• (cs) in reply to G Money
    G Money:
    I currently have 1.0 litres of mile in the icebox.
    How many miles of litre do you have?

    Ever known anyone who put on a pant? Just one, not a pair?

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    JOHN:
    Anything greater than 1 is considered plural. Look it up in the dictionary.
    The Real WTF about that is that things less than 1 are also pluralized: I currently have .25 gallons of milk in the fridge.

    Depends on how you say it. If you say "I have point two five gallons of milk" then you say it that way because it's not equal to one. On the other hand, most people are more apt to say "I have a quarter of a gallon of milk". Note the lack of pluralization because you are saying you have a portion of a single. Instead, you should note how "0" is plural, too. "I have zero gallons of milk." In English, anything that does not equal one is plural. In some other languages, anything greater than 1 is plural (both 0 and 1 are singular). Of course, there are languages without plural altogether. But in English, singular means "equal to 1" while plural means "not equal to 1".

  • AC (unregistered) in reply to JOHN
    JOHN:
    Valacosa:
    Yes, 32,000 is tens of thousands of rows. That's not the point. However, the set of values which qualify as "tens of thousands of rows" range from 20,000 to 99,999. (I hope the reasoning for the upper bound is obvious, the lower bound is 20,000 because "tens" is plural. "10" is not tens, "19" is not tens, "20" is tens.)

    I'll see your pedantry, and raise you another.

    The range of "tens of thousands" is 10,001 to 99,999.

    Tens implies it is plural, and plural implies that it is not singular. There is only one 5-digit number that is singular within "tens of thousands", and that's 10,000.

    IE: if you have 3 halves of an orange, do you say "I have one and a half orange", or "I have one and a half oranges"?

    Anything greater than 1 is considered plural. Look it up in the dictionary.

    Assuming that the next logical grouping is hundreds of thousands, wouldn't that make the upper bound 100,000 or 199,999 depending on whose lower bound you used?

  • freibooter (unregistered)

    That's weird. I'm currently recovering from beppobone surgery. Should I be worried?

  • Your Technical Writer (unregistered) in reply to AC

    Ermm.... well, 10 is a 'plural' number last I checked. So really, 10 x 10000 is "tens of thousands." It's ten of them.

    So everyone's wrong. Let's move on.

  • Grobbendonk (unregistered) in reply to ICDeadPpl
    ICDeadPpl:
    Hitler used smallint.

    And Access

  • Valacosa (unregistered) in reply to G Money
    G Money:
    Anon:
    JOHN:
    Anything greater than 1 is considered plural. Look it up in the dictionary.
    The Real WTF about that is that things less than 1 are also pluralized: I currently have .25 gallons of milk in the fridge.

    Things that are 1 can also be plural. Example:

    I currently have 1.0 litres of mile in the icebox.

    G.

    Or, to quote DOS, "1 files copied."

  • AC (unregistered) in reply to G Money
    G Money:
    Anon:
    JOHN:
    Anything greater than 1 is considered plural. Look it up in the dictionary.
    The Real WTF about that is that things less than 1 are also pluralized: I currently have .25 gallons of milk in the fridge.

    Things that are 1 can also be plural. Example:

    I currently have 1.0 litres of mile in the icebox.

    G.

    Can't agree with you. When you say 1.0 you are saying you have a measurement equal to 1.0 with two significant digits. The actual value might be 1.01 or .999. When you say 1 you mean the first natural number. These are not the same at all.

    And none of this would have happened if you hadn't used a SMALLINT inappropriately.

  • Rhett (unregistered)

    OK looking at the photo attached to this posting, i just have one question. WTF does this all have to do with Dougie Howser?

  • (cs) in reply to Rhett
    Rhett:
    WTF does this all have to do with Dougie Howser?
    Well, you know how some people think they can perform surgery because they've watched a lot of medical dramas? Some people have the same delusion about software...
  • (cs)

    Actually, if you use a REAL back-end server AND don't ever use "bound" controls for anything editable Access can be used to make some nice client software.

    The key is you can't be lazy about it. Write routines to populate the form (leave your recordset open if you're in need of locking), then at "save" time check every control for proper data and finally bang it back into the db by either updating the recordset or generating SQL dynamically in VB code.

    In some ways, Access is actually what VB should be. Continuous forms and the reporting are awesome. Bound forms and controls, and the Jet engine are disasters waiting to bite you.

