Access 2003 - Will SP2 fix the f%^£ng Subform Edit In Place Obstruction

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

I know, I know ... beta NDA's. After Access 95 I refused to sign anything,
sometimes the price to be "on the inside" is just too high.

It really is a pain, Access 2006 looks even worse. (sigh)

It would be great to have a de-install all wizards option, and a developer's
switch to chuck out all the "useability".

I noticed someone asking about Access Professional as opposed to Access
Standard and at first I thought they are just confused with the edtions of
Office. Then I thought wouldn't it be good to actually have two editions of
Access (really just a series of predetermined options set in the Registry)
one edition containing all the silly stuff they have been adding since
Access 2/97 the other streamlined for developers. The next version of Access
is going to be a horrible explosion of Form and Report wizards, I even hear
that you will be able to design a form/report and the tables will be created
for you (Lotus Approach did something like this 10 years ago, better blatant
than never), great for users creating a typical spreadsheet in a database
app, unprintable for serious developers. This is what the lookup field and
the subdatasheet have been leading up to, sorry.

 

[Guest]

So quit your bitching and go back to Approach if it is so good.
You obviously don't understand why Access is what it is.
My first thought was to explain it to you, but then I decided it would be a
waste of time. It would only piss you off and frustrate me.

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

We have used Access since the beginning and Approach is crap.

You explain Access to me. (vbg) Try reading the message that was posted.

 

[Guest]

I did read you message. It is nothing more than a bunch of whinning and
bitching about Access. Yes, I think I could explain Access to you. Based on
you post, you don't know very much.
If you are using a pre-release version of any product, you expect issues.
Why do you think the give away beta versions? Out of the kindness of their
hearts?
The features you are complaining about are there for novices.
After you have been in IT for 30 years, come back and tell me how it works.

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

I can see that you may not know me, I have been developing in Access since
1992 and regard Access 2 and Access 97 as the Gold standards.

Access 95/2000 were very sad and Access 2002/2003 are only now reaching the
levels of reliability that Access 97 had.

I take it you were not around in the early 90's on the CompuServe Forum
MSACCESS, but you remind me of someone from then. (vbg)

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

The features impact on the reliablity of the core product.

Many developers are concerned that frippery is added when core functions
require attention.

I have no problem with the usability being added for end users I just don't
want them to get in my way.

I am disappointed that you feel the need to sling insults, not a very grown
up response.

Explain Access then...Pretend I know nothing, if it makes you happy.

 

[Guest]

No, wasn't me. Until 99 I was working in FoxPro. Access got good when
Microsoft bought FoxPro so they would have a decent database engine. I
switched to Access at a client's request and found I like it pretty well and
it was an easy transition because I alread has about 15 years in various
versions of Basic.

On one point we do agree. There are a lot of features in Access, as well as
other products, that, for we professionals, have no value. That does not
mean we have to use them.

Since the beginning of computers, software companies have used features and
functions to sell software. (You just have to pay us money to get the new
MaybeCouldBeSortOf features! You don't want to be out of date do you? Or Our
product has BilliousNonsenseExtended, but our competitor doesn't, you should
buy our product!) As an historical insight, COBOL was originally written so
that users could write their own applications without having to deal with all
those goofy Assembler programmers. Yeah, right.

The other issue is that Dbase, Approach, and Access were all originally
designed as desktop database systems to be used by the business user. They
put in a lot of the functionality to guide people who are not truely computer
literate through building something they could use.
Your comment about "spreadsheet" is dead on. How many times have users
asked you to create an Access Application that worked like the Excel
spreadsheet they have been using? Don't know about you, but it drives me nuts.

I certainly understand your point of view, but what is the point of
complaining about the product? There are features of Access I hate and some
that are really good. My least favorite is how Access handles form sizing.
I wish there was a way to turn that feature off and let me size and position
my forms the way I want to. I also think that Microsoft really screwed up
the Rushmore technology that the FoxPro database engine was built on. I
think it had some of the best indexing capabilities ever.
But, Access is a pretty good product, and by far the most prominent for
smaller applications. So I use the parts I like and ignore the rest. I have
all my wizards turned off so I can get on with getting the job done.

At least I don't have to write my code on a "coding tablet" and get it
keypunched any more

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

I am not sure what you mean by Edit in place?

Simply right click, and select sub form in new window..and you are editing
the sub form separately?

To make this work, make sure the sub-form is NOT select, then simply place
your mouse cursor over the screen, and right click. You then select sub form
in new window. This feature gives you best of both worlds.

