Hi,

Have found an interesting situation. I run Office 2000, and Excel has a
neat function called "eomonth". This allows a spreadsheet to be set up with
the start and end of month dates automatically filled in. My colleague has
2003, and lo and behold, the "eomonth" function has been removed. We found a
work arround courtesy of John Wallenbeck, but have to wonder and ask the
question, WHY does microsoft remove good functionality in later versions.
Aside from the apparent illogicality of the move, it will render any
spreadsheet using that or any other simillar function, useless when opened in
a later version.

Thye general rule is that there has been backward compatibility from one
version to the next, yet this is one clear example where the backward
compatability is missing.

Does anyone have any idea why a perfectly good and workable function should
be removed?

regards

DavidC

I don't have 2003 but 2002 help for eomonth states. Could this be the
problem?

If this function is not available, and returns the #NAME? error, install and
load the Analysis ToolPak add-in.


--
Don Guillett
SalesAid Software


"DavidC" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Have found an interesting situation. I run Office 2000, and Excel has a
neat function called "eomonth". This allows a spreadsheet to be set up
with
the start and end of month dates automatically filled in. My colleague
has
2003, and lo and behold, the "eomonth" function has been removed. We
found a
work arround courtesy of John Wallenbeck, but have to wonder and ask the
question, WHY does microsoft remove good functionality in later versions.
Aside from the apparent illogicality of the move, it will render any
spreadsheet using that or any other simillar function, useless when opened
in
a later version.

Thye general rule is that there has been backward compatibility from one
version to the next, yet this is one clear example where the backward
compatability is missing.

Does anyone have any idea why a perfectly good and workable function
should
be removed?

regards

DavidC

It is an add-in. Yet one thing though the Knowledge base does not refer to
eomonth for 2003. Still my mistake and apologies to Microsoft, the function
is still available.

davidC

"DavidC" wrote:

Hi,

Have found an interesting situation. I run Office 2000, and Excel has a
neat function called "eomonth". This allows a spreadsheet to be set up with
the start and end of month dates automatically filled in. My colleague has
2003, and lo and behold, the "eomonth" function has been removed. We found a
work arround courtesy of John Wallenbeck, but have to wonder and ask the
question, WHY does microsoft remove good functionality in later versions.
Aside from the apparent illogicality of the move, it will render any
spreadsheet using that or any other simillar function, useless when opened in
a later version.

Thye general rule is that there has been backward compatibility from one
version to the next, yet this is one clear example where the backward
compatability is missing.

Does anyone have any idea why a perfectly good and workable function should
be removed?

regards

DavidC

It's still there but it needs to be installed, it has always been part of
the Analysis Toolpak (same with excel 2000), keep the Office/Excel CD handy,
do toolsadd-ins and select Analysis Toolpak and follow the instructions

--

Regards,

Peo Sjoblom

http://nwexcelsolutions.com


"DavidC" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Have found an interesting situation. I run Office 2000, and Excel has a
neat function called "eomonth". This allows a spreadsheet to be set up
with
the start and end of month dates automatically filled in. My colleague
has
2003, and lo and behold, the "eomonth" function has been removed. We
found a
work arround courtesy of John Wallenbeck, but have to wonder and ask the
question, WHY does microsoft remove good functionality in later versions.
Aside from the apparent illogicality of the move, it will render any
spreadsheet using that or any other simillar function, useless when opened
in
a later version.

Thye general rule is that there has been backward compatibility from one
version to the next, yet this is one clear example where the backward
compatability is missing.

Does anyone have any idea why a perfectly good and workable function
should
be removed?

regards

DavidC