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.

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/

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.

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

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

"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

...
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...

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?