I agree. Speaking of intellectual property, can we please hide the Entity Relationship Diagram with a password?
The Ribbon is "still crazy after all these years". For example, take the chore of duplicating a query for another purpose. Please go count how many annoying clicks and counter-intuitive ones at that to clone an object. Microsoft's interfaces have been dumbed down for the casual user ... ok, so that is where the money is. Why not let us professionals have OUR traditional methods? Aren't computers supposed to be here to make our lives easier? Instead of wasting your time with the stupid Ribbon, you need to make something like the Charting Objects much more intuitive.
If we MUST retain the vertical space hogging Ribbon ...
1. Can we at least put it on one side via a simple setting in the customization list? Our screens have become wider and shorter.
2. Can we have a programmer option to eliminate the space consuming mini images for commands?
Sorry Joe, I totally disagree with the Ribbon being "infinitely superior" ... as Sheldon would say, "In what universe?" (:-)
Please clarify: As far as I can tell, SDI stands for a Serial Digital Interface as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_digital_interface . Is this what you mean? I am not clear that this is an Access issue, perhaps it should be at the OS level? Please enlighten us by what exactly you mean.
As critical as I am of MS Access and the way it treats the programmer/consultant, this is business of subforms and sub-subforms is an AWESOME capability. Offhand I do not know of any other software platform that can do this. Simple example: if you have two bank accounts at the same bank and you visit them on the web, you can see only one a ta a time in a given window. My meandering point is, if the Access team can bring this to fruition, it would be fantastic!
10 votes2 comments · Access (Desktop Application) » Automating Tasks · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Often wondered what was the point of making an MDE or ACCDE if the end user can see your ER diagram, modify queries, etc. I keep wishing for the type of freezing you see in a commercial package like QuickBooks where you can enter data but may not see the innards at all.
Twenty five years ago, my work was the care and feeding of mainframes. To this day I miss the log file containing all that went right and especially all that went wrong. I know this is more on the OS side, but within Access why can we not have an error log file, much like the ldb file that comes and goes when a database is "in session". Only, if the error log file is not null, it hangs around (does not get deleted).
From the programming/maintenance side, this is a no-brainer. Of course we need this' it would be nice to have some meta data to go with it.
With the latest version of Access, we are not able to reproduce the issue you are describing.
If you still experience problems with the tabbed interface please provide information about the version you are using, and steps to reproduce.
1 vote2 comments · Access (Desktop Application) » Automating Tasks · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Joe, I have read the comment here and elsewhere about Name Auto Correct failing silently. I have used it and it has not failed me so far - not to say you are all wrong. The alternative of not having it at all is distressing to me. How about is we ask the Access team to fix it so it works correctly. Perhaps some small group of MVPs can provide the A-team with examples where Auto Correct fails (including the big one ... does not currently work in VB code).
The ability to connect to a SQL Server back end, (either full blown or the Express version), is there now and has been there for some time; this should continue. Closer alignment between MS Access and SQL Server in terms of rules, data types and so on is a very good idea. Having an upsizing wizard that works almost always is a third good idea. However ...
Still think SQL Server as the DEFAULT BACKEND is needlessly rocking the boat. It is a layer of complexity that is simply NOT needed.
For my clients, I do NOT supply run time versions or MDEs. They get the source code (with passwords as needed). This is one of my selling points ... nothing is hidden. If my rates do not satisfy them or if the client thinks I am not sufficiently responsive, they are free to engage someone else. In 25 years I have not lost a single client for this reason and have not had a mission failure in a non-run time, non-MDE environment. I think using SQL Server as a DEFAULT backend is a bad idea.
To respond to nto, I just looked on Google under "SQL Server prices". The product ain't free. Sure you can get a SQL Server desktop for $64 but it may not be handed out to your clients. The enterprise copy is $7,000 plus. There are less expensive variants (hard to understand limitations) minimum of $2500, but they all come with a per core charge. Access 201x by itself is approx. $120, as a part of Office 201x Professional it is included.
