After overwriting, FE will not function properly until 2nd re-open

[JenPavey]

I noticed this problem months ago, but didn't really think much of it until
now: I developed a FE/BE database in Access 2003. Users overwrite their FE
as I complete design upgrades. This has worked well for us... Although on a
few computers, of which I've determined have Access 2000 9.0.2720, whenever
they overwrite their FE, on the first time of opening, it does not want to
work properly until you close the database and open it a second time.

In more detail: I have an autoexec macro opening a form where the user
selects their name from a drop down. Then they hit "OK"... On Click VBA code
runs to open up another form (Main Menu) and then hide the user name form.
On the Access 2000 machines, once the FE has been overwritten, the user can
select their name from the drop down but the "OK" does not work. We close
the database at this point and re-open and everything then works fine...?
Here's the OK button code if this has anything to do with the problem:

Private Sub Command5_Click()
DoCmd.OpenForm "Search Form"
Me.Visible = False
End Sub

I usually can find all the answers I want in this forum - it's just been a
matter of asking my question correctly, but I can't seem to find anything
related to this issue... hence - here's my first post.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks

JP

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Do you have code in your front-end to ensure that the front-end is correctly
linked to the back-end? Is it possible that that code hasn't yet run when
you run into the problem you're describing?

 

[aaron.kempf]

Correction--

since the year 2000-- Linked tables are neither reccomended or
optimal.
Move to ADP or Php / mySQL - Microsoft has proven time and time again
that they don't give a hoot about 'developers, developers,
developers'.

-Aaron

 

[BruceM]

You are incorrect. However, if you wish to make a case, provide some
reliable documentation, which is to say something than another refrain of
your tedious song.

Correction--

since the year 2000-- Linked tables are neither reccomended or
optimal.
Move to ADP or Php / mySQL - Microsoft has proven time and time again
that they don't give a hoot about 'developers, developers,
developers'.

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

I don't need reliable documentation.

I will demonstrate a faster, easier solution-- that takes less time to
develop.

Is that acceptable to 'his bruceness'?

There's nothing wrong with my tedious song.

You're the dude that's stuck in '1st grade of the database world'.

-Aaron

 

[JenPavey]

Thanks for the quick response Douglas. I don't have anything coded in to
check the table links to the BE. If my links would be the problem, I would
think the database would have problems on every opening instance until I
resolved. This issue confuses me in that it only occurs on the first opening
just after the overwrite on machines with Access 2000. Once I close and
re-open, it works like a charm..? My ultimate reason for trying to determine
the root cause is a suspician that an overwritten (uploaded) access database
we have incorporated into our website is not responding just after the
upload. I am not a web person by any means, but our web people (outside
company) seem to be having this issue and I thought it might be related to
what I've seen in-house here. Technically, the "glitch" doesn't bother me
from an in-house standpoint... Just thought I'd throw it out there to see if
by chance it was an issue anyone else might be aware of. Thank again JP

 

[JenPavey]

Aaron - some of us don't need anything more than Access to get our job done.
This is the direction we've chosen and it works wonderful for our business.
I'd rather not try and re-invent my little wheel with another "faster, easier
solution".

It strikes me as odd, that with my one email here, you somehow know
"everything you would need to know to improve our system". Sounds like some
kind a sales pitch to me...

 

[aaron.kempf]

Jen

I disagree.

Have you ever heard of 'identity theft'?

What happens-- in the current version of MS Access that has _ZERO_
security.

Right?

I don't believe that SQL is _ONE_ percent more difficult to use.
You guys are just stuck in a rut; and not willing to 'expand your
horizons'.

The laziness of people like you are why all the jobs are going to
India.

In India-- Microsoft shows up with $10 billion and they say
'Everything is done in SQL Server'.

So why is it-- that there are more qualified SQL Server people in
India than in America?

BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE TONY-- WHO CLAIM THAT SQL SERVER IS 'TOO
DIFFICULT'.

SQL SERVER IS _ZERO_ PERCENT MORE DIFFICULT THAN MDB.

Sorry-- I just think that your laziness is a tribute to the decline of
the American Empire.

People like you-- that are ok with 'almost good enough' -- when you
can have TEN TIMES BETTER FOR THE SAME PRICE.

You don't need linked tables.

YOU DO NEED SQL AGENT.

Thanks

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

it's not a sales pitch.

