A family of Microsoft spreadsheet software with tools for analyzing, charting, and communicating data.
I jyst spent 2 HOURS TRYING TO MAKE THE RIBBONS SMALLER! I am PISSED! Yes, please...does anyone know how to get rid of the 2” ribbon??!!!
This browser is no longer supported.
Upgrade to Microsoft Edge to take advantage of the latest features, security updates, and technical support.
I'm extremely disappointed that Microsoft has made the ribbon so HUGE and does not appear to offer any way of customizing its size other than completely collapsing it. Between the menu bar, the ribbon, the formula bar, etc. almost HALF of the screen real estate is non-content. Microsoft has it backwards, thinking the more screen space should go to the user interface rather than the content. This is maddening, and it's extremely frustrating that Microsoft doesn't allow me to customize the size of the ribbon to maximize content. Does anyone know of a work around?
A family of Microsoft spreadsheet software with tools for analyzing, charting, and communicating data.
Locked Question. This question was migrated from the Microsoft Support Community. You can vote on whether it's helpful, but you can't add comments or replies or follow the question.
I jyst spent 2 HOURS TRYING TO MAKE THE RIBBONS SMALLER! I am PISSED! Yes, please...does anyone know how to get rid of the 2” ribbon??!!!
Having some issues with Outlook 2016 with my brand new Dell Precision 5720 AIO, I had to remove Office and re-install. Before the re-install, Outlooks ribbon bar was perfect.
After I re-installed Office, I had this JUMBO ribbon bar, everyone talks about. I did exactly what was described above, and it worked PERFECTLY.
The only thing I might add is that usually, the 'FINGER POINTING ICON' may not appear. If that is the case, click on the DROP DOWN arrow all the way to the right of those little icons, and select TOUCH MOUSE MODE.
Then, your ribbon bar will be perfect.
Thank you cjs33 - great help.
It is a technological limit.
LED/LCD images are built of physical lines (and rows) of tiny "Light Emitting Diodes" or "Liquid Crystal Display" cells. The optimum resolution is physically limited by these cells. Using some display tricks some monitors can simulate a slightly higher resolution.
On the other hand in CRT, Cathode Ray Tubes, the image is "drawn" by quickly "scanning" a thin beam of electrons across the "front" of the tube. The resolution depended how many lines up and down the beam was scanned. The resolution was a combination of how finely the beam could be scanned and how finely the video card could
You wouldn't believe how disappointed when I had to "upgrade" from my 1990's technology 19" CRT at "2K+" resolution to a "21st century technology" 21" LED screen at 1080P. Can you say massive "lunch bag letdown".
I have 2 monitors that are 29 inches (27 inches viewable as they like to count the bevel, the area around the outside of the monitor, as part of the dimension just to have it sound larger and more useful than what it really is), and can still only have the 1980x1080 resolution. Why do they seem to max out the resolution at the 1980x1080, when in the past, I use to have more compacted resolution settings for smaller screen sizes (i.e., 1600x1200 for 21 inch monitors, 19 inches of that being viewable). As such, those toolbars are still too big as compared to what they were like with MS Office 2000 - 2003. That's not to mention the color schemes of MS Office 2013 and later takes me back to what Windows use to look like in Windows 2.0.
This worked for me - having looked through this thread. On my version of Windows (Nov 2017) the mouse/touch solution didn't help as the mouse setting was already the default. However the text size was defaulted to 150% and this was the cause of the problem.
If this doesn't work, you will need to invest in either a laptop with a higher resolution screen or higher resolution screen driven from your PC if it will drive it.
Note: My view is that you need 1920x1080 for Excel to look good at 100%
With a default setting of 150*%**, the ribbon is far too large (just as you describe).*