Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Can't get pages larger than 55 cm??
Hi,
I need to get a page layout of 90 x 120 cm (35 x 47 inch.), but Word give me an error saying that only max 55cm sizes are allowed. Is there any solution? Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Nope. Hard coded limit of 22 inches, which sounds like about 55 cm. Use a
different program. And please don't post the same message twice in different newsgroups, as it means someone will likely waste their time giving you help you already received elsewhere. On 6/6/05 8:30 AM, "balbar" wrote: Hi, I need to get a page layout of 90 x 120 cm (35 x 47 inch.), but Word give me an error saying that only max 55cm sizes are allowed. Is there any solution? Thanks. -- Daiya Mitchell, MVP Mac/Word Word FAQ: http://www.word.mvps.org/ MacWord Tips: http://www.word.mvps.org/MacWordNew/ What's an MVP? A volunteer! Read the FAQ: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nope. Hard coded limit of 22 inches, which sounds like about 55 cm. Use a
different program. Ok, I understand. But don't agree with Microsoft in introducing such a limit... commercial reasons? And please don't post the same message twice in different newsgroups, as it means someone will likely waste their time giving you help you already received elsewhere. Ok, I'm sorry. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:04:31 GMT, "balbar"
wrote: Nope. Hard coded limit of 22 inches, which sounds like about 55 cm. Use a different program. Ok, I understand. But don't agree with Microsoft in introducing such a limit... commercial reasons? This is just an educated guess, since I don't have access to Microsoft's proprietary code... The early versions of Word were written for 16-bit Windows, and a lot of their code -- or at least their basic design -- is still present in the more recent versions. For purposes of laying out text and graphics, all locations on the page are calculated from the top left corner in units of "twips" or twentieths of a point, where a point is 1/72 inch. I think that for historical reasons, all the variables that hold those measurements are 16-bit signed integers. The largest value that fits in such a variable is 32767. When you translate that number of twips to inches, it's 22.755 inches -- so I think that's where the 22-inch limitation came from. Microsoft could change the declarations of all those variables to 32-bit signed integers, which are supported by all versions of Windows after Win95, and accommodate page sizes of more than 5800 meters! However, they would also have to comb the code for all the things that depend on the current definitions, which would be a massive job. I suspect that they've considered it and failed to find an economic justification for expending the time and money. -- Regards, Jay Freedman Microsoft Word MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Jay
Jay Freedman wrote: This is just an educated guess, since I don't have access to Microsoft's proprietary code... The early versions of Word were written for 16-bit Windows, and a lot of their code -- or at least their basic design -- is still present in the more recent versions. For purposes of laying out text and graphics, all locations on the page are calculated from the top left corner in units of "twips" or twentieths of a point, where a point is 1/72 inch. I think that for historical reasons, all the variables that hold those measurements are 16-bit signed integers. The largest value that fits in such a variable is 32767. When you translate that number of twips to inches, it's 22.755 inches -- so I think that's where the 22-inch limitation came from. Microsoft could change the declarations of all those variables to 32-bit signed integers, which are supported by all versions of Windows after Win95, and accommodate page sizes of more than 5800 meters! However, they would also have to comb the code for all the things that depend on the current definitions, which would be a massive job. I suspect that they've considered it and failed to find an economic justification for expending the time and money. Interesting! IOW and if you are correct, then the OP was right: commercial reasons? [Maybe not in the sense he meant it, but kind of right :-)] Greetinx Robert -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS \ / | MVP X Against HTML | for / \ in e-mail & news | Word |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Freedman" wrote in message ... On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:04:31 GMT, "balbar" wrote: Nope. Hard coded limit of 22 inches, which sounds like about 55 cm. Use a different program. Ok, I understand. But don't agree with Microsoft in introducing such a limit... commercial reasons? This is just an educated guess, since I don't have access to Microsoft's proprietary code... But a correct guess. It was explained to me in almost identical terms by someone at Microsoft a few years ago. -- Regards Jonathan West - Word MVP www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk Please reply to the newsgroup Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
...
I think that for historical reasons, all the variables that hold those measurements are 16-bit signed integers. The largest value that fits in such a variable is 32767. When you translate that number of twips to inches, it's 22.755 inches -- so I think that's where the 22-inch limitation came from. Ok, I think your guess could be right. But... this way of programming was just bad IMHO. I understand i.e. when someone programming uses a 32 bit variable for a memory size (just an example), with a limit of 4GB, when memories at that time are smaller than 20MB. Obviously the limit will be reach a day in the future, but it is comprensible at that days. But when MS programmed Word, there ALREADY existed A0 paper format (over 55cm limit!), so if they choosen 16 bit variables they intentionally left out that large paper formats. (sorry for my bad english...) Microsoft could change the declarations of all those variables to 32-bit signed integers, which are supported by all versions of Windows after Win95, and accommodate page sizes of more than 5800 meters! However, they would also have to comb the code for all the things that depend on the current definitions, which would be a massive job. I suspect that they've considered it and failed to find an economic justification for expending the time and money. Yes, I think it's a very expensive task too, with no economic advantages because there are already other programs to work with large paper formats... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
This is WORD.
It is not a layout application, etc, etc. Lots of other apps if you need huge output. Also, you can consider a scaled-down page, compose to it, and output via Acrobat? Then "scale to page" when printing from Acrobat? Bear in mind, Word 97 was released for Win 95, which often ran under 4-8 megs of ram. Not even considering previous versions, Win 3.x, etc.... Are we spoiled, or what? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Can't get pages larger than 55 cm?? | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Page Numbering - Insertion Pages | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Printing Page Ranges with page numbers i-iv then 1-23 for 27 total | Page Layout | |||
Number of pages excluding content pages | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Printing single pages or a range of pages | Mailmerge |