  • Garp (unregistered)
    The database automatically stays below 1GB in size! — because a process was built to clean it out once a month. The application would crash if the database went over 1GB.

    I butted my head against this repeatedly in my first job at a CD wholesaler. Very much the noob (18, only person doing IT in the company, only person with any vague skills for that matter) and not knowing better the only interface I had for accessing our sales / stock / accounts system was an ODBC link to the database running on a *nix server. Can't remember what the underlying database was running, but it wasn't SQL. Part of my job entailed producing report generators in Access that queried the data on the system for whichever department needed the reports. Sadly the ODBC interface was a slow as hell. If I tried to pull reports during the day everyone on the tele-sales team complained because it started making the system drag for them. Ignoring how atrociously inefficient my VBA programming was, even SQL queries generated in access would take ridiculous times to run. In the end I setup a scheduled task on a central server to automatically open up an access database and grab a complete set of the data overnight. That worked fine until about August when the amount of information I was pulling reached over 1 gig. What could I do? Only thing I could think of at the time was have two databases for pulling the data, splitting it between the two and setting up Link tables between them. It worked, but my God was it ugly. Hindsight would probably have me setting up some kind of mysql server or postgres or something and duping the data into there where I didn't have to worry about size, and also would gain the benefit of a proper engine driving the db.

    Of course at the time I couldn't even write SQL queries properly. I'd been taught to use VBA at school and did a lot of stuff manually and inefficiently through VBA code that would take 20mins to produce what a SQL query would probably have produced in seconds. My report generators were horrific, truly deserving of a WTF in and of themselves :D

    CAPTCHA: Burned... rather appropriate.

  • (cs)

    Well, this is a mighty common WTF. I work at a company where various testing logs grow in abundance. Thus comes in a new testing system and logs its data guess where? Access. Roll on time a few months. Now we have an access base, locked by the writing process 99% of the time and already bloated to 2G on disk. Access bases at that size are near unapproachable...

    Addendum (2007-07-17 03:20): It has another side effect.At one point we discovered that our data exchange share was bulk full. when investigated, it contained all together around 6 copies of this base and included different stats generation tools in each. To make stats off that table it has to be copied out because stressing the test equipment with db load can influence results. Due to the base being locked the data in copy is never fresh and the reports never get written back to the base db.

  • grep (unregistered) in reply to ParkinT
    ParkinT:
    When will managers understand that with software (like many things in life) you must choose: Fast Right Cheap only two
    However, Scrum evangelists would tell you otherwise
  • #4 (unregistered) in reply to Trinian

    Haha, "So say we all"! Indeed...

    (captcha: ninjas........)

  • Alan (unregistered)

    My two cents as an ex-POS developer.

    You have to have a client side database. Having every till in the store close because of a problem with the back-end pc or the network will give you one very angry retailer.

    The database cannot be SQL. Access isn't a very good choice either. It has to survive the till being powered down suddenly and unexpectedly, and it has to come back on again without any hassle. My last company used a little known database called Pervasive. It was rubbish, but very robust.

    Overwriting your End Of Day file is a massive no-no (see angry retailer). The system made three copies, a local-timestamped copy, a network timestamped copy, and one for import into the back-end ERP system.

  • Johnsson (unregistered) in reply to Someone You Know
    Valacosa:
    However, the set of values which qualify as "tens of thousands of rows" range from 20,000 to 99,999. (I hope the reasoning for the upper bound is obvious, the lower bound is 20,000 because "tens" is plural. "10" is not tens, "19" is not tens, "20" is tens.)

    Your boundariess need work. Are you saying that one should refer 130,000 as hundreds of thousands, while 13,000 would still be thousands? Or are the numbers from 10,000 to 19,999 and from 100,000 to 199,999 just something one never needs to use? Or is "tens of thousands" just some kind of a special case between "thousands" and "hundreds of thousands"?

    I still like to refer 1,300 as hundreds. Heck, I would probably refer 2,100 as hundreds as well, starting thousands when the number starts to get closer to 3,000. Nothing more disappointing than hearing you'd get "thousands" of something and then learn that the plural was there just for two.

