I am building a worksheet that needs 262 columns. It will have 259 worksheets
linked to this main worksheet. Just wondering why the number of columns is
limited to 256.

The 256 comes from 2^8. I think it is legacy on memory considerations.

"jkp" wrote:

I am building a worksheet that needs 262 columns. It will have 259 worksheets
linked to this main worksheet. Just wondering why the number of columns is
limited to 256.

I would guess that the VAST majority of spreadsheets use nothing near the
current limit of 256 columns. In other words, I'd guess this is one of those
things that would benefit so few users that it'd be a really low priority in
my book (or should that be workbook?)

If MS could simply increase the max # without in any way affecting
performance, or without causing other, more needed features to be omitted,
then I'd be in favor of more columns. Otherwise - NO WAY.

"jkp" wrote:

I am building a worksheet that needs 262 columns. It will have 259 worksheets
linked to this main worksheet. Just wondering why the number of columns is
limited to 256.

Hi!

If so few people use all 256 columns, how many people use all 65,536 rows?

Biff

"Duke Carey" wrote in message
...
I would guess that the VAST majority of spreadsheets use nothing near the
current limit of 256 columns. In other words, I'd guess this is one of
those
things that would benefit so few users that it'd be a really low priority
in
my book (or should that be workbook?)

If MS could simply increase the max # without in any way affecting
performance, or without causing other, more needed features to be omitted,
then I'd be in favor of more columns. Otherwise - NO WAY.

"jkp" wrote:

I am building a worksheet that needs 262 columns. It will have 259
worksheets
linked to this main worksheet. Just wondering why the number of columns
is
limited to 256.

Biff

If so few people use all 256 columns, how many people use all 65,536 rows?

All the ones who think Excel is a database AND a spreadsheet.

Of course, I'm extrapolating from my little fiefdom to arrive at conclusions
about the universe of Excel users. Seems defensible, don't you think<g?

and i thought Duke was your name :)

--
Cheers
JulieD

"Duke Carey" wrote in message
...
Biff

If so few people use all 256 columns, how many people use all 65,536
rows?

All the ones who think Excel is a database AND a spreadsheet.

Of course, I'm extrapolating from my little fiefdom to arrive at
conclusions
about the universe of Excel users. Seems defensible, don't you think<g?

The main reason I'd like to see more than 256 columns: Creating a Calendar.
As is stands now, to create a 1 year calendar in Excel, you need to split it
into at least two tabs: Jan-Jun and Jul-Dec; or 4 quarerly tabs or 12 monthly
tabs. It makes managing dates a pain. In the past three years, I've had to
create about ten applications in Excel that have been hobbled because of the
column limitation.

"Duke Carey" wrote:

I would guess that the VAST majority of spreadsheets use nothing near the
current limit of 256 columns. In other words, I'd guess this is one of those
things that would benefit so few users that it'd be a really low priority in
my book (or should that be workbook?)

If MS could simply increase the max # without in any way affecting
performance, or without causing other, more needed features to be omitted,
then I'd be in favor of more columns. Otherwise - NO WAY.

"jkp" wrote:

I am building a worksheet that needs 262 columns. It will have 259 worksheets
linked to this main worksheet. Just wondering why the number of columns is
limited to 256.

Often you can change the orientation of the time line: use rows instead of
columns.
I know this can be difficult if your mental model is horizontal.
The next version of Excel (somewhere autumn 2006) will have tons more
columns (and rows)

--
Kind regards,

Niek Otten

"JSA - Plano, TX" <JSA - Plano, TX @discussions.microsoft.com wrote in
message ...
The main reason I'd like to see more than 256 columns: Creating a
Calendar.
As is stands now, to create a 1 year calendar in Excel, you need to split
it
into at least two tabs: Jan-Jun and Jul-Dec; or 4 quarerly tabs or 12
monthly
tabs. It makes managing dates a pain. In the past three years, I've had
to
create about ten applications in Excel that have been hobbled because of
the
column limitation.

"Duke Carey" wrote:

I would guess that the VAST majority of spreadsheets use nothing near the
current limit of 256 columns. In other words, I'd guess this is one of
those
things that would benefit so few users that it'd be a really low
priority in
my book (or should that be workbook?)

If MS could simply increase the max # without in any way affecting
performance, or without causing other, more needed features to be
omitted,
then I'd be in favor of more columns. Otherwise - NO WAY.

"jkp" wrote:

I am building a worksheet that needs 262 columns. It will have 259
worksheets
linked to this main worksheet. Just wondering why the number of columns
is
limited to 256.

Hi

For my taste, it's extremly cumbersome to work with tables with more
columns, than you can place on single A4 landscape sheet.

Btw. I designed a yearly calendar, which occupies a single A4 sheet. User
enters year number, and according calendar (months columnwise, weekends and
state holidays coloured differently) is displayed.

Of-course it will be different, when you need a calendar-agenda, where you
can enter various information for every day. But then my advice is to use
some database (p.e. Access), or to design the calendar as database in
Excel - on one sheet you enter all information into events table like
Date, Event
, and design one or several additional sheets as reports, where you select
p.e. some time interval (month, week, or day), and according info is
retrieved from events table. And you are free to design this report sheet as
you like am best.
Or simply use Outlook :-)


Arvi Laanemets


<JSA - Plano; "TX" <JSA - Plano, TX @discussions.microsoft.com wrote in
message ...
The main reason I'd like to see more than 256 columns: Creating a
Calendar.
As is stands now, to create a 1 year calendar in Excel, you need to split
it
into at least two tabs: Jan-Jun and Jul-Dec; or 4 quarerly tabs or 12
monthly
tabs. It makes managing dates a pain. In the past three years, I've had
to
create about ten applications in Excel that have been hobbled because of
the
column limitation.

"Duke Carey" wrote:

I would guess that the VAST majority of spreadsheets use nothing near
the
current limit of 256 columns. In other words, I'd guess this is one of
those
things that would benefit so few users that it'd be a really low
priority in
my book (or should that be workbook?)

If MS could simply increase the max # without in any way affecting
performance, or without causing other, more needed features to be
omitted,
then I'd be in favor of more columns. Otherwise - NO WAY.

"jkp" wrote:

I am building a worksheet that needs 262 columns. It will have 259
worksheets
linked to this main worksheet. Just wondering why the number of
columns is
limited to 256.