Yeah, this is old news but I just found it and I am pumped! I just hope they can get this implemented on the Mac side before February 2008 when I run out of column space.
Why would anyone need 16,000 columns and over 1,000,000 rows? Especially when you can have multiple worksheets.
I am always amazed by this question. It seems that all kinds of users utilize Excel for very different reasons. Some use more rows, I use more columns, some make a graph for school. What a neat program that all people use it. Excel is the closest thing MS has done correctly. Not sure what that says.
Currently, there are only 256 columns availible. That sucks! That limits the size of a matrix I can multiply easily compared to have 16,000+ columns. I have never ran out of rows, although my wife does daily and using two worksheets gets freekn' tideous for the stuff we do at our work (we don't work together but are both engineers).
This brings Excel up to date, possibly still behind where it should be in my mind but at least we are making some freekn' progress after more than a decade of me waiting for this feature.
I am always amazed by this question. It seems that all kinds of users utilize Excel for very different reasons. ...
Yes, and in many of these areas, Excel is a really blunt instrument. The worst example of this I have heard of was a writer who submitted to his print shop a novel typed into a single cell of an Excel spreadsheet. I would bet dollars to donuts that if dutch pear understood the structure of his ASCII data files, he could use a grep-enabled text editor to significantly reduce the number of cells he is using.
The matrix multiplication part is what engineers/researchers need. I rarely get over 31 x 31 (however many NFL football teams are going that year ), I will multiply that matrix a few times over for entertainment value only.
I would bet dollars to donuts that if dutch pear understood the structure of his ASCII data files, he could use a grep-enabled text editor to significantly reduce the number of cells he is using.
well, uh, thank you for that little self-esteem booster...
Fortunately I have quite a good grip on the structure of my data files as I helped in writing the program that stores them....
And no, I cannot significantly reduce the number of cells I'm using as every row stores unique electrophysiological recordings with every column representing a different channel.
Excel is a wonderful product but really if you are going to be working with matrices heavily you shouldn't be using Excel. It was never designed to compete with the other packages out there for those purposes. That said as an engineer I appreciate how ridiculously over used it is, it's even worse in some financial arenas, so it's a very welcome change.
And no, I cannot significantly reduce the number of cells I'm using as every row stores unique electrophysiological recordings with every column representing a different channel.
....
It sounds as though you would be much better served by a true graphing/charting application. Spreadsheets are best used for cell-by-cell calculations. Graphing apps are best for column-by-column calculations. Suffice it to say, they beat Excel by a mile for graphs. I prefer KaleidaGraph. DeltaGraph produces beautiful presentation graphs. Many Windows-using scientists and engineers swear by Origin.
It sounds as though you would be much better served by a true graphing/charting application. Spreadsheets are best used for cell-by-cell calculations. Graphing apps are best for column-by-column calculations. Suffice it to say, they beat Excel by a mile for graphs. I prefer KaleidaGraph. DeltaGraph produces beautiful presentation graphs. Many Windows-using scientists and engineers swear by Origin.
Since excel indeed does not fullfil my needs and my university is extremely windows-centered, origin is one of the main programs me and my colleagues are using. Definitely not apple-grade usability and ease-of-use but extremely powerfull for creating publication-grade graphs.
Well this is a blow for Apple and the next version of Office for Mac if ever I saw one. This will outright make the next version of Office for Mac unusable in many circles. I simply couldn't live without VBA and I know many other people that are the same.
Quote:
Virtual PC isn’t the only Microsoft technology getting the axe — Microsoft also indicates that it is discontinuing support of Visual Basic scripting in the next version of Office for Mac
Millions of rows seems ripe for a database like PostgreSQL, Oracle, etc.
Well, I was mainly talking about the current excel versions which won't go above 70000 (?) rows.
Usually my Max is about 1 million rows and 30 columns. Origin handles that just fine and I doubt such a database app can create the kind of graphics I need.
Comments
My bad. We get over 16,000 columns (compared to the several hundred we have now) and over 1,000,000 rows.
Why would anyone need 16,000 columns and over 1,000,000 rows? Especially when you can have multiple worksheets.
Why would anyone need 16,000 columns and over 1,000,000 rows? Especially when you can have multiple worksheets.
well, for example when you have to import giant ascii files from your research equipment and excell refuses...
Sure, you *can* work around that, but other software imports these data just fine (and can create acceptable graphs from it...)
Why would anyone need 16,000 columns and over 1,000,000 rows? Especially when you can have multiple worksheets.
I am always amazed by this question. It seems that all kinds of users utilize Excel for very different reasons. Some use more rows, I use more columns, some make a graph for school. What a neat program that all people use it. Excel is the closest thing MS has done correctly. Not sure what that says.
Currently, there are only 256 columns availible. That sucks! That limits the size of a matrix I can multiply easily compared to have 16,000+ columns. I have never ran out of rows, although my wife does daily and using two worksheets gets freekn' tideous for the stuff we do at our work (we don't work together but are both engineers).
This brings Excel up to date, possibly still behind where it should be in my mind but at least we are making some freekn' progress after more than a decade of me waiting for this feature.
I am always amazed by this question. It seems that all kinds of users utilize Excel for very different reasons. ...
Yes, and in many of these areas, Excel is a really blunt instrument. The worst example of this I have heard of was a writer who submitted to his print shop a novel typed into a single cell of an Excel spreadsheet. I would bet dollars to donuts that if dutch pear understood the structure of his ASCII data files, he could use a grep-enabled text editor to significantly reduce the number of cells he is using.
I would bet dollars to donuts that if dutch pear understood the structure of his ASCII data files, he could use a grep-enabled text editor to significantly reduce the number of cells he is using.
Fortunately I have quite a good grip on the structure of my data files as I helped in writing the program that stores them....
And no, I cannot significantly reduce the number of cells I'm using as every row stores unique electrophysiological recordings with every column representing a different channel.
Compression sure, but only lossless.
....
And no, I cannot significantly reduce the number of cells I'm using as every row stores unique electrophysiological recordings with every column representing a different channel.
....
It sounds as though you would be much better served by a true graphing/charting application. Spreadsheets are best used for cell-by-cell calculations. Graphing apps are best for column-by-column calculations. Suffice it to say, they beat Excel by a mile for graphs. I prefer KaleidaGraph. DeltaGraph produces beautiful presentation graphs. Many Windows-using scientists and engineers swear by Origin.
It sounds as though you would be much better served by a true graphing/charting application. Spreadsheets are best used for cell-by-cell calculations. Graphing apps are best for column-by-column calculations. Suffice it to say, they beat Excel by a mile for graphs. I prefer KaleidaGraph. DeltaGraph produces beautiful presentation graphs. Many Windows-using scientists and engineers swear by Origin.
Since excel indeed does not fullfil my needs and my university is extremely windows-centered, origin is one of the main programs me and my colleagues are using. Definitely not apple-grade usability and ease-of-use but extremely powerfull for creating publication-grade graphs.
Virtual PC isn’t the only Microsoft technology getting the axe — Microsoft also indicates that it is discontinuing support of Visual Basic scripting in the next version of Office for Mac
well, for example when you have to import giant ascii files from your research equipment and excell refuses...
Sure, you *can* work around that, but other software imports these data just fine (and can create acceptable graphs from it...)
Millions of rows seems ripe for a database like PostgreSQL, Oracle, etc.
Millions of rows seems ripe for a database like PostgreSQL, Oracle, etc.
Well, I was mainly talking about the current excel versions which won't go above 70000 (?) rows.
Usually my Max is about 1 million rows and 30 columns. Origin handles that just fine and I doubt such a database app can create the kind of graphics I need.