  • Brady Kelly (unregistered) in reply to Roman
    Roman:
    A number of years back, I interned at a small company that decided not to purchase Visual Studio, but use Access for development instead. Back-end needs were fulfilled by SQL Server. For what it was worth, it turned out to be a pretty robust multi-user system, with the Access front-end developed rather rapidly from scratch.

    Our company had a successful, widely deployed, application that uses Access for the UI and SQL Server 2005 as a backend.

  • Cmd. Keen (unregistered) in reply to nobody
    nobody:
    "You can't polish a turd"

    But you can put the Aero interface on Vista.

    And since Aero is polishing, that proves Vista isn't a turd.

  • Iain Collins (unregistered)

    I agree with some of most recent posters, there is nothing wrong with Access as a tool for rapid application development in a corporate environment.

    It's actually a perfectly good tool for developing Windows software that connects to a centralized database (that might also be the same backend for a web based interface, as was the case on project I worked on about 10 years ago now), those who seem to think it's not suitable for scalable multi-user apps just don't know what they are talking about (and, I suspect, are just blindly ranting at it because it's from Microsoft and/or because they assume it only works with local databases/database files on a file share).

    Although these days it's hard to justify not developing a decent web based interface as the primary interface to an enterprise application, if you are actually going to bother to leverage Microsoft's design and API's (such as integration with things like Outlook and Exchange which you can do in all sorts of weird and wacky ways) you could easily make a case for it, especially in a standardized corporate environment where you know that everyone is going to be running Windows.

    I don't use Windows (with the sole exception of for gaming), personally I think their OS's are a very poor effort for such a large and well funded company, but Microsoft have developed a lot of software to make rapid application development and system integration really easy (even if, in practice, it's rarely used to anything like it's fullest extent).

  • Alan (unregistered) in reply to Cmd. Keen
    Cmd. Keen:
    nobody:
    "You can't polish a turd"

    But you can put the Aero interface on Vista.

    And since Aero is polishing, that proves Vista isn't a turd.

    I have an artist friend, and one of her projects was to go round the streets and put cake decorations on dog poo. So mebe Aero is more like frosting?

  • kungfu (unregistered) in reply to nobody
    nobody:
    "You can't polish a turd"

    But you can put the Aero interface on Vista.

    That is like putting a carpet over a huge dungheap. ;)

  • Timothy (unregistered)

    The sad part is, managers don' see what's wrong with all the items in the summary at the end of the article :-)

  • T$ (unregistered) in reply to death
    death:
    Roll on time a few months. Now we have an access base, locked by the writing process 99% of the time and already bloated to 2G on disk. Access bases at that size are near unapproachable...

    I think you've found the condition Access suffers from known as "database bloat." Compact + Repair to the rescue!

  • (cs) in reply to Gazzonyx
    Gazzonyx:
    ICDeadPpl:
    Hitler used smallint.
    OK, everyone, time to go home... this post has officially been Godwin'ed.
    If only :(
  • (cs) in reply to Erzengel
    Erzengel:
    In some other languages, anything greater than 1 is plural (both 0 and 1 are singular). Of course, there are languages without plural altogether. But in English, singular means "equal to 1" while plural means "not equal to 1".
    You forgot the languages where 2 is neither singular, nor plural :)
  • (cs) in reply to Valacosa
    Valacosa:
    just as I need more than 32,768 rows for a heavily used database to be useful.

    If you need more than 32,768 [nevermind that presumably smallints are 16 bits, not 15, and there's no reason as far as I know why there can't be a negative value, so in fact 65,536 possible values], you probably need more than 99,999. Having it only take three times [1.5 times] as long to be exhausted is probably not going to help you all that much.

  • Bytejuggler (unregistered) in reply to snoofle

    Another one:

    "You put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig"

    (so from that you can make variations,e.g. "Doing that will just be putting lipstick on a pig..." etc. )

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to JOHN
    JOHN:

    I'll see your pedantry, and raise you another.

    The range of "tens of thousands" is 10,001 to 99,999.

    968,796,749,867,946,797,948,679,464,987,649 is also inside the range "tens of thousands" of something.

  • (cs) in reply to Iain Collins
    Iain Collins:
    ...but Microsoft have developed a lot of software...(etc)
    Another variation on the single = plural theme.
  • degrees (unregistered) in reply to snoofle

    Another point about the phrase: "You can't polish a turd" - technically, you can. It takes lots of liquid nitrogen and Shinola. As you might imagine, it takes a long time and gets expensive. And after you are done, you have a shiny turd. Still not happy? Maybe it's time to upgrade to the next version.

