From: מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן on
Thanks again.
Since my last post I have read a few more reference, to that "problem".
Most of the posters call it a "Bug" and it seems to be such.
I checked and found that "Excel 2007/2010" behave exactly like the previous
versions - meaning, they suffer from the same "bug" [the gap between 256-1024
that displays ####s].
Micky


והמשך/י, נא, לקרוא את השורה הבאה:
***********
אם תגובתי עזרה לחץ/י, נא, על <כן> בפס האופקי התחתון!
***********
מיכאל אבידן
מנהל פורום "אופיס" ב"תפוז"
[Microsoft" Most Valuable Professional [MVP"


"Dave Peterson" wrote:

> It started with xl97 (if I recall correctly). See that other response in the
> other branch of this thread. And continues through xl2007.
>
> I'm not sure if xl2010 still has this "feature".
>
> ????? (????) ????? wrote:
> >
> > ...and is this problem [256-1024] related to all versions, of "Excel", or is
> > it unique to a single version only ?
> > Micky
> >
> > "Dave Peterson" wrote:
> >
> > > This question has been posted lots of times and responded to even more!
> > >
> > > If you see ###'s in a cell that's formatted as text and the length of the string
> > > is between 255 and 1024, you'll have this trouble.
> > >
> > > Change the format to General and the problem goes away.
> > >
> > > It's not a problem with wrapping the text. It's a problem with the text format
> > > and the length of the string.
> > >
> > > But there can be a problem seeing more than about 1000 characters in a cell --
> > > with or without wrapping.
> > >
> > > One way around the problem is to insert alt-enters (to force new lines within
> > > the cell) every 80-100 characters. You may have to manually adjust the
> > > rowheight to see much more of the text.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ????? (????) ????? wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A few weeks ago I have read, in this DG, an answer regarding this issue.
> > > > I hardly remember the answer but it had to do with "Wrapping" and if the
> > > > number of characters typed are between X and Y the result will be #######.
> > > > I will appreciate if anyone can provide a direct link to that thread [I'm
> > > > sure that who responded, to that question, will be able to locate it for me].
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > Micky
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Dave Peterson
> > > .
> > >
>
> --
>
> Dave Peterson
> .
>