MSHFlexGrid not scrolling beyond 65,535 rows - see Q253211. Any fix?
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: MM on 19 Jun 2010 16:12 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:38:31 GMT, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >MM <kylix_is(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>The good software is the kind that doesn't have a bug that prevents >>rows past 65,535 from being viewed. > >The first version of the grid had a built-in limit of what, 2048 rows? >Something like that. > >I'm in awe that you and whoever else can't see that populating a grid with >65000 records is lunacy. Nobody can read all that. With more than a few >dozen rows people eyes begin to glaze over. Did you miss my comment re MergeCells, then? MM
From: Karl E. Peterson on 21 Jun 2010 16:16 David Kaye explained : > I'm in awe that you and whoever else can't see that populating a grid with > 65000 records is lunacy. Nobody can read all that. With more than a few > dozen rows people eyes begin to glaze over. Nonetheless, one of the *MAJOR* selling points in Office 2007 is the expansion of Excel spreadsheets to 2^14 columns and 2^20 rows! ;-) (The old limits were 2^8 and 2^16, respectively.) -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org Customer Hatred Knows No Bounds at MSFT ClassicVB Users Regroup! comp.lang.basic.visual.misc Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-september.org
From: ralph on 21 Jun 2010 17:22 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:16:43 -0700, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: >David Kaye explained : >> I'm in awe that you and whoever else can't see that populating a grid with >> 65000 records is lunacy. Nobody can read all that. With more than a few >> dozen rows people eyes begin to glaze over. > >Nonetheless, one of the *MAJOR* selling points in Office 2007 is the >expansion of Excel spreadsheets to 2^14 columns and 2^20 rows! ;-) > >(The old limits were 2^8 and 2^16, respectively.) Such an expansion represents an increase in the total items the application can store and subsquently viewable in the raw worksheet, not unlike an MSAccess table in an MSAccess project. However, every Office developer's guide within the first few chapters immediately advises various methods to assemble "views" to make the data more manageable if not more "user-friendly". In 35+ years of programming I've never seen a single client application that didn't prosper with improved "views" and a reduction in the data presented. -ralph
From: Karl E. Peterson on 21 Jun 2010 18:03 It happens that ralph formulated : > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:16:43 -0700, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> > wrote: > >> David Kaye explained : >>> I'm in awe that you and whoever else can't see that populating a grid with >>> 65000 records is lunacy. Nobody can read all that. With more than a few >>> dozen rows people eyes begin to glaze over. >> >> Nonetheless, one of the *MAJOR* selling points in Office 2007 is the >> expansion of Excel spreadsheets to 2^14 columns and 2^20 rows! ;-) >> >> (The old limits were 2^8 and 2^16, respectively.) > > Such an expansion represents an increase in the total items the > application can store and subsquently viewable in the raw worksheet, > not unlike an MSAccess table in an MSAccess project. > > However, every Office developer's guide within the first few chapters > immediately advises various methods to assemble "views" to make the > data more manageable if not more "user-friendly". > > In 35+ years of programming I've never seen a single client > application that didn't prosper with improved "views" and a reduction > in the data presented. Well, sure, but there's never been a model with enough dataspace, and sometimes you just gotta go looking at the raw stuff. :-) -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org Customer Hatred Knows No Bounds at MSFT ClassicVB Users Regroup! comp.lang.basic.visual.misc Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-september.org
From: ralph on 21 Jun 2010 22:36
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:03:25 -0700, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: > >Well, sure, but there's never been a model with enough dataspace, and >sometimes you just gotta go looking at the raw stuff. :-) Ha. And if not we would go looking for some way to do so. Which reminds me of a particular boring episode in my past - a sure sign of old age ... Way back when, when I was young, a C Unix Systems programmer, and thus assured I knew everything, I was contracted to provide a Venix workstation access to a proprietary mainframe database (some kind of Craig/204 look-a-like). I was having trouble with the data so I went to the DBAs and asked to see the raw records. Insisting there was no way I could make sense of the data without it. They had a pained look, but said they would take care of it. The next morning I walked in my office to find three boxes full of fan-fold print out. I spent a few days pretending to peruse it in detail. -ralph |