A colleague of mine has created some macros with your respective helps, and
in their use weve found something odd arise.
And the outcome appears to depend on the version of excel under which the
file was created.
Weve got two workbooks. One came from excel 1997, and the other from excel
2007.
In reviewing all of the row heights, and column widths, both worksheets are
identical.
In reviewing the page set up scaling, alignment, headers/footers, margins,
etc€¦, both sheets are identical.
In every way that we can readily identify, both worksheets are identical.

However€¦..
In selecting a €œview side by side,€� as well as when we print them out, they
have what appears to be a zoom scale difference€”even though the zoom for both
is set at 70%.
Weve found that with both the screen view, and the print out, when set to
compare their view, the row heights, and column widths do not align, as one
would expect. At the bottom, and at right, by as much as ¾€�.
Weve been looking on the newsgroup, as well as using Chips €œGoogle Search€�
tool, and cannot find anything thatd explain this discrepancy, or how to
rectify it.
By and large this appears to be mostly an aesthetic issue more than a core
issue. However, as our documents are accessible for the public, we really
want to have as common appearing a form as possible.

Anything one can offer to explain what's occuring will be much appreciated.
.. .

I suspect it has to do with your print settings. In the Page Setup dialog box
and in the page tab the scaling section may be different. To get them exactly
the same you'll need to make sure the 'Adjust to...' option is selected and
make the percentage the same for both.

"owlnevada" wrote:

A colleague of mine has created some macros with your respective helps, and
in their use weve found something odd arise.
And the outcome appears to depend on the version of excel under which the
file was created.
Weve got two workbooks. One came from excel 1997, and the other from excel
2007.
In reviewing all of the row heights, and column widths, both worksheets are
identical.
In reviewing the page set up scaling, alignment, headers/footers, margins,
etc€¦, both sheets are identical.
In every way that we can readily identify, both worksheets are identical.

However€¦..
In selecting a €œview side by side,€� as well as when we print them out, they
have what appears to be a zoom scale difference€”even though the zoom for both
is set at 70%.
Weve found that with both the screen view, and the print out, when set to
compare their view, the row heights, and column widths do not align, as one
would expect. At the bottom, and at right, by as much as ¾€�.
Weve been looking on the newsgroup, as well as using Chips €œGoogle Search€�
tool, and cannot find anything thatd explain this discrepancy, or how to
rectify it.
By and large this appears to be mostly an aesthetic issue more than a core
issue. However, as our documents are accessible for the public, we really
want to have as common appearing a form as possible.

Anything one can offer to explain what's occuring will be much appreciated.
. .

We checked that and previously one was 83% and the other was 100%. We always
print one wide by one high so the "Fit to" is always checked. It sure seems
like its dragging some screen attribute forward from when the file was first
created years ago and we need a way to reset it somehow. . . .

"Jayson" wrote:

I suspect it has to do with your print settings. In the Page Setup dialog box
and in the page tab the scaling section may be different. To get them exactly
the same you'll need to make sure the 'Adjust to...' option is selected and
make the percentage the same for both.

"owlnevada" wrote:

A colleague of mine has created some macros with your respective helps, and
in their use weve found something odd arise.
And the outcome appears to depend on the version of excel under which the
file was created.
Weve got two workbooks. One came from excel 1997, and the other from excel
2007.
In reviewing all of the row heights, and column widths, both worksheets are
identical.
In reviewing the page set up scaling, alignment, headers/footers, margins,
etc€¦, both sheets are identical.
In every way that we can readily identify, both worksheets are identical.

However€¦..
In selecting a €œview side by side,€� as well as when we print them out, they
have what appears to be a zoom scale difference€”even though the zoom for both
is set at 70%.
Weve found that with both the screen view, and the print out, when set to
compare their view, the row heights, and column widths do not align, as one
would expect. At the bottom, and at right, by as much as ¾€�.
Weve been looking on the newsgroup, as well as using Chips €œGoogle Search€�
tool, and cannot find anything thatd explain this discrepancy, or how to
rectify it.
By and large this appears to be mostly an aesthetic issue more than a core
issue. However, as our documents are accessible for the public, we really
want to have as common appearing a form as possible.

Anything one can offer to explain what's occuring will be much appreciated.
. .

Hi Jayson,
I'm OwlNevada's colleague.
As stated in the original post-- everything that we can identify is
identical.
I did check the scaling, and it's set to a 1 wide, by 1 tall scale.
With each row height and column width identical, as well as a row for row,
column for column count and usage being identical, this does not account for
so large a difference.
I could see a difference if there were more rows, or more columns, but
there's 48 rows, and 18 columns-- in each workbook. Then, the row heights are
set to 18, and the column widths are set to their respective widths-- at
identical locations.
So that's not it.

Then as to scaling, he was incorrect, it's not 83% on one, and 100% on the
other (that'd definitely explain it), it's 73%, and 83%. However, those are
not the set scales. We've selected "fit to" 1 wide, by 1 tall.
Oh, and on the matter of scaling. The workbook with the 73% scale is
narrower, yet taller.
And the workbook with the 83% is shorter, and wider.
The width ratio is correct, but the height ratio is backwards.
One would expect that the 83% scaled workbook worksheet to be taller.

However, all this means nothing, because the scale is set to one page wide,
and one page tall.

And in setting the scales to be 73%, or 83% on both, the one that was 73% is
forced into a second page- down. Thus, while the width may then be correct,
the height is still off.

Thus, our post on the topic.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.


Hence, the post.



"Jayson" wrote:

I suspect it has to do with your print settings. In the Page Setup dialog box
and in the page tab the scaling section may be different. To get them exactly
the same you'll need to make sure the 'Adjust to...' option is selected and
make the percentage the same for both.

"owlnevada" wrote:

A colleague of mine has created some macros with your respective helps, and
in their use weve found something odd arise.
And the outcome appears to depend on the version of excel under which the
file was created.
Weve got two workbooks. One came from excel 1997, and the other from excel
2007.
In reviewing all of the row heights, and column widths, both worksheets are
identical.
In reviewing the page set up scaling, alignment, headers/footers, margins,
etc€¦, both sheets are identical.
In every way that we can readily identify, both worksheets are identical.

However€¦..
In selecting a €œview side by side,€� as well as when we print them out, they
have what appears to be a zoom scale difference€”even though the zoom for both
is set at 70%.
Weve found that with both the screen view, and the print out, when set to
compare their view, the row heights, and column widths do not align, as one
would expect. At the bottom, and at right, by as much as ¾€�.
Weve been looking on the newsgroup, as well as using Chips €œGoogle Search€�
tool, and cannot find anything thatd explain this discrepancy, or how to
rectify it.
By and large this appears to be mostly an aesthetic issue more than a core
issue. However, as our documents are accessible for the public, we really
want to have as common appearing a form as possible.

Anything one can offer to explain what's occuring will be much appreciated.
. .