jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Fri Jan 20 21:20:10 CST 2012
>The alternative if you can't persuade them into upgrading is to go completely unbound and the forms and use code to manage the reads/writes/edits/deletions. This is a monster application with close to 200 forms, using my framework for all kinds of repetitive / user interface stuff, all of which assumed bound. It would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper to upgrade all of the users to a modern office version than pay me to rewrite it to unbound so they could stay on an 11 year old buggy as hell office version. Doncha think? John W. Colby Colby Consulting Reality is what refuses to go away when you do not believe in it On 1/20/2012 1:16 PM, Charlotte Foust wrote: > I remember the problem in 2000. It was resolved in 2002. Have you tried > using a recordset based on a view? I can't recall whether that made a > difference or not. The alternative if you can't persuade them into > upgrading is to go completely unbound and the forms and use code to manage > the reads/writes/edits/deletions. I used the unbound option a LOT when I > was working in 2000. > > Charlotte Foust > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:48 AM, jwcolby<jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com>wrote: > >> My client is moving to SQL Server at my persistent prodding. They have >> outgrown Access database containers, we have had to split their original >> single Access BE many times and now have about 6 different BEs with as much >> as 800 megs of data in some of them (after compact / repair). "Another >> user has locked this record" kinds of issues. All that stuff. >> >> So we are slooooowly moving the database to SQL Server. >> >> The problem is that they remain firmly mired in Access 2000. Yep. Sigh. >> >> The biggest issue with Access 2K from the perspective of SQL Server is >> that forms cannot be bound to recordsets and still be editable. >> >> So I am searching for a way to emulate what has always mostly worked, yet >> at least maintain the current speed (not great) or speed things up. >> >> I have been using SQl Server with Office 2003 for a long time and it works >> very well but I don't have that here. I am considering trying to use >> Access 2007 runtime, which I am using in other places and seems to work >> quite well. The biggest problem with doing that for this client is simply >> that the application is *very* complex and I program "to the metal". When >> something doesn't work in runtime, it is extremely difficult to >> troubleshoot. >> >> So I am looking for thoughts on my predicament, and how you may have >> handled a similar situation. >> >> -- >> John W. Colby >> Colby Consulting >> >> Reality is what refuses to go away >> when you do not believe in it >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/**mailman/listinfo/accessd<http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd> >> >> >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.**com<http://www.databaseadvisors.com> >> >> >>