It is the truth.

Just because 90% of the people on this group-- attack me-- that
doesn't make me wrong.

Access is not 'good enough to get your job done'.

Access might be 'good enough to get last years job done'-- but you'll
never get into Reporting Services.
You'll never get into Analysis Services; or Integration Services.

Just because you think that Access is 'good enough'.

ADP is _ZERO_ harder than MDB.
You don't need to spend all your time closing variables-- that kinda
crap.

You don't have problems with FE / BE. You just write tables,
queries-- you can change anything you want-- while other people have
their files open-- as you should be.

If you complete a new query-- you don't need to 'publish' it in a new
version.
I extend my system-- by VbScript- every night.

Do you ?

Can you automate?
Can you even properly index?

I just know that 2/3rds of what you do in MDB / ACCDB dev is a 'waste
of time'

DO IT NICE OR DO IT TWICE.

What are you going to do when you get more than 25mb of data?

Do you _LIKE_ it when your databases pukes once a week?

Do you_LIKE_ not having good backups? Because susie left her
application open; and your backup won't work?

What a joke.

-Aaron

 

[BruceM]

Jobs are going to India because of people who use Access? You're
overreaching a bit there.

Jen

I disagree.

Have you ever heard of 'identity theft'?

What happens-- in the current version of MS Access that has _ZERO_
security.

Right?

I don't believe that SQL is _ONE_ percent more difficult to use.
You guys are just stuck in a rut; and not willing to 'expand your
horizons'.

The laziness of people like you are why all the jobs are going to
India.

In India-- Microsoft shows up with $10 billion and they say
'Everything is done in SQL Server'.

So why is it-- that there are more qualified SQL Server people in
India than in America?

BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE TONY-- WHO CLAIM THAT SQL SERVER IS 'TOO
DIFFICULT'.

SQL SERVER IS _ZERO_ PERCENT MORE DIFFICULT THAN MDB.

Sorry-- I just think that your laziness is a tribute to the decline of
the American Empire.

People like you-- that are ok with 'almost good enough' -- when you
can have TEN TIMES BETTER FOR THE SAME PRICE.

You don't need linked tables.

YOU DO NEED SQL AGENT.

Thanks

-Aaron

 

[BruceM]

You wrote: "Linked tables are neither reccomended [sic] or optimal"
This suggests a published recommendation somewhere, or at least an informed
discussion to which you can refer. If you had said "I don't recommend
linked tables because ..." at least you would have a basis for your
argument, but as it is you seem to be suggesting that unnamed sources
support your position.

I don't need reliable documentation.

I will demonstrate a faster, easier solution-- that takes less time to
develop.

Is that acceptable to 'his bruceness'?

There's nothing wrong with my tedious song.

You're the dude that's stuck in '1st grade of the database world'.

-Aaron

 

[JenPavey]

Aaron - you are WAY out of line here. If you don't have anything rational or
even remotely relevant to say with regards to my original question, then
simply GET OUT!! Poeple like you need to be locked in a padded room
somehwere. You have NO earthly idea what our business is, nor do you seem to
have any cooth when it comes to these forums. Lord help the people that have
to work with you on a daily basis.

From what it sound slike - you have a large ego problem and perhaps even a
God complex when it comes to database-ing. Put a pin in your head and let
some air out - GET A GRIP MAN!

 

[aaron.kempf]

Well-- In India-- because they don't employ fat lazy _OLD_ people--
these kids can adapt to the latest and greatest DB.

And when companies have their choice between Access kids here for $12/
hour or SQL kids in India for $10/hour?

I mean-- come on.

I have plenty of rational things to say.
I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings-- go and play with your little
unstable midget database.

THanks

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

and I don't need cooth.

Some MVP stalkers brought this into the real world-- because they
disagreed with my statements.

And I will not surrender to bullying.

I'm _SO_ sorry that you guys got conned into usign a SHITTY database.
Is it my fault?
Go and play with your linked table manager and all that crap-- DAO
bullshit.. I mean _WTF_ is wrong with you people?

I love Access-- it just isn't a database-- It's a front end to SQL
Server.

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

this doesn't suggest anything.

I reccomend that you guys find a better way to do things.

When you change servers; what do you have to do-- run around updating
linked table names? lol?

I don't-- I use Cnames (DNS Alias records) with my SQL Server
applications and I don't have to do a single thing when databases
move; new servers come up; etc.