    Kind of explains why consulting firms like Microsoft products so much, doesn't it?

  • I See What You Did There... (unregistered)

    Completley off-topic, but that girl in the picture is cute.

    captcha: gotcha

  • (cs) in reply to FredSaw
    FredSaw:
    Iain Collins:
    ...but Microsoft have developed a lot of software...(etc)
    Another variation on the single = plural theme.

    UK English != US English.

  • (cs) in reply to BigPimpin'
    BigPimpin':
    Microsoft Access - A WTF all by itself. Anyone that actually puts a multi-user system into production that's written in Access is an idiot.
    Amen! The IT dept. here just implemented the 3rd* time-tracking system we're required to use. It started as pure Access, but has been updated to use SQL and presumably SQLServer. This masterful application is a strong candidate for a WTF story. Stay tuned.

    *We have to enter time into three separate timekeeping systems, one for payroll, one for accounting, and this latest for IT management. When I was new here, I was suspicious that my new colleagues were pulling my leg. But almost everything is done at least doubly redundantly around here.

  • Rabiator (unregistered) in reply to AGould
    AGould:
    BigPimpin':
    Microsoft Access - A WTF all by itself. Anyone that actually puts a multi-user system into production that's written in Access is an idiot.

    The other possibility is that you don't get a choice in platform. I built an Access database. Why? Because that's the software the company owns. (And it wasn't considered high-priority enough to warrant adding to the IT resources).

    If license costs are the problem, you still could propose using some open source database. Like PostgreSQL, MySQL or Firebird. Or if you are sure that the data volume is pretty low, there are the free "express editions" of Oracle and MS SQL Server.

    I guess all of the above would be better than Access ;-)

  • (cs) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    FredSaw:
    Iain Collins:
    ...but Microsoft have developed a lot of software...(etc)
    Another variation on the single = plural theme.

    UK English != US English.

    Actually, there are areas in the US where such misconjugation is the norm, particularly among southern blacks.*

    *If the term "blacks" is found to be offensive, please feel free to substitute a word of your choosing with the identical meaning, but without offense.

  • Garp (unregistered) in reply to sas
    sas:
    Amen! The IT dept. here just implemented the 3rd* time-tracking system we're required to use. It started as pure Access, but has been updated to use SQL and presumably SQLServer. This masterful application is a strong candidate for a WTF story. Stay tuned.

    *We have to enter time into three separate timekeeping systems, one for payroll, one for accounting, and this latest for IT management. When I was new here, I was suspicious that my new colleagues were pulling my leg. But almost everything is done at least doubly redundantly around here.

    Access has a lovely ability to use "link" tables, linked to a table in a different file. Create your own Access DB with links to the three other DBs, work out what it is actually occurs in your triplicated transactions and just cause them to happen at the touch of a single button. Your fellow IT people will probably love you if you add in a drop down box so they can select their own name ;)

  • Larry (unregistered) in reply to FredSaw
    FredSaw:
    Iain Collins:
    ...but Microsoft have developed a lot of software...(etc)
    Another variation on the single = plural theme.

    and...

    1 fish, 2 fish 1 sheep, 2 sheep

    I've no idea why I posted this... maybe ponderous pedantism is catching :-)

  • regeya (unregistered)

    I just wanted to point out that if you wanted to be EXTREMELY picky, one could argue that 'tens of thousands' could be 10,0001 to infinity. Sure, you should really use different units, but 100,000 is 10 10ks. ;-)

    (Yes, I got the original joke.)

    WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE OBSESSED WITH POSTING YOUR CAPTCHA TESTS???!? p.s. "darwin"

  • Tony Toews (unregistered) in reply to BigPimpin'
    BigPimpin':
    Microsoft Access - A WTF all by itself. Anyone that actually puts a multi-user system into production that's written in Access is an idiot.

    Absolute rubbish. I have a system with 25 users entering data all day long. 160 tables with 400K and 600K records in at least four tables in the backend MDB. Yes, it should be upsized to SQL Server.

    Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP

  • Tony Toews (unregistered) in reply to Maz2331
    Maz2331:
    Actually, if you use a REAL back-end server AND don't ever use "bound" controls for anything editable Access can be used to make some nice client software.

