I just finished working on a 47 meg document. It exceeded 10,000
pages. I worked with it carefully and patiently, saving and backing
up, to find/replace and do formatting. Once I got that done, I saved
it into sepearate documents, one for each volume. None is more than 8
megs, and now the true editing is going along swimmingly.
<*((((><{
Fishy@Ocean.Net
In the last exciting episode on Thu, 19 May 2005 15:23:47 -0700, Daiya
Mitchell <daiyaNOSPAM@mvps.org.INVALID> wrote:
Apparently Word 2003 Help no longer has the info that the max size is
32MB--whether this is because there is no longer a max, or just part of the
general downgrade of Help in Office 2003, I don't know.
Was your 47MB document all text? That didn't include any graphics? And
which version were you using?
Good to know if the limits are higher--for the few people who will take
advantage of that. :)
> I just finished working on a 47 meg document. It exceeded 10,000
> pages. I worked with it carefully and patiently, saving and backing
> up, to find/replace and do formatting. Once I got that done, I saved
> it into sepearate documents, one for each volume. None is more than 8
> megs, and now the true editing is going along swimmingly.
> |Word has been known to handle documents up to 10,000 pages in a single file,
> |assuming sufficient power/RAM in the computer.
> |
> |You should be fine. The max is (or was) 32MB, but that referred to text
> |only, and did not include graphics. 32MB of text is a whole lot.
<*(((><{ - 25 May 2005 20:42 GMT
Using Word 2000. It was all text. But it was a close call -- had to
close the document after 3-5 find/replace operations. And some
find/replace took 5+ minutes. Time for me to get a cup of tea. I
have 512 Megs of Ram, and a Pentium IV.
<*((((><{
Fishy@Ocean.Net
In the last exciting episode on Tue, 24 May 2005 09:34:41 -0700, Daiya
Mitchell <daiyaNOSPAM@mvps.org.INVALID> wrote:
|Apparently Word 2003 Help no longer has the info that the max size is
|32MB--whether this is because there is no longer a max, or just part of the
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
|> |You should be fine. The max is (or was) 32MB, but that referred to text
|> |only, and did not include graphics. 32MB of text is a whole lot.
Daiya Mitchell - 25 May 2005 21:01 GMT
Interesting, thanks.
DM
> Using Word 2000. It was all text. But it was a close call -- had to
> close the document after 3-5 find/replace operations. And some
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> |> |You should be fine. The max is (or was) 32MB, but that referred to text
> |> |only, and did not include graphics. 32MB of text is a whole lot.
Robert M. Franz (RMF) - 26 May 2005 09:49 GMT
> Using Word 2000. It was all text. But it was a close call -- had to
> close the document after 3-5 find/replace operations. And some
> find/replace took 5+ minutes. Time for me to get a cup of tea. I
> have 512 Megs of Ram, and a Pentium IV.
And you are positive that there were no other objects of any sort in
there? Holy Guacamole, 47 MByte of Text is a lot of Harry Potter books!!
It would be worth finding out which of the limitations of the article
below are history nowadays, and which are still in force. As Daiya
mentioned, the fact that it's not anymore in Help or at the MSFT
homepage doesn't really tell us a lot ... :-(
WD2000: Operating Parameter Limitations and Specifications
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q211489
Greetinx
Robert
PS: 512 MByte RAM is surely on the lower end for such a document ...

Signature
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word
<*(((><{ - 26 May 2005 17:36 GMT
Yeppers. All text. 17 volumes worth. :-)
<*((((><{
Fishy@Ocean.Net
In the last exciting episode on Thu, 26 May 2005 10:49:37 +0200,
| > Using Word 2000. It was all text. But it was a close call -- had to
| > close the document after 3-5 find/replace operations. And some
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
|Robert
|PS: 512 MByte RAM is surely on the lower end for such a document ...