L
Luis
Hi,
Why Microsoft doesn't give more capacity in worksheets?
Thanks
Luis
Why Microsoft doesn't give more capacity in worksheets?
Thanks
Luis
F
Frank Kabel
Hi
maybe because if you need that many rows of data a database is the
better type of application
maybe because if you need that many rows of data a database is the
better type of application
J
JE McGimpsey
Technical answer:
Because back in the days of expensive clock cycles, using 16-bit
addresses (which can hold integer values from 0-65536) was a good
tradeoff for performance.
Business answer:
Because, at least so far, the market demand (i.e., additional units of
Office sold) for expanding the row limitation hasn't justified the cost
of rewriting, debugging and testing millions of lines of code.
Most jobs that require more than 65536 rows would be better done using a
database application.
Because back in the days of expensive clock cycles, using 16-bit
addresses (which can hold integer values from 0-65536) was a good
tradeoff for performance.
Business answer:
Because, at least so far, the market demand (i.e., additional units of
Office sold) for expanding the row limitation hasn't justified the cost
of rewriting, debugging and testing millions of lines of code.
Most jobs that require more than 65536 rows would be better done using a
database application.
L
Luis
Thanks to you both.
B. Gates has a great team working hard. Maybe Excel should be used like
databases with a bit more of improvement.
Luis
B. Gates has a great team working hard. Maybe Excel should be used like
databases with a bit more of improvement.
Luis
F
Frank Kabel
Hi Luis
just to be sure: NeitherJE nor I are Microsoft employees but as you
'only' Excel users
just to be sure: NeitherJE nor I are Microsoft employees but as you
'only' Excel users
N
Nick Hodge
John
One other consideration of course, unlike virtually any other MS product,
except possibly the platforms, they have to consider issues with billions of
existing users around the globe with versions back as far as possibly
version 5, but realistically 7, (95), which had only 16k rows.
There dilemma is, what do you do with the extra data when someone sends you
a file with greater than the number of rows you have. Simply, you make the
file formats incompatible, but that's a brave move with all the versions of
97, 2000, 2002, 2003 and, in your case 2004 out there
--
HTH
Nick Hodge
Microsoft MVP - Excel
Southampton, England
(e-mail address removed)
One other consideration of course, unlike virtually any other MS product,
except possibly the platforms, they have to consider issues with billions of
existing users around the globe with versions back as far as possibly
version 5, but realistically 7, (95), which had only 16k rows.
There dilemma is, what do you do with the extra data when someone sends you
a file with greater than the number of rows you have. Simply, you make the
file formats incompatible, but that's a brave move with all the versions of
97, 2000, 2002, 2003 and, in your case 2004 out there
--
HTH
Nick Hodge
Microsoft MVP - Excel
Southampton, England
(e-mail address removed)
J
JE McGimpsey
Very true. I seem to recall someone at MS making the comparison that, if
0.1% of Word users objected to any particular change, those people would
fill tens of football stadia.
Installed base is also a major component of the cost/benefit ratio -
given that there has been an underwhelming shift to Office2003, would
file incompatibility make potential upgraders stay home in droves?
0.1% of Word users objected to any particular change, those people would
fill tens of football stadia.
Installed base is also a major component of the cost/benefit ratio -
given that there has been an underwhelming shift to Office2003, would
file incompatibility make potential upgraders stay home in droves?