I don't make network admins bounce their file servers.. Do you?

-Aaron

You wrote:  "Linked tables are neither reccomended [sic] or optimal"

This suggests a published recommendation somewhere, or at least an informed
discussion to which you can refer.  If you had said "I don't recommend
linked tables because ..." at least you would have a basis for your
argument, but as it is you seem to be suggesting that unnamed sources
support your position.


I don't need reliable documentation.

I will demonstrate a faster, easier solution-- that takes less time to
develop.

Is that acceptable to 'his bruceness'?

There's nothing wrong with my tedious song.

You're the dude that's stuck in '1st grade of the database world'.

-Aaron

You are incorrect. However, if you wish to make a case, provide some
reliable documentation, which is to say something than another refrain of
your tedious song.

since the year 2000-- Linked tables are neither reccomended or
optimal.
Move to ADP or Php / mySQL - Microsoft has proven time and time again
that they don't give a hoot about 'developers, developers,
developers'.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[aaron.kempf]

and these idiots around here-- claim that 'ADP is no longer
reccomended'.

THat is not true.

Even Microsoft admits that ADP reports are 10 times faster than MDB
reports.

-Aaron

You wrote:  "Linked tables are neither reccomended [sic] or optimal"

This suggests a published recommendation somewhere, or at least an informed
discussion to which you can refer.  If you had said "I don't recommend
linked tables because ..." at least you would have a basis for your
argument, but as it is you seem to be suggesting that unnamed sources
support your position.


I don't need reliable documentation.

I will demonstrate a faster, easier solution-- that takes less time to
develop.

Is that acceptable to 'his bruceness'?

There's nothing wrong with my tedious song.

You're the dude that's stuck in '1st grade of the database world'.

-Aaron

You are incorrect. However, if you wish to make a case, provide some
reliable documentation, which is to say something than another refrain of
your tedious song.

since the year 2000-- Linked tables are neither reccomended or
optimal.
Move to ADP or Php / mySQL - Microsoft has proven time and time again
that they don't give a hoot about 'developers, developers,
developers'.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[JenPavey]

Aaron - after my updates - the users simply grab a new FE copy - no
re-linking necessary. Sure - I could programmatically have the "grab a new
FE copy" done automatically once users open their FE's, but haven't found it
necessary to do that at this point.

I don't really care about another better method or program to run the simple
database we need. Since this is an MS Access forum - why are you floating
around boasting about its downfalls? Were you just having a bad day and
needed to pound on someone for no good reason?

this doesn't suggest anything.

I reccomend that you guys find a better way to do things.

When you change servers; what do you have to do-- run around updating
linked table names? lol?

I don't-- I use Cnames (DNS Alias records) with my SQL Server
applications and I don't have to do a single thing when databases
move; new servers come up; etc.

I don't make network admins bounce their file servers.. Do you?

-Aaron

You wrote: "Linked tables are neither reccomended [sic] or optimal"

This suggests a published recommendation somewhere, or at least an informed
discussion to which you can refer. If you had said "I don't recommend
linked tables because ..." at least you would have a basis for your
argument, but as it is you seem to be suggesting that unnamed sources
support your position.


I don't need reliable documentation.

I will demonstrate a faster, easier solution-- that takes less time to
develop.

Is that acceptable to 'his bruceness'?

There's nothing wrong with my tedious song.

You're the dude that's stuck in '1st grade of the database world'.

-Aaron

You are incorrect. However, if you wish to make a case, provide some
reliable documentation, which is to say something than another refrain of
your tedious song.

since the year 2000-- Linked tables are neither reccomended or
optimal.
Move to ADP or Php / mySQL - Microsoft has proven time and time again
that they don't give a hoot about 'developers, developers,
developers'.

On Mar 24, 7:41 am, "Douglas J. Steele"

Do you have code in your front-end to ensure that the front-end is
correctly
linked to the back-end? Is it possible that that code hasn't yet run
when
you run into the problem you're describing?

I noticed this problem months ago, but didn't really think much of it
until
now: I developed a FE/BE database in Access 2003. Users overwrite
their
FE
as I complete design upgrades. This has worked well for us... Although
on a
few computers, of which I've determined have Access 2000 9.0.2720,
whenever
they overwrite their FE, on the first time of opening, it does not
want
to
work properly until you close the database and open it a second time..

