Why is the maximum row height in Excel 546px?
The maximum height of a single row in Excel 2003 is 546 pixels, or 409.5 points:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/excel-specifications-and-limits-HP005199291.aspx
I'm curious as to why this number was chosen. The other limitations usually give hints into how they have historically been stored in memory. For example, the maximum number of columns and rows are 65536 (2^16) and 256 (2^8), respectively. I'm not aware of any significance of 546px or 409.5pt. Is there anything special about these numbers or is it purely random/cosmetic?
microsoft-excel-2003
edited Jul 8 '14 at 15:08
An Dorfer
1,2032713
asked Jul 8 '14 at 11:08
SnorfalorpagusSnorfalorpagus
13626
add a comment |
The maximum height of a single row in Excel 2003 is 546 pixels, or 409.5 points:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/excel-specifications-and-limits-HP005199291.aspx
I'm curious as to why this number was chosen. The other limitations usually give hints into how they have historically been stored in memory. For example, the maximum number of columns and rows are 65536 (2^16) and 256 (2^8), respectively. I'm not aware of any significance of 546px or 409.5pt. Is there anything special about these numbers or is it purely random/cosmetic?
microsoft-excel-2003
edited Jul 8 '14 at 15:08
An Dorfer
1,2032713
asked Jul 8 '14 at 11:08
SnorfalorpagusSnorfalorpagus
13626
1
I don't think a why on this can be answered. excel specs. You can overcome it by merging two cells.
– Raystafarian
Apr 18 '16 at 17:17
add a comment |
The maximum height of a single row in Excel 2003 is 546 pixels, or 409.5 points:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/excel-specifications-and-limits-HP005199291.aspx
I'm curious as to why this number was chosen. The other limitations usually give hints into how they have historically been stored in memory. For example, the maximum number of columns and rows are 65536 (2^16) and 256 (2^8), respectively. I'm not aware of any significance of 546px or 409.5pt. Is there anything special about these numbers or is it purely random/cosmetic?
microsoft-excel-2003
edited Jul 8 '14 at 15:08
An Dorfer
1,2032713
asked Jul 8 '14 at 11:08
SnorfalorpagusSnorfalorpagus
13626
The maximum height of a single row in Excel 2003 is 546 pixels, or 409.5 points:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/excel-specifications-and-limits-HP005199291.aspx
I'm curious as to why this number was chosen. The other limitations usually give hints into how they have historically been stored in memory. For example, the maximum number of columns and rows are 65536 (2^16) and 256 (2^8), respectively. I'm not aware of any significance of 546px or 409.5pt. Is there anything special about these numbers or is it purely random/cosmetic?
microsoft-excel-2003
microsoft-excel-2003
edited Jul 8 '14 at 15:08
An Dorfer
1,2032713
asked Jul 8 '14 at 11:08
SnorfalorpagusSnorfalorpagus
13626
edited Jul 8 '14 at 15:08
An Dorfer
1,2032713
asked Jul 8 '14 at 11:08
SnorfalorpagusSnorfalorpagus
13626
edited Jul 8 '14 at 15:08
An Dorfer
1,2032713
edited Jul 8 '14 at 15:08
An Dorfer
1,2032713
edited Jul 8 '14 at 15:08
An Dorfer
1,2032713
1,2032713
asked Jul 8 '14 at 11:08
SnorfalorpagusSnorfalorpagus
13626
asked Jul 8 '14 at 11:08
SnorfalorpagusSnorfalorpagus
13626
asked Jul 8 '14 at 11:08
SnorfalorpagusSnorfalorpagus
13626
13626
1
I don't think a why on this can be answered. excel specs. You can overcome it by merging two cells.
– Raystafarian
Apr 18 '16 at 17:17
add a comment |
1
I don't think a why on this can be answered. excel specs. You can overcome it by merging two cells.
– Raystafarian
Apr 18 '16 at 17:17
1
1
I don't think a why on this can be answered. excel specs. You can overcome it by merging two cells.
– Raystafarian
Apr 18 '16 at 17:17
I don't think a why on this can be answered. excel specs. You can overcome it by merging two cells.
– Raystafarian
Apr 18 '16 at 17:17
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
For the same reason as "640KB is more than enough for anyone!"?
I.e., they probably needed a limit for their view renderer and this was chosen arbitrarily but seemed "big enough" at the time.
By the way, 60 * 546 = 32,760 (8 pixels to spare) and 120 * 546 = 65520 (16 pixels to spare) so I suspect that was the arithmetic that drove that early choice.
answered Apr 26 '17 at 14:53
Atlant SchmidtAtlant Schmidt
11
This seems like pure speculation- can you back it up?
– bertieb
Apr 26 '17 at 14:55
1
Obviously it's just speculation but it's not uncommon for a viewport/pasteboard to have some sort of maximum dimension and a height of 32Ki or 64 Ki rows would be an entirely reasonable maximum. Given that, 546 divides all too conveniently into that value to produce 60 or 120 rows in the viewport.
– Atlant Schmidt
Apr 26 '17 at 15:01
I meant to reply here- now that there's a calculation that gives a reasonable account of (potentially) why, this is a better answer :)
– bertieb
Apr 27 '17 at 12:24
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f778378%2fwhy-is-the-maximum-row-height-in-excel-546px%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
For the same reason as "640KB is more than enough for anyone!"?
I.e., they probably needed a limit for their view renderer and this was chosen arbitrarily but seemed "big enough" at the time.
By the way, 60 * 546 = 32,760 (8 pixels to spare) and 120 * 546 = 65520 (16 pixels to spare) so I suspect that was the arithmetic that drove that early choice.
answered Apr 26 '17 at 14:53
Atlant SchmidtAtlant Schmidt
11
This seems like pure speculation- can you back it up?
