better
or for worse in that regard.

You're also omitting another "possible" scenario in your list of theories;

MacBU is a minute, independent & self-sufficient unit within the
Mega-Windows oriented international organization by the name of Microsoft.
Contrary to what most people think MacBU doesn't have access to the deep
pockets available to the other 95% [my guestimate] of the corporation. There
is a finite limit to what can be done based on *their* market & the
resulting return on investment. There's far more involved than just
'stamping some disks Windows & stamping others Mac'

Why people assume that the Mac version is created by taking the Windows
product & scheming to determine which key parts to remove for the Mac
version as a part of some clandestine, covert effort to submarine the
Macintosh's very existence is beyond me. If that were the case it would be
far more in MS's best interest to *ignore* the Mac platform altogether.

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[Phillip Jones]

Thanks for the post.

I'm almost positive that 2004 will allow you to do what I'm trying to do. I had 2004 on my machine and I think it worked. I don't remember having trouble with this.

It is a shame that the Mac version isn't up to par in so many areas.

I have 2 Theories.

Either Microsoft doesn't think Mac users are business people, and don't need complex functions,

or

Microsoft doesn't want to allow Macs to work side by side with PC's in the business world.

But either way, the fact is I can't work between a Mac and Windows.

Both assumptions are correct. And MS has always wanted apple to go Belly
up since Gates college days. So if if they PO Mac users and make them
go to PC , the happier they will be.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[Phillip Jones]

No they can't do that because the market is to large to ignore.

What they are trying to do is make the Mac product sub par enough to
aggravate the Mac users to abandon the Mac Platform altogether. Its a
Platform issue that goes back to the days when Apple started up and
Gates wanted in. After The Steve and Steve rejection its been a grudge
every since.

Apple has made it share of mistakes along the way. several times hiring
CEO that knew as much about computers a d software, as a cat knows how
to bark like a dog.

So there is blame on both sides.

MS has money out the wazoo and they could double and triple the budget
for MacBU and it wouldn't even put so much as a dent in their bottom line.

Well, not challenging your memory but I still have 2004 installed here &
checked before I replied - OLE implementation hasn't changed... For better
or for worse in that regard.

You're also omitting another "possible" scenario in your list of theories;

MacBU is a minute, independent & self-sufficient unit within the
Mega-Windows oriented international organization by the name of Microsoft.
Contrary to what most people think MacBU doesn't have access to the deep
pockets available to the other 95% [my guestimate] of the corporation. There
is a finite limit to what can be done based on *their* market & the
resulting return on investment. There's far more involved than just
'stamping some disks Windows & stamping others Mac'

Why people assume that the Mac version is created by taking the Windows
product & scheming to determine which key parts to remove for the Mac
version as a part of some clandestine, covert effort to submarine the
Macintosh's very existence is beyond me. If that were the case it would be
far more in MS's best interest to *ignore* the Mac platform altogether.

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

Thanks for the post.

I'm almost positive that 2004 will allow you to do what I'm trying to do. I
had 2004 on my machine and I think it worked. I don't remember having trouble
with this.

It is a shame that the Mac version isn't up to par in so many areas.

I have 2 Theories.

Either Microsoft doesn't think Mac users are business people, and don't need
complex functions,

or

Microsoft doesn't want to allow Macs to work side by side with PC's in the
business world.

But either way, the fact is I can't work between a Mac and Windows.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[CyberTaz]

Aw c'mon Phillip - you've engaged in this argument too many times to still
consider it valid If MS hasn't been able to sink Apple in a quarter of a
century it suggests that that it isn't likely to happen - certainly not by
sabotaging their own product. The concept defies logic since there are any
number of alternative products available - as you well know.

It's also been explained that MS corporate doesn't provide the MacBU budget.
MacBU is a self-sufficient entity under the corporate umbrella which is
conceptually comparable to a franchise operation like McDonald's. The
franchisor provides a certain amount of support, but it's up to the
individual franchisee to manage his own profitability. IOW, if you don't
sell enough burgers to pay the rent the big guy doesn't say "OK, here's
another million to get you through the month."

