Charlotte Foust
charlotte.foust at gmail.com
Fri Jan 20 23:41:07 CST 2012
Sure, but will they go along with that? Charlotte Foust On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 7:20 PM, jwcolby <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com>wrote: > >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@**colbyconsulting.com<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> >>> >>> <http:**//databaseadvisors.com/**mailman/listinfo/accessd<http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors. >>> >>> ****com<http://www.**databaseadvisors.com<http://www.databaseadvisors.com> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> > -- > 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> > > >