In more detail: I have an autoexec macro opening a form where the user
selects their name from a drop down. Then they hit "OK"... On Click
VBA
code
runs to open up another form (Main Menu) and then hide the user name
form.
On the Access 2000 machines, once the FE has been overwritten, the
user
can
select their name from the drop down but the "OK" does not work. We
close
the database at this point and re-open and everything then works
fine...?
Here's the OK button code if this has anything to do with the problem:

Private Sub Command5_Click()
DoCmd.OpenForm "Search Form"
Me.Visible = False
End Sub

I usually can find all the answers I want in this forum - it's just
been
a
matter of asking my question correctly, but I can't seem to find
anything
related to this issue... hence - here's my first post.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks

JP- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[JenPavey]

As far as server changes - we're a very small company - we don't change
servers on a regular basis. We have used the same server successfully for a
very long time and even if we did upgrade - no biggie.

I'm not an IT person, just an employee who can create mini database programs
to help my coworkers work more efficiently than they would have without any
aid at all. We do not use Access as our ERP system - we use Epicor /
Vantage. I'm not looking to change the world here or even break and industry
for that matter...

this doesn't suggest anything.

I reccomend that you guys find a better way to do things.

When you change servers; what do you have to do-- run around updating
linked table names? lol?

I don't-- I use Cnames (DNS Alias records) with my SQL Server
applications and I don't have to do a single thing when databases
move; new servers come up; etc.

I don't make network admins bounce their file servers.. Do you?

-Aaron

You wrote: "Linked tables are neither reccomended [sic] or optimal"

This suggests a published recommendation somewhere, or at least an informed
discussion to which you can refer. If you had said "I don't recommend
linked tables because ..." at least you would have a basis for your
argument, but as it is you seem to be suggesting that unnamed sources
support your position.


I don't need reliable documentation.

I will demonstrate a faster, easier solution-- that takes less time to
develop.

Is that acceptable to 'his bruceness'?

There's nothing wrong with my tedious song.

You're the dude that's stuck in '1st grade of the database world'.

-Aaron

You are incorrect. However, if you wish to make a case, provide some
reliable documentation, which is to say something than another refrain of
your tedious song.

since the year 2000-- Linked tables are neither reccomended or
optimal.
Move to ADP or Php / mySQL - Microsoft has proven time and time again
that they don't give a hoot about 'developers, developers,
developers'.

On Mar 24, 7:41 am, "Douglas J. Steele"

Do you have code in your front-end to ensure that the front-end is
correctly
linked to the back-end? Is it possible that that code hasn't yet run
when
you run into the problem you're describing?

I noticed this problem months ago, but didn't really think much of it
until
now: I developed a FE/BE database in Access 2003. Users overwrite
their
FE
as I complete design upgrades. This has worked well for us... Although
on a
few computers, of which I've determined have Access 2000 9.0.2720,
whenever
they overwrite their FE, on the first time of opening, it does not
want
to
work properly until you close the database and open it a second time..

In more detail: I have an autoexec macro opening a form where the user
selects their name from a drop down. Then they hit "OK"... On Click
VBA
code
runs to open up another form (Main Menu) and then hide the user name
form.
On the Access 2000 machines, once the FE has been overwritten, the
user
can
select their name from the drop down but the "OK" does not work. We
close
the database at this point and re-open and everything then works
fine...?
Here's the OK button code if this has anything to do with the problem:

Private Sub Command5_Click()
DoCmd.OpenForm "Search Form"
Me.Visible = False
End Sub

I usually can find all the answers I want in this forum - it's just
been
a
matter of asking my question correctly, but I can't seem to find
anything
related to this issue... hence - here's my first post.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks

JP- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[aaron_kempf]

I'm the #1 fan of MS Access. You constantly try to put words in my
mouth.
But Access is _NOT_ a database.. you are not using it in the
reccomended manner.

I'll be damned if I let you kids drown with MDB / AccDB.

You guys are just uneducated.. I mean-- any chipmunk with a brain
would get tired of dealing with this tedium.

Linked Table this-- Linked table that-- failure to export this--
corrupt record that.

Security in 12 different places.

You're not dealing with a 'simple db'
you're using a spreadsheet with a different label on it.

Do you even enforce referential integrity? lol

You don't need to make the users 'grab a new copy'-- With ADP you can
run it over the network. With ADP you can close the file on the
server-- without risking 'losing data'.