I also came from a97, and I did NOT like the sub-form editing in place.
however, you can simply right click, and away you go. Further, I now find
that often (as much as 30-40% of time, some sub-forms I DO WANT to edit in
place...it turns out this feature is a BIG time saver for many forms).

Anyway...just use the right click....and you should be fine...

 

[Gina Whipp]

You know even when I read these types of threads that have no relevence to
people trying to get assistance I get NEW information...

Hence,
Simply right click, and select sub form in new window..

I got used to editing the subform and/or subreport in place and only found
it annoying when the form was too small to be edited in place and NOW I
don't have to close the main form and go open the subform and/or subreport.
a BIG BIG thanks to Albert!

As for the other stuff, no comment...

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

NOW I don't have to close the main form and go open the subform and/or

subreport. a BIG BIG thanks to Albert!

You are most welcome. I suspect that Craig also is not aware of this
feature.

As I mentioned, MOST of the time I do want the form separate. However, I
very MUCH like the in-place editing WHEN I need it (it is not most of the
time..but I find for mature applications, and moving a few fields around to
aline them with the main form, then in-placed editing is very nice).

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

You suspect wrong. Used Access Man and Boy!

It is a pain in the --- to have to do an extra step to get over something I
never use a I cannot see enough of the subform.

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

Albert it is an extra unneeded step, if you want to keep it and I don't then
it would be useful to have an option not to have it, much like use event
procedure which used to be a kludge in earlier versions, if you remember.

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

In a97, what did you do?

You have to either browse tot he form, or do a double click.

Right now the new procedure is right click..and select option. Sure, this is
a "bit" more then the double click...but not much more. (and, with my left
hand on the keyboard..after I hit the right mouse button, I hit the w key
with my left hand (thus, we are talking about ONE mouse click vs a double
click in a97.....so in effect, there is really no difference then what you
had in a97)......

It is possible I am miss understanding the problem here...but I don't find
navigating to a sub-form in a2003 any more work then in a97, and plus you do
get in-form editing when you need it...

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

No, wasn't me. Until 99 I was working in FoxPro. Access got good when

Microsoft bought FoxPro so they would have a decent database engine. I
switched to Access at a client's request and found I like it pretty well
and
it was an easy transition because I alread has about 15 years in various
versions of Basic.

Sorry to disagree (g); but FoxPro was not good for Access, the only thing of
significance used from FoxPro was the Rushmore Optimising Technology. Access
was unlike any other desktop system as it was much more closely designed as
a true relational database manager, my background was from IBM High Sierra
mainframes using DB2/MVS.

On one point we do agree. There are a lot of features in Access, as well
as
other products, that, for we professionals, have no value. That does not
mean we have to use them.

Yes, but it is a pain when they get in the way. The "Always use event
procedures" checkbox was added to Access at some point in its history
becuase of the unneeded step for most developers to select it rather than a
macro.

Since the beginning of computers, software companies have used features
and
functions to sell software. (You just have to pay us money to get the new
MaybeCouldBeSortOf features! You don't want to be out of date do you? Or
Our
product has BilliousNonsenseExtended, but our competitor doesn't, you
should
buy our product!) As an historical insight, COBOL was originally written
so
that users could write their own applications without having to deal with
all
those goofy Assembler programmers. Yeah, right.

Yes new features are simply wonderful if you need them or even want them, if
you don't need them you would be happy for those who do, but hope you would
not be troubled with an awkward or unnecessary workaround. Hence Access Pro
and Std even if this is just a series of Registry settings like the Runtime.

The other issue is that Dbase, Approach, and Access were all originally
designed as desktop database systems to be used by the business user.
They
put in a lot of the functionality to guide people who are not truely
computer
literate through building something they could use.
Your comment about "spreadsheet" is dead on. How many times have users
asked you to create an Access Application that worked like the Excel
spreadsheet they have been using? Don't know about you, but it drives me
nuts.

Actually I would not put Access in that company it has more in common (the
Relational Engine in Jet) with DB2 and Oracle as far as R is concerned.

Dbase and the others were spreadsheets on steriods. (g) I am not saying that
they couldn't build some useful applications, just that Access worked the
way I had been trained in the way of 'R'.

I certainly understand your point of view, but what is the point of
complaining about the product?

Always use event procedures was introduced because of a complaint (aka
suggestion/request)..

I was more concerned at the hampering of Jet Indexing when they introduced
Rushmore.

I have to say that I have long thought of SQL Server 2000 as Jet 5 as many
improvements in the Relational Engine matched those we were used to in Jet.