    The key is you can't be lazy about it. Write routines to populate the form (leave your recordset open if you're in need of locking), then at "save" time check every control for proper data and finally bang it back into the db by either updating the recordset or generating SQL dynamically in VB code.

    In some ways, Access is actually what VB should be. Continuous forms and the reporting are awesome. Bound forms and controls, and the Jet engine are disasters waiting to bite you.

    Access works very well with controls and forms bound to queries/views/whatever against SQL Serer, etc. Of course you'd never want to base any kind of form directly against a table.

    Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP

  • Hatshepsut (unregistered) in reply to degrees
    degrees:
    It takes lots of liquid nitrogen and Shinola.
    What if you can't tell shit from shinola?
  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered) in reply to gwenhwyfaer
    gwenhwyfaer:
    Rhett:
    WTF does this all have to do with Dougie Howser?
    Well, you know how some people think they can perform surgery because they've watched a lot of medical dramas? Some people have the same delusion about software...

    Some people think they can actually write software after they've watched a lot of medical dramas?

  • Albert D. Kallal (unregistered) in reply to BigPimpin'

    Why? Ms-access is just another development tool. You can choose c++, vb, or ms-access to interface to sql server. Perhaps you new to computers, but it seems like you can’t even understand the difference between an access application, and that of a database. Ms-access is not a database, it is a development tool. I think perhaps you talking about a JET database here. When you use ms-access, or vb (or a php web site), you still can choose your database engine. You don’t have to use JET as the database engine here, you can use your sql farm. There are ms-access applications with 1000 simultaneous users that run just fine. You just have to make sure you have a decent database server (but, that server has little, or nothing to do with vb, ms-access, or your php web site). I really amazed that you lack basic computer understanding here!

    The database you use with ms-access might be Oralcle, ms-sql server, or JET. If you use sql-server, then why would the sql run slower when using ms-access, or c++, or a web site and php? (or, for that matter hand coded assembler!).

    Somehow you think that the sql server or oracle actually knows that ms-access is on the other end and then decides to run slow?. Golly, come on! If you going to be smug and criticize things here, as least show that you have better ability then the “Sharon” person. Really, your lack of understanding is actually WORSE then Sharon because you critiquing under the guise of smugness, and being a know it all (yet, you don’t even understand the basic difference between an development tool like ms-access, and that of the database you use with that tool.).

    You should try and keep in mind the difference between a development tool like ms-access, and the database engine you decide to use with that devepument tool.

    So, sure..be critical, but use caution, else we have to bring up the story about calling the kettle black, and someone who lacks a basic understanding of VB, c++, ms-access and that of Oracle, sql server, or JET.

    It begs the question who needs some education here.

    Albert D. Kallal Edmonton, Alberta Canada [email protected]

  • Albert D. Kallal (unregistered) in reply to Matthew
    Matthew:
    RichardNeill:
    Access isn't really a database at all. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's just a VB script wrapper around an Excel spreadsheet....

    Of course Access is a database. It is a database in much the same way SQLite is a database Not that this make Access suck any less, but it is a database.

    WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

    Wow, are some people living in darkness here or what? You being worse then that Sharon person!

    Ms-access is NOT a database. Ms-access is development tool like VB, or c++. In fact it shares the same syntax (and compiler) as vb6. The last 4 versions of ms-access has have allowed you to use a 100% oleDB native connection to sql server. There is not JET database involved when you do this. (and, 4 versions of ms-access means we back to the year 2000).

    You could say that you not kept up with ms-access, but then why would you be commenting on the product you know nothing of then? Really, either your ignorant, or not kept up! Both of which make your attitude worse then that of “Sharon”.

    If falling behind on new versions of products or not keeping up, then I don’t think you should comment then. And, if you have been keeping up on general technology, then you can’t understand the difference between a development tool like ms-access, and that of the JET database engine.

    I mean, does sql lite provide a ability to write code and build a interface? How do you build a form or report with sql lite? (it insane to bring the two terms together in the same sentence).

    I think your trying to refer to the JET database engine. You are free to use sql –server, or oracle, or MySql with ms-access.

    Ms-access is just a development tool based on the VB6 compiler and p-code engine (it actually is the same compiler as vb6, but ms-access does not have a native compile option like VB6 does).