This begs the question, why should SQL Server be the DEFAULT backend? If you and your clients want that knock yourselves out. That capability has been around for a long time. I vote AGAINST MS SQL Server as the default backend, not only for price reasons, but also because of my fear that MS will make it very hard to use another Access database file as a backend - no matter what they say up front.
Perhaps I am misreading this thread ... I vote AGAINST SQL Server as the DEFAULT backend. Most of my clients cannot afford this switch. I personally do not see a need for it. As is we can choose SQL Server as a backend if we want to, right? The default back end is Access itself now and it should continue to be so. I would really hate to see SQL Server usurping this place first by default and then and over time, Access back ends will get "deprecated" and will be gone.
This is the classic MS Team saying we will change your default and not publish a way out - as it happens the way out does not work either. "You will eat your vegetables whether you like it or not."
If the Access Team thinks macros are so much better that VBA code, then defend it by publishing why. And be prepared to be convinced otherwise. Please LISTEN to us and stop jerking the rug out from under our feet. Each time you (the team) change a default, tell us where and why.
69 votes6 comments · Access (Desktop Application) » External Data Connectivity · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
We are designing on a new Linked Table Manager dialog, incorporating suggestions and requests made in UserVoice and other forums.
I just looked at https://support.office.com/en-gb/article/What-s-new-in-Access-2016-76454345-f85d-47af-ace1-98a456cb3496 where it shows a preview of the dialog box in Office 2016. The Access team has made it a little wider but has failed to make the dialog box sizable. They have made it exportable to Excel (like that was more important than making the dialog box sizable).
I know we are asking for improvement favors and my tone and attitude is hostile and sarcastic. Anybody care to tell us why we need fixed size dialog boxes ANYWHERE in Access?
This request totally makes sense. And it seems simple to me.
14 votes8 comments · Access (Desktop Application) » Automating Tasks · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Oh, and denying the QBE grid to the user/programmer when there is a syntax error is a childish punishment. That may not have been the intention of the Access Team. But understand this: when a query has difficulties of syntax or has a linkage failure, denying the QBE grid and converting every field to "Expr1: ..." is just obnoxious. Access did NOT use to do this in the past, why start this weirdness now?
Mr. Partyka's original point (opening a query in design) is a sensitive and touchy point. Why should the db engine destroy the SQL just because it could not find a linked source table? To a person the solution is obvious - the source is no longer there. That does NOT mean the SQL is bad. Simply leave it as is. This is not even a difficult request to the Access team. If a query does not parse properly, do NOT try to fix it. Throw it back in the programmer's face intact and say via error message what is wrong with it.
@Joe re who decides Dummy vs. Expert mode? We do. We enter as an Expert and pre-processing does not occur
This is also true of Queries in design mode. If the linked table is not available, the entire SQL gets corrupted which will NOT uncorrupt even if we supply the correct connection later.
I hope the subscription model - explicitly: one where MS chooses what updates occur and pushes it through without warning - is limited to Office 365. I hope we can still buy and install Office 20xx as a package where we as consultants and programmers control the versioning. If not, I can just see the cost of maintenance (from the client's point of view) go up significantly. And we, outside of Microsoft, will look like monsters milking the client to fix problems we did not create and not created by the client.
This point is NOT about tabbed documents. If you like them, knock yourself out. Please note I originally used it as an example only. My complaint is more serious and goes deeper. It is about MS practice of introducing some new feature and forcing it to be the default. This is disconcerting to put it mildly. Perhaps another example would help. When we use a wizard, I expect code. Specifically, when I install a combo box as a finder on a form I want it to provide VB code - not a macro. (There has been a study drumbeat of shoving as much as possible into the macro world. Why? If there is a good reason, tell us.)
Can I write the code manually for a finder on a form? Most of us can - in our sleep, even. Of course if you are thinking why don't you write it then, we are losing the point again. If I write my own code for every wizard then why bother offering wizards?
Pretty please, do not comment back and say you like macros. That is not the point, I am making. Please look at the bigger picture.