I know that neither I nor anyone else will ever change your mind - and
that's OK - but please save it for the blogs & chat rooms rather than
fueling the fire here

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

No they can't do that because the market is to large to ignore.

What they are trying to do is make the Mac product sub par enough to
aggravate the Mac users to abandon the Mac Platform altogether. Its a
Platform issue that goes back to the days when Apple started up and
Gates wanted in. After The Steve and Steve rejection its been a grudge
every since.

Apple has made it share of mistakes along the way. several times hiring
CEO that knew as much about computers a d software, as a cat knows how
to bark like a dog.

So there is blame on both sides.

MS has money out the wazoo and they could double and triple the budget
for MacBU and it wouldn't even put so much as a dent in their bottom line.

Well, not challenging your memory but I still have 2004 installed here &
checked before I replied - OLE implementation hasn't changed... For better
or for worse in that regard.

You're also omitting another "possible" scenario in your list of theories;

MacBU is a minute, independent & self-sufficient unit within the
Mega-Windows oriented international organization by the name of Microsoft.
Contrary to what most people think MacBU doesn't have access to the deep
pockets available to the other 95% [my guestimate] of the corporation. There
is a finite limit to what can be done based on *their* market & the
resulting return on investment. There's far more involved than just
'stamping some disks Windows & stamping others Mac'

Why people assume that the Mac version is created by taking the Windows
product & scheming to determine which key parts to remove for the Mac
version as a part of some clandestine, covert effort to submarine the
Macintosh's very existence is beyond me. If that were the case it would be
far more in MS's best interest to *ignore* the Mac platform altogether.

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

Thanks for the post.

I'm almost positive that 2004 will allow you to do what I'm trying to do. I
had 2004 on my machine and I think it worked. I don't remember having
trouble
with this.

It is a shame that the Mac version isn't up to par in so many areas.

I have 2 Theories.

Either Microsoft doesn't think Mac users are business people, and don't need
complex functions,

or

Microsoft doesn't want to allow Macs to work side by side with PC's in the
business world.

But either way, the fact is I can't work between a Mac and Windows.

 

[Thermofonz]

Sorry to start this. But I'm just dissapointed that I can't work seemlessly between my mac and pc. I guess I've been dreaming.

CyberTaz, I sort of see your point. If MacBU is a self sufficient company, then I could see why many of the features are not there, because the market isn't that big for Mac Office to sink the dollars and time into the product. They've got to stay profitable

Either way, its not really worth ranting and raving about it. This product doesn't do what we all wish it would do. Play nicely with Office for Windows.

It really is a perfect product for a purely Mac company, where there is little interaction between PC's and Macs, though.

The fact is all of your theories are wrong.

MacBU is just a way for Microsoft to avoid more Antitrust laws.

CyberTaz, keep up the work though. You are a great value to these message boards and hopefully Mac for Office over time will get up to par. I'll keep asking the questions.

 

[CyberTaz]

<snip>
The fact is all of your theories are wrong.

MacBU is just a way for Microsoft to avoid more Antitrust laws.
<snip>

No argument with your points until this one There are any number of
software - and hardware - developers which create exclusively for the
Windows platform. There's absolutely no reason - legal or otherwise - why MS
couldn't do the same. Likewise there are developers who supply only
Mac-compatible products. Free enterprise is a wonderful thing What
*would* be a potential anti-trust violation as well as an act of pure idiocy
is for MS to do what has been suggested here - try to undermine the
viability of the Mac platform & sabotage Apple Computer. Why should MS
compromise its own very existence for the sake of what you yourself
describe as not being "that big"?

I doubt that either of us ever will be proven "right" or "wrong" but it's an
interesting exercise

 

[John McGhie]

Sorry to start this.

You don't LOOK sorry!! You could at least wipe that evil grin off your
face!!

But I'm just dissapointed that I can't work seemlessly
between my mac and pc. I guess I've been dreaming.

Well, it's my favourite dream too. I'm with Bob, we're doing everything we
can to make it happen, just exactly like that.

CyberTaz, I sort of see your point. If MacBU is a self sufficient company,
then I could see why many of the features are not there, because the market
isn't that big for Mac Office to sink the dollars and time into the product.
They've got to stay profitable

Either way, its not really worth ranting and raving about it. This product
doesn't do what we all wish it would do. Play nicely with Office for Windows.