– bertieb
Apr 26 '17 at 14:55
1
Obviously it's just speculation but it's not uncommon for a viewport/pasteboard to have some sort of maximum dimension and a height of 32Ki or 64 Ki rows would be an entirely reasonable maximum. Given that, 546 divides all too conveniently into that value to produce 60 or 120 rows in the viewport.
– Atlant Schmidt
Apr 26 '17 at 15:01
I meant to reply here- now that there's a calculation that gives a reasonable account of (potentially) why, this is a better answer :)
– bertieb
Apr 27 '17 at 12:24
add a comment |
For the same reason as "640KB is more than enough for anyone!"?
I.e., they probably needed a limit for their view renderer and this was chosen arbitrarily but seemed "big enough" at the time.
By the way, 60 * 546 = 32,760 (8 pixels to spare) and 120 * 546 = 65520 (16 pixels to spare) so I suspect that was the arithmetic that drove that early choice.
answered Apr 26 '17 at 14:53
Atlant SchmidtAtlant Schmidt
11
This seems like pure speculation- can you back it up?
– bertieb
Apr 26 '17 at 14:55
1
Obviously it's just speculation but it's not uncommon for a viewport/pasteboard to have some sort of maximum dimension and a height of 32Ki or 64 Ki rows would be an entirely reasonable maximum. Given that, 546 divides all too conveniently into that value to produce 60 or 120 rows in the viewport.
– Atlant Schmidt
Apr 26 '17 at 15:01
I meant to reply here- now that there's a calculation that gives a reasonable account of (potentially) why, this is a better answer :)
– bertieb
Apr 27 '17 at 12:24
add a comment |
For the same reason as "640KB is more than enough for anyone!"?
I.e., they probably needed a limit for their view renderer and this was chosen arbitrarily but seemed "big enough" at the time.
By the way, 60 * 546 = 32,760 (8 pixels to spare) and 120 * 546 = 65520 (16 pixels to spare) so I suspect that was the arithmetic that drove that early choice.
answered Apr 26 '17 at 14:53
Atlant SchmidtAtlant Schmidt
11
For the same reason as "640KB is more than enough for anyone!"?
I.e., they probably needed a limit for their view renderer and this was chosen arbitrarily but seemed "big enough" at the time.
By the way, 60 * 546 = 32,760 (8 pixels to spare) and 120 * 546 = 65520 (16 pixels to spare) so I suspect that was the arithmetic that drove that early choice.
answered Apr 26 '17 at 14:53
Atlant SchmidtAtlant Schmidt
11
edited Apr 26 '17 at 14:57
answered Apr 26 '17 at 14:53
Atlant SchmidtAtlant Schmidt
11
answered Apr 26 '17 at 14:53
Atlant SchmidtAtlant Schmidt
11
answered Apr 26 '17 at 14:53
Atlant SchmidtAtlant Schmidt
11
11
This seems like pure speculation- can you back it up?
– bertieb
Apr 26 '17 at 14:55
1
Obviously it's just speculation but it's not uncommon for a viewport/pasteboard to have some sort of maximum dimension and a height of 32Ki or 64 Ki rows would be an entirely reasonable maximum. Given that, 546 divides all too conveniently into that value to produce 60 or 120 rows in the viewport.
– Atlant Schmidt
Apr 26 '17 at 15:01
I meant to reply here- now that there's a calculation that gives a reasonable account of (potentially) why, this is a better answer :)
– bertieb
Apr 27 '17 at 12:24
add a comment |
This seems like pure speculation- can you back it up?
– bertieb
Apr 26 '17 at 14:55
1
Obviously it's just speculation but it's not uncommon for a viewport/pasteboard to have some sort of maximum dimension and a height of 32Ki or 64 Ki rows would be an entirely reasonable maximum. Given that, 546 divides all too conveniently into that value to produce 60 or 120 rows in the viewport.
– Atlant Schmidt
Apr 26 '17 at 15:01
I meant to reply here- now that there's a calculation that gives a reasonable account of (potentially) why, this is a better answer :)
– bertieb
Apr 27 '17 at 12:24
This seems like pure speculation- can you back it up?
– bertieb
Apr 26 '17 at 14:55
This seems like pure speculation- can you back it up?
– bertieb
Apr 26 '17 at 14:55
1
1
Obviously it's just speculation but it's not uncommon for a viewport/pasteboard to have some sort of maximum dimension and a height of 32Ki or 64 Ki rows would be an entirely reasonable maximum. Given that, 546 divides all too conveniently into that value to produce 60 or 120 rows in the viewport.
– Atlant Schmidt
Apr 26 '17 at 15:01
Obviously it's just speculation but it's not uncommon for a viewport/pasteboard to have some sort of maximum dimension and a height of 32Ki or 64 Ki rows would be an entirely reasonable maximum. Given that, 546 divides all too conveniently into that value to produce 60 or 120 rows in the viewport.
– Atlant Schmidt
Apr 26 '17 at 15:01
I meant to reply here- now that there's a calculation that gives a reasonable account of (potentially) why, this is a better answer :)
– bertieb
Apr 27 '17 at 12:24
I meant to reply here- now that there's a calculation that gives a reasonable account of (potentially) why, this is a better answer :)
– bertieb
Apr 27 '17 at 12:24
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f778378%2fwhy-is-the-maximum-row-height-in-excel-546px%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
I don't think a why on this can be answered. excel specs. You can overcome it by merging two cells.
– Raystafarian
Apr 18 '16 at 17:17