    Shame on your for not even having a BASIC understanding of a database engine like JET, and that of ms-access. You don’t have to use JET with ms-access if you don’t want to.

    Albert D. Kallal Edmonton, Alberta Canada [email protected]

  • Access isn't bad if you use it for the right things. (unregistered)

    If you have say 2 reports 2 forms 2 tables with a few hundred or even thousand of records and you want to knock up it up in a couple of minutes access is great. Access is really suited for that kind of rapid application developement.

    If you want to develope a major application which would be the primary software used by your company well you would have to create an ADP which uses an SQL Server backend however I think you would find the access controls lacking and would go be better off developing an application.

  • Tony Toews (unregistered) in reply to Access isn't bad if you use it for the right things.

    [quote user="Access isn't bad if you use it for the right things."]If you have say 2 reports 2 forms 2 tables with a few hundred or even thousand of records and you want to knock up it up in a couple of minutes access is great. Access is really suited for that kind of rapid application developement.[/quote]

    I strenuously disagree. Access works very well with 450 forms, 350 reports and 70,000 lines of VBA code against a backend of 160 tables.

    If you want to develope a major application which would be the primary software used by your company well you would have to create an ADP which uses an SQL Server backend however I think you would find the access controls lacking and would go be better off developing an application.[/quote]

    Why would you want to use an ADP? Access MDB/MDE using linked tables, views and stored procedures works very well against SQL Server. This is also the Microsoft recommended solution for hitting SQL Server. ADPs have their own set of quirks. They also weren't improved in any fashion in Access 2007.

    Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP

  • (cs) in reply to Access isn't bad if you use it for the right things.

    Reposted to get the attributions done better.

    Access isn't bad if you use it for the right things.:
    If you have say 2 reports 2 forms 2 tables with a few hundred or even thousand of records and you want to knock up it up in a couple of minutes access is great. Access is really suited for that kind of rapid application developement.

    I strenuously disagree. Access works very well. I setup major app for a client with 450 forms, 350 reports and 70,000 lines of VBA code against a backend of 160 tables. It controlled everything in their rather large welding shop.

    Access isn't bad if you use it for the right things.:
    If you want to develope a major application which would be the primary software used by your company well you would have to create an ADP which uses an SQL Server backend however I think you would find the access controls lacking and would go be better off developing an application.

    Why would you want to use an ADP? Access MDB/MDE using linked tables, views and stored procedures works very well against SQL Server. This is also the Microsoft recommended solution for hitting SQL Server. ADPs have their own set of quirks. They also weren't improved in any fashion in Access 2007.

    Access controls lacking? I think not. Granted the continuous form could use some improvements but it works very well with next to no code required to build it. And no distribution problems.

    Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP

  • David (unregistered) in reply to Tony Toews
    Tony Toews:
    Maz2331:
    Actually, if you use a REAL back-end server AND don't ever use "bound" controls for anything editable Access can be used to make some nice client software.

    The key is you can't be lazy about it. Write routines to populate the form (leave your recordset open if you're in need of locking), then at "save" time check every control for proper data and finally bang it back into the db by either updating the recordset or generating SQL dynamically in VB code.

    In some ways, Access is actually what VB should be. Continuous forms and the reporting are awesome. Bound forms and controls, and the Jet engine are disasters waiting to bite you.

    Access works very well with controls and forms bound to queries/views/whatever against SQL Serer, etc. Of course you'd never want to base any kind of form directly against a table.

    Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP

    Hi Tony & Maz2331. I'm doing some work with Access, but I'm very inexperienced. I've never been given any formal training in Access, so I'm relying on general computer science knowledge. You've stated several things that "of course" you should or should not do (eg basing forms on tables), but they're new to me. Can you point me to a resource that explains these best practices for using Access, preferably with explanations of why the practices are good or bad? I'd greatly prefer to do things right, but it's unlikely to happen by voodoo magic and luck.

    Thanks

  • revans (unregistered) in reply to Tony Toews

    Go Tony!!!

    It's about time someone with even an inkling of what Access is capable of doing chimed in.

    Too many out there who have built and/or unsuccessfully tried to fix a poorly made database blame the tool used instead of the tool who built the database.

    You build a shoddy house with a hammer and nails it's not the hammer's fault..

Leave a comment on “The Sharon System”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article