With ADP you can edit a query-- without pushing out a new version.
With ADP you can edit tables / queries-- without kicking users out of
the database.

With ADP you don't subject your users to a 30 second launch time.
You don't subject your users to downtime.

With ADP you don't have to ask your network admin to bounce the file
server-- because susie didn't close her database on Friday afternoon.

With ADP; you don't need to buy terminal licenses.

With ADP you can replicate to a desktop / laptop.
With ADP you can use _WIRELESS_.

With ADP you can use _VPN_.

Can you use VPN with Access MDB? ROFLMAO

What about when your manager is in Texas and wants to look something
up in the database?
Do they call you and ask for a report?

Better to give them dynamic adhoc tools-- and let them get their own
data out of the trough.

I just don't think that Access solutions are 'good enough'.

It just makes me sick to think-- that you actually get _PAID_ for
being too _FAT_AND_LAZY_ to right-size your data platform.

-Aaron

Aaron - after my updates - the users simply grab a new FE copy - no
re-linking necessary.  Sure - I could programmatically have the "grab a new
FE copy" done automatically once users open their FE's, but haven't found it
necessary to do that at this point.

I don't really care about another better method or program to run the simple
database we need.  Since this is an MS Access forum - why are you floating
around boasting about its downfalls?  Were you just having a bad day and
needed to pound on someone for no good reason?

this doesn't suggest anything.

I reccomend that you guys find a better way to do things.

When you change servers; what do you have to do-- run around updating
linked table names? lol?

I don't-- I use Cnames (DNS Alias records) with my SQL Server
applications and I don't have to do a single thing when databases
move; new servers come up; etc.

I don't make network admins bounce their file servers.. Do you?

-Aaron

You wrote:  "Linked tables are neither reccomended [sic] or optimal"
This suggests a published recommendation somewhere, or at least an informed
discussion to which you can refer.  If you had said "I don't recommend
linked tables because ..." at least you would have a basis for your
argument, but as it is you seem to be suggesting that unnamed sources
support your position.
I don't need reliable documentation.
I will demonstrate a faster, easier solution-- that takes less time to
develop.
Is that acceptable to 'his bruceness'?
There's nothing wrong with my tedious song.
You're the dude that's stuck in '1st grade of the database world'.
-Aaron
You are incorrect. However, if you wish to make a case, provide some
reliable documentation, which is to say something than another refrain of
your tedious song.
Correction--
since the year 2000-- Linked tables are neither reccomended or
optimal.
Move to ADP or Php / mySQL - Microsoft has proven time and time again
that they don't give a hoot about 'developers, developers,
developers'.
-Aaron
On Mar 24, 7:41 am, "Douglas J. Steele"
Do you have code in your front-end to ensure that the front-end is
correctly
linked to the back-end? Is it possible that that code hasn't yet run
when
you run into the problem you're describing?
--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVPhttp://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)

I noticed this problem months ago, but didn't really think much of it
until
now: I developed a FE/BE database in Access 2003. Users overwrite
their
FE
as I complete design upgrades. This has worked well for us... Although
on a
few computers, of which I've determined have Access 2000 9.0.2720,
whenever
they overwrite their FE, on the first time of opening, it does not
want
to
work properly until you close the database and open it a second time..
In more detail: I have an autoexec macro opening a form where the user
selects their name from a drop down. Then they hit "OK"... On Click
VBA
code
runs to open up another form (Main Menu) and then hide the user name
form.
On the Access 2000 machines, once the FE has been overwritten, the
user
can
select their name from the drop down but the "OK" does not work.We
close
the database at this point and re-open and everything then works
fine...?
Here's the OK button code if this has anything to do with the problem:
Private Sub Command5_Click()
DoCmd.OpenForm "Search Form"
Me.Visible = False
End Sub
I usually can find all the answers I want in this forum - it's just
been
a
matter of asking my question correctly, but I can't seem to find
anything
related to this issue... hence - here's my first post.
Any and all help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
JP- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[JenPavey]

Welp - Maybe you should run for President, then try to rid the country of MS
Access.

As far as me, my original concern here has nothing at all to do with India
or anything overseas or really anything else you've been ranting about, so
I'll happily continue to play with all my unstable midget databases.

Signed,
JP - Recently Appointed Leader of the "Databases for Little People" Club