Re: Mail merge limit word 2000

thanks for that

I will bear that motto in mind

;-)
Craig


"Peter Jamieson" <pjj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23T3WxqHQHHA.3316@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I should only need 100 - 150 fields max, so I should be ok with that

"Experiment first, relax later" is my motto :-)

we are planning to upgrade to everyone 07 later in the year are there
many other changes I should look out for

As far as MailMerge is concerned,
a. there were significant changes betwen 2000 and 2002/2003: The standard
user interface is different. Word tries to connect to most types of data
source using OLEDB by default. In 2000 it can't use OLEDB, and uses DDE by
default for Access and Excel, and converters or ODBC for other things.
There are more security-related pop-ups. Some fields behave differently if
they are nested inside IF fields. And so on. You'll find various pages of
very useful stuff in the Word section of Graham Mayor's site at
www.gmayor.com to do with that.
b. the most noticeable change in 2007 is in the user interface of course.
I would say it is better for Mailmerge than 2002/2003 but still very
unfamiliar for 2000 users. A less noticeable changes is that 2002/2003
used OLEDB+the Access/Jet engine to connect to Access, Excel, and some
other types of data source. Jet has been modified and renamed as "Ace",
and that's what Word 2007 now uses - it has to, in order to be able to
connect to Excel XML format .xlsx files, for example.
c. other than that, I haven't been using 2007 long enough to find other
things that might "break".

Peter Jamieson


"C" <c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t8adnaW-YpEFBiXYnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
Thanks very much for that,

that's great news

I should only need 100 - 150 fields max, so I should be ok with that

as for 2002 and 3 we have various versions in the offices so I will give
it a test

we are planning to upgrade to everyone 07 later in the year are there
many other changes I should look out for

I don't want to have to remake this

thanks again
Craig



"Peter Jamieson" <pjj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O0QVhMHQHHA.5012@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The limit of 63 fields only really applies if your data source is a Word
table, because they cannot have more than 63 columns.

Generally speaking if your data source is a text file, you can have far
more columns (I do not think that there is a published limit, but there
are people with over 1000. That said, the larger and more complex the
file gets, the less likely Word is to recognise the file format easily,
and at that point, people sometimes have to choose another format). So
if you're just adding a few, you should be OK for a long time yet.

Things have changed a bit in Word 2002/2003 but mainly it's to do with
the default method that Word uses to open text and other files. If you
have problems in those versions of Word, the first thing to try is to
check Word Tools|Options|General|"Confirm conversion at Open", then
re-connect to your data source. You should see an additional box that
lets you select the connection method. But if you need to be sure that
/your/ application will work on Word 2002/2003, there's really only one
way and that's to try it with that version.

Peter Jamieson
"C" <c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:yvudnWBr96iQFiXYnZ2dnUVZ8smonZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
Hi all

I noticed somewhere on the word Microsoft site that word 2000 had a
limit of 63 fields that it could use in a mail merge, but I am
currently working on a file that has 65 fields on it and it needs to
grow some more.

could some please verify the limit if there is one and has this changed
in later versions of offices. I cant seem to find any updates on the
web.

thanks very much
Craig









.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mail merge limit word 2000
    ... As far as MailMerge is concerned, ... the most noticeable change in 2007 is in the user interface of course. ... XML format .xlsx files, for example. ... Generally speaking if your data source is a text file, ...
    (microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields)
  • Re: How to Merge data from an ascii file into a Word Doc
    ... The approach Graham originally suggested uses Mailmerge and Mailmerge fields. ... When your document is connected to a mailmerge data source and you re-open it, you get that SQL message. ... The approach I suggested and which Graham has added to does not rely on mailmerge, uses DOCVARIABLE fields rather than mailmerge fields, and does not result in the SQL message. ... Dim iCount As Integer ...
    (microsoft.public.word.docmanagement)
  • Re: insert mailmergefields in word 2007
    ... One possible reason why MailMerge changed quite radically between the 2000 and 2002 versions was because lots of ordinary users didn't really understand mailmerge or how to use it - for them, having the ability to attach a header probably looks like a complication rather than a desirable feature. ... From a programming/software design point of view, there are other awkward questions, e.g. what to do if the header fields don't match the fields in a data source attached later in the process. ... Support for header files has been gradually removed since Word 2000, ...
    (microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields)
  • Re: Creating a date field in 3 day in advance of current date
    ... One of the problems with Word and dates is that whatever the format used by the data source to store dates, by the time Word gets its data from the data source, it is typically actually in text format. ... This, AFAICS, is the reason for a rather nasty kludge in recent versions of Word - which is that Word actually changes its interpretation of date strings such as 2/9/2009 depending on whether or not it is connected to a data source using OLE DB. ... Then connect to an Excel data source. ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)
  • Re: Creating a date field in 3 day in advance of current date
    ... One of the problems with Word and dates is that whatever the format used by the data source to store dates, by the time Word gets its data from the data source, it is typically actually in text format. ... This, AFAICS, is the reason for a rather nasty kludge in recent versions of Word - which is that Word actually changes its interpretation of date strings such as 2/9/2009 depending on whether or not it is connected to a data source using OLE DB. ... Then connect to an Excel data source. ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)