Please note I do not mean to say Jet can hold a candle to DB2, Oracle and
SQL Server when talking about Client Server (well Jet is just File Server)
and industrial strength DBMS.

But Access is the best RAD tool for any good RDBMS, I just want it better.

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

I would just like the option not to see it.

Perhaps I could right-click the white box and select to see it, and you
could have it the other way.

You like it, I don't.

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

When I say FoxPro wasn't good it was because it was a deliberate attempt to
stop Jet being a compeditor with SQL Server which at that time was a ropey
port from SyBase.

Yes it did improve certain aspects.

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

Perhaps I could right-click the white box and select to see it, and you
could have it the other way.

Ah, ok...I was trying really hard to find out what the big problem here was.
You mean that seeing the form is a problem? (that was beyond my ability to
even consider that issue!!).

You like it, I don't.

Well, considering that access 2000 came out in 1999, and let assume 30,000
posts per month in the ms-access newsgroups.

We get 5 years x 12 x months x 30,000 posts = 1.8 million.

That gives us 1.8 million posts in the ms-access newsgroups. Yours is the
FIRST POST I have seen on this matter. So, I don't think this is just a
question of me not worrying about this feature..but if you can't find one
post out of 1.8 milling posts, then I have to just shake my head here? How
on earth are going get support for this feature when I can't even find one
out 1.8 million posts?

This is such a grasp at straws! You not only stand alone..but stand VERY
VERY VERY alone on this one!...wow!!

There is, and was ZILLIONS of posts of people complaining about the loss of
being able edit forms separately as when a2000 came out. A mvp provided a
workaround, and further the right click ability was added in a2003.

I just can't imagine that seeing the sub form is a problem in anyway, shape
or form...pun intended!

If you are not worried about editing the sub-form, then I fail to understand
why "seeing" the sub-form in place is a problem? Perhaps it makes more
clutter..but really, it don't hurt productivity, or makes more work in any
way that I can see.

I just don't see this one as much of a issue here. The last 1.8 million
posts seem to agree with me....

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

When I say FoxPro wasn't good it was because it was a deliberate attempt
to stop Jet being a compeditor with SQL Server which at that time was a
ropey port from SyBase.

Yes it did improve certain aspects.

Hum, I can't say much about the competition issue, but FoxPro has matured
into a VERY nice product. It is often said to be one of the best kept
secrets in the MS stable. I did a few year stint in FoxPro (the dos
version....about the time when ms purchased it (1991 I think). Fox stumbled
with the windows version, and that is when ms-access caught on. However,
FoxPro now is a very nice environment, and in many ways better then
ms-access.

However, ms-access advantage was it was part of office, and further the
programming language used is the same as VB. (learning ms-access was how I
first learned VB).

However, to be fair, in reading your posts, you do seem use, and respect
ms-access, but even want it to be better. For this, I must tip my hat
towards you.

It would seem that I may have miss understood your complaints, as they are
not of one who is ranting..but simply wants something to get better. On that
note, I do agree with you.

Please do not take my other comments here as one of harshness, and I
apologize to you if they seem other wise....

 

[Brendan Reynolds]

I wish you'd chosen a different subject line, Craig. You know as well as I
do that anyone who knows the answer to that specific question can't talk
about it here.

More generally I have some sympathy with your view. Access attempts to be
all things to all people - or at least to a wide spectrum of creators and
users of databases. It's not easy to balance the demands of professional
developers and information workers (or is it knowledge workers this week, I
forget?) in one application. There are a lot more of them than there are of
us, so they get the lion's share of the attention. A lot of the features
designed for those people get in our way.

On the other hand, we benefit from a lot of ease-of-use features too. For
several months now, I've been spending more time working with Visual Studio
..NET, developing ASP.NET pages, than with Access. In VS .NET, there are no
end-user features to get in the way, and you can do stuff that you just
can't do in Access (though most of them are things you'll rarely *want* to
do in a typical Access application). But when it comes to point-and-click
graphical designers, Access knocks spots of VS .NET. And one of the reasons
the Access graphical designers are so good is that they were designed to be
easy to use by people who are not professional developers.

Silly mis-features like lookup fields and datasheets (my personal
'favourite' is the 'create table by entering data' feature) are part of the
price we pay for some of the best RAD tools in the business. Up to now, the
benefits of membership have proved worth the price of admission. How long
that will continue to hold true remains to be seen. Perhaps one day we'll
get a tool with the power of VS .NET and the ease-of-use of Access. Won't
that be something to see!