Arnab Bose wrote
I don't think Excel actually stores all the cell properties in a huge
256x65536 array... otherwise it would take a looot of time to
execute some of the commands.
Of course it doesn't. It only stores properties for used cells
However, Excel has a bad tendency to consider lots of cells as use
that few humans would consider used.
Given the robustness of the data-structure...
What robustness of the data structure? The robustness that make
addressing a single entire column range (so 65,536 cells) an error bu
allows multiple column-all but one row ranges OK (e.g., A1:J65535 wit
653,350 cells)?
. . . I'm not sure why Excel has to be bounded with 256 columns
and 65536 rows. The only reason for this bound that I can think
of is the hindrance caused due to tradition...
This has nothing to do with tradition. Prior to Excel 97's release
Lotus 123 was still real competition for Excel. As part of the man
enhancements Microsoft made to Excel 97 so that it could be
123-killer was the expansion from 16384 rows to 65536 rows (no chang
in the number of columns). They were successful - 123 is no longer
serious alternative. Since the only serious competition Excel face
these days comes from StarOffice and OpenOffice, which are basicall
the same and provide only 32,000 rows, there's no compelling return o
investment for Microsoft to expend the resources to increase the numbe
of rows and columns in worksheets. So this has everything to do wit
basic economics.
As for the reasons you're unable to find for this, perhaps you don'
know what it takes to program a spreadsheet. Here's a link to a threa
in which Jody Goldberg participated. He *does* know how to program
spreadsheet, and he provided some insights as to why it would be
decidedly nontrivial effort for Microsoft to raise the row and colum
limits.
http://www.google.com/[email protected]
My professional work requires me to handle databases large
enough not to fit in current Excel, so I have to use SAS,
although I believe Excel would have been a better
alternative had it had the capability to deal with the size.
Except for the lack of indexed access to tables, except for the lack o
tools to ensure referential integrity, except for the crudeness o
advanced filters compared to SQL or QBE for querying tables, except fo
the lack of schema tools, etc.?
If you need a real DBMS, use a real DBMS. SAS is a lot closer to on
than Excel is.
Is there any hope of having a "Super Excel" with virtually
unlimited number rows and columns?
Not until Office's market share drops below 60% and/or Office revenue
cease to grow. Without effective competition Microsoft is more tha
pleased to sit back and do as little as possible for their upgrad
fees. There hasn't been a real *major* version upgrade to Excel sinc
Excel 2000.
If you want a spreadsheet with more columns and rows, use Quattro Pr
version 10 [WordPerfect Office 2002] or later or, if you don't mind th
exotic, Xess, which is a spreadsheet that comes from Unix
