I think we're going to need a bigger computer.

16K * 1M = 16GB just to hold one sheet full of nothing but a single
character in each cell. That's besides overhead to define the sheet and
addresses involved.

But the addition of more rows was needed, and there have been situations in
the past when 256 columns wasn't enough - mostly due to lack of foresight on
my part, and having to transform all the data on a sheet because changes made
long after the initial design ran me out of columns.

One thing I've been wondering about is how the extended row numbers will
affect 'standard practice' functions like =Range("A65536").End(xlUp) - are
all of those going to have to change to Range("A1000000").End(xlUp) or I'm
hoping they will provide a constant that is Excel version-conscious to use to
reference the highest numbered row on a sheet, maybe like Range(A &
xlLastPossibleRow).End(xlUp), where value of xlLastPossibleRow is determined
by version of Excel.

"Bob Phillips" wrote:

Excel 2007 will have 1M+ rows, and 16K columns.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"Removing multiple hyperlinks at once"
osoft.com wrote in
message ...
At work I use some information sheets that use more rows than the 65,000
or
what ever that Excel presently will allow. It would be very useful if you
could have a more unlimitied number of rows to use.
Has anyone experienced the need for this and if so how did you resolve the
issue?
Excel is a great application but that one limitation is frustrating.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.


http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...et.f unctions