It really is a perfect product for a purely Mac company, where there is little
interaction between PC's and Macs, though.

I disagree with the above point! This product is not adequate on the Mac,
either The Mac professional documentation market is more demanding than
the Windows one. Macs that are being used "for business purposes" are
likely to be in pre-press, graphics design, or academia, where they
encounter huge and extremely complex documents.

The fact is all of your theories are wrong.

MacBU is just a way for Microsoft to avoid more Antitrust laws.

Well, THAT isn't working so well, then, is it?

CyberTaz, keep up the work though. You are a great value to these message
boards and hopefully Mac for Office over time will get up to par. I'll keep
asking the questions.

You keep asking the questions, please! We need the questions more than you
need the answers! If nobody asked any questions, we would then have nothing
to do in here. We would have to go out and mow the lawn, wash the car,
paint the fence, attend the gym we bought a membership to last year...
Frightening thought...

Cheers

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Sydney, Australia. S33°53'34.20 E151°14'54.50
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Thermofonz]

John,

I do have an evil grin on my face. You are right.

I doubt college kids are doing more complicated excel work than me. I use every single function excel can throw at me. I think Microsoft would learn a lot from me.

I'm in financial reporting. So I consistently work with spreadsheets and word docs that would blow your mind.

In my particular environment, a Mac would not cut it, simply because of Mac Office. That's a fact, because I've been doing the testing.

I'm not just writing based on pure opinion.

This is fun ain't it?

 

[John McGhie]

I knew it!!

The fisticuffs in here are much more fun if you include your name with your
post. Debating with anonymous people seems kinda lame

Financial reporting? Nope: Your stuff wouldn't even raise an eyebrow
where I work. Although I am financially illiterate and my comprehension
stops at the first spreadsheet I see. I have post-graduate engineers
hanging around to do that stuff -- they deserve it

My requirements are for large (? 5,000 pages) commercial documentation
required to comply with complex structural and formatting specifications.
The sort of thing sane people use to adjust the height of their monitor, or
as a door-stop.

I agree with your analysis: in my environment, Mac Office won't cut it
either. But the Mac will

Since you are in Financial Analysis, I am sure I do not have to explain to
you where the problem is

What I am hearing currently is that a lot of people have started looking
around. But I haven't heard of anyone looking "away from Mac"

Cheers

John,

I do have an evil grin on my face. You are right.

I doubt college kids are doing more complicated excel work than me. I use
every single function excel can throw at me. I think Microsoft would learn a
lot from me.

I'm in financial reporting. So I consistently work with spreadsheets and word
docs that would blow your mind.

In my particular environment, a Mac would not cut it, simply because of Mac
Office. That's a fact, because I've been doing the testing.

I'm not just writing based on pure opinion.

This is fun ain't it?

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Sydney, Australia. S33¡Æ53'34.20 E151¡Æ14'54.50
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Phillip Jones]

There is a Movement afoot to get WordPerfect for Mac going again. who
know if Corel see MS as having Pixxed off enough Mac Users Maybe they
will start going again.

I knew it!!

The fisticuffs in here are much more fun if you include your name with your
post. Debating with anonymous people seems kinda lame

Financial reporting? Nope: Your stuff wouldn't even raise an eyebrow
where I work. Although I am financially illiterate and my comprehension
stops at the first spreadsheet I see. I have post-graduate engineers
hanging around to do that stuff -- they deserve it

My requirements are for large (? 5,000 pages) commercial documentation
required to comply with complex structural and formatting specifications.
The sort of thing sane people use to adjust the height of their monitor, or
as a door-stop.

I agree with your analysis: in my environment, Mac Office won't cut it
either. But the Mac will

Since you are in Financial Analysis, I am sure I do not have to explain to
you where the problem is

What I am hearing currently is that a lot of people have started looking
around. But I haven't heard of anyone looking "away from Mac"

Cheers

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[Thermofonz]

You are correct. The Mac is not the problem. Mac Office is.

I am still hoping for the best though. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent the money to buy it.