Solved: Excel only 65536 Rows.....?

[asingh]

Hi,

I was just wondering, why has the row number limit for Excel been set to 65536. Is there some logic behind this [must be...!]....what is it.........!!!

thanks and regards,


asingh

[Bob Phillips]

Hi,

I was just wondering, why has the row number limit for Excel been set to 65536. Is there some logic behind this [must be...!]....what is it.........!!!

thanks and regards,


asingh

2^16

[Len Piwowar]

Binary: 1 word 16 Bits or 2 Bytes = Dec 65535
1111111111111111 = 65535
counting 0000000000000000 gives you 65536 different possible combinations

[mdmackillop]

Hi Asingh
Excel 2007 has 2^20 rows and 2^14 columns if I remember correctly. Ready to upgrade?

[BexleyManor]

I've been using Excel 2007 but keep running back to 2003 as I'm just not fallin' in love with the new look of it at all. To me it has the look of 'Excel for children' if you know what I mean!!

Anyone else share that opinion??

[Bob Phillips]

I like the look and feel, but I get really p*#@e~d off not being able to customise it. The QAT just doesn't do it for me. And as for what it does to addins ...

[Aaron Blood]

Columns = 2^8
Rows = 2^16

I guess I've always been more puzzled by the 2^8 column setting. I mean, mathematically, programmatically, etc. I s'pose I understand why 2^8=256 and not 2^9=512.

But for what is intended to be mostly a tool for business analytics... Ya gotta consider that it might be nice to fit 365 items in rows or columns.

...and that spreadsheet/worksheet programming object thing that has a b'zillion rows and columns. Don't even get me started. I guess I might actually be able to use it now to view 2007 workbooks that exceed the column/row limitations.

I suspect that most (I said most) are like me and could care less about extra rows, but are intrigued with the idea of annual daily models now being able to fit in columns.

The extra rows... Who's excited about that? Ehhh.. maybe folks that have to dump database results into spreadsheets; or those that use spreadsheets as databases.

[stanl]

There is always OWC - Each worksheet can contain up to 702 columns and 262144 rows. Lot of disadvantages though. Stan

[Aaron Blood]

Let's face it...

There's Excel, and there's Excel.

[Ken Puls]

I've been using Excel 2007 but keep running back to 2003 as I'm just not fallin' in love with the new look of it at all. To me it has the look of 'Excel for children' if you know what I mean!!

I think that the new UI has great "sex appeal" for new users, but for those of us who know the program, it can be frustrating. Just trying to find commands can be a little bit tough, but that's just a learning curve.

Personally, I see that the new UI does make the program more accessible to newbies, though, as the most important commands do seem to show up, up front. I may be off base here, though, only time will tell.

I agree with Bob somewhat on the customization though. I can't say that I've ever really customized my toolbars to any extent, as I preferred to just cram more toolbars on the screen. I could get WAY more commands in the same space the ribbon takes up, and they were only a click away. For reference, if you do want to customize Ribbon tabs, Patrick Schmid released his Ribbon customizer addin (http://pschmid.net/blog/2006/11/30/83) yesterday.

It's the addins thing that bugs me most. I'm not a big fan of the way my menus get stuffed off in the corner. And while it's possible to integrate things with the Ribbon, it takes a LOT more code and organization than it did before. You can see one of my blog posts (http://excelguru.ca/blog/2006/11/29/modifying-the-ribbon-part-6/) for what it takes to get a checkbox to be interactive.

On the rows aspect, I hope that I never need more that 65,536 rows. By the time you get there, the workbook is HUGE, and takes forever to load. I have one that is using about 100 columns and 1000 rows, all calculations, and it's a dog. I'd hate to see that expanded over the current row or column limit!

[asingh]

But again...what made MICROSOFT decide on : : :

Columns = 2^8
Rows = 2^16

????????

:)

[mdmackillop]

Have you tried asking them?

[Bob Phillips]

But again...what made MICROSOFT decide on : : :

Columns = 2^8
Rows = 2^16

????????

:)

Because there are 8 bits in a byte, 16 in a word, arbitrary, but so would any other value, an it at least is logically abitrary.