65536 Rows for how long????

[Guest]

Hi there!
I was wondering: is Microsoft planning on expanding the 65536 row limit?
They most deffinitely should!
Best regards,
Albert

 

[Opinicus]

I was wondering: is Microsoft planning on expanding the 65536 row limit?
They most deffinitely should!

Why "certainly"?

 

[Guest]

Well, not "certainly", but its certainly my opinion.
I think 65536 is not enough. I believe that, among other things, Excel was
made for managing large amounts of information efficiently. I think that in
this day and age, 65536 rows is not enough. Of course one can develop
workarounds and multi-region databases and other stuff, but I feel its time
to grow... It would be lovely if they could grow to the millions!
best Regards,
Albert

 

[Biff]

Excel 2007 will be out in a few months.

It will have 16,384 columns and 1,048,576 rows.

Biff

 

[Guest]

That's gonna be sooooo cool.
Thx

Excel 2007 will be out in a few months.

It will have 16,384 columns and 1,048,576 rows.

Biff

 

[Michael Bednarek]

That's gonna be sooooo cool.

.... and break much VBA code. Of course, those who never assumed that the
number of rows is a constant or only used Long variables for row indices
have nothing to fear.

 

[Harlan Grove]

Albert wrote...

That's gonna be sooooo cool.

....

No, it'll create more problems than it solves. Few humans can cope with
thousands of rows much less the tens of thousands that Excel has
provided since Excel 97. Then there's the small problem of spreadsheet
size.

If you need to process datasets with more than 65K records, you really
shouldn't be using spreadsheets.

That said, about time Microsoft expanded the number of columns.

 

[Bob Umlas]

Last cell is
XFD1048576
Ranges which WERE named something like Bob1 are renamed _Bob1 (leading
underscore). While this is fine for the Excel piece, VBA code will break:
Range("Bob1").Select, for example, will NOT be changed to
Range("_Bob1").Select
So, if you ARE expecting to upgrade, then if you have some extra time, you
can get a heads up on changing those names ahead of time!

 

[Biff]

Bob,

Does *every* named range start with a leading underscore?

Biff

 

[Bill Sharpe]

Hi there!
I was wondering: is Microsoft planning on expanding the 65536 row limit?
They most deffinitely should!
Best regards,
Albert

Quattro Pro has had 1,000,000 rows for some time now. I've never gotten
past about 2,000 rows so far in any spreadsheet I've created. QP has the
nice feature of being able to specify how many total rows and columns
there are in any spreadsheet you create. You can have a one by one
spreadsheet if you really want to call attention to cell A1!

Bill

 

[Harlan Grove]

Biff wrote...

Does *every* named range start with a leading underscore?

....

You don't have the beta with which to test?

BOB1 is a valid cell address in .xls{x|m|b} files, and Excel has only
one name space for both cell addresses and defined names, so BOB1
becomes ambiguous while ZZZ12345 doesn't. Therefore, BOB1 changes to
_BOB1 while ZZZ12345 remains ZZZ12345.

Adding to the fun, if an .xls file contains the defined names FOO1 and
_FOO1, when you save it as an .xls{x|m|b} file, the existing defined
name _FOO1 remains as-is while the original defined name FOO1 becomes
__FOO1 (that's 2 underscores). So it's not going to be just a simple
text processing exercise to fix macros that refer to such defined names.

 

[Harlan Grove]

Bill Sharpe wrote...
....

Quattro Pro has had 1,000,000 rows for some time now. I've never gotten
past about 2,000 rows so far in any spreadsheet I've created. QP has the
nice feature of being able to specify how many total rows and columns
there are in any spreadsheet you create. You can have a one by one
spreadsheet if you really want to call attention to cell A1!

Going further afield, WingZ had a 32768 by 32768 grid back in the early
1990s, but the interface was so unusual it guaranteed few spreadsheet
users would switch to it. Many Unix/Linux/BSD spreadsheets have had
more than 1,000 columns and 100,000 rows for over a decade.

A cynic might believe that only the emergence of OpenOffice at a price
point even Microsoft would find difficult to beat has led (perhaps
dragged, kicking & screaming) Microsoft to expand Excel's worksheet
capacity for the first time in 9 years.

Excel 97 (8) was a huge improvement over Excel 5/95 (7), and Excel 2K
(9) at least introduced some siginificant new features and fixed
others. However, Excel 2002 (10) and 2003 (11) have been at most minor
version updates for full upgrade price. Basically, Microsoft had done
the bare minimum necessary to sell upgrade units over the last two
upgrades, so it was about time they got to work.

 

[Biff]

You don't have the beta with which to test?

No.

Ok, I understand. Since the new expanded grid has a cell address of BOB1,
Excel adds the underscore.

Biff