tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!

Subject: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 08 May 02 - 01:17 PM

Does anyone know how to make Access work?

I am trying to create a query from three tables. I have consulted three books, including Access for Dummies. I have followed everything to the letter, or so I thought, but there are no records in my query.

I am about to cry. :-(

Can anyone help? Many thanks.

KFC

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: MMario
Date: 08 May 02 - 01:19 PM

talk to me girl!

I can *try*

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 08 May 02 - 01:32 PM

Thanks MMario. :-)

I have three tables of different mental health resources - counselors, psychiatrists, support groups. What I want to do is combine all that into one datasheet, sorted by category. That way, when someone calls looking for resources for depression, let's say, all anyone has to do is run the query, and all the resources will come up in one place. I thought I could do it with a query... so I set up the relationships between the tables, followed all the Wizard steps, and.... nothing. I tried building it from scratch without the Wizard, and...... nothing. Not one single record shows up at all.

I've experimented with this field, that field, taking away fields, adding fields, and....... nothing.

Is there not an Access for the Almost Totally Incompetent? ;-)

I'm sure it's some very piddly tiny thing I missed....

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Noreen
Date: 08 May 02 - 01:37 PM

One query from 3 linked tables, or three queries from 3 tables? Tell us more, Kim.

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Barbara Shaw
Date: 08 May 02 - 01:40 PM

Hi Kim. Go into Access Query, Design View, and check the relationships between the three tables. You need to join them by using some field that exists in each, and you can do this by clicking on the field in one table and dragging it to the field in the other table. Then, you should double click on the line that is drawn between the two tables to see what kind of condition you actually set up. The "join properties" may be what prevents you from getting any records.

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Homeless
Date: 08 May 02 - 01:42 PM

Kim -
From your description, it sounds like you're trying to do a query on tables that are not related. In order to have records in your return set, the records in the individual tables have to relate to one another somehow. If there is no relation, there will be no records returned (unless you specifically want a cartesean product, which is generally a no-no). You *might* be able to get what you want with a Union. Can you give us info on what your table structures are like?

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 08 May 02 - 01:43 PM

One query, three linked tables.

Barbara's suggestion about the actual relationships (aha! this is something the books don't mention, at least not in the place where you'd think they'd mention it) has changed it up a little, but still not showing everything I need. It's a start, though........

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 08 May 02 - 01:49 PM

Homeless, each table has most of the same fields - Issue, Contact, Phone, City. I thought it would work but maybe I'm not setting up the relationships right.

All I want to do is merge all the records from the three tables into one without having to manually enter all the records again.

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Noreen
Date: 08 May 02 - 01:54 PM

Kim, you don't need to merge all the records from the three tables into one , just link them together. Looks like a relationship problem, as above.

Is there a field common to all three tables?

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Barbara Shaw
Date: 08 May 02 - 01:58 PM

Not showing everything you need - sounds like you are getting some data? In design view, make sure you are pulling down to the field columns all the fields from all the tables that you want to show in the output. Also make sure the little check marks in the "show" column are checked.

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Homeless
Date: 08 May 02 - 01:58 PM

ok, but sames fields isn't necessarily a relationship. A relationship means that a record in each table will have the same *data value* in the fields, not just the same fields. Just having a PhoneNumber in two different tables isn't going to help you. For the tables to be related, at least one record in each table would have to have the same phone number. Then you could join the records in those two tables.

I'm guessing that what you needs is an additional table that lists the reasons someone would need the resource, and which resource is applicable. So the fields it might have would be "diagnosis" and "phoneNumber". That way you could query for "Depression" and join on the phone number to your other tables.

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 08 May 02 - 02:05 PM

Okay, okay, I'm starting to get ideas......... maybe if I get a little lunch it will all come clear to me.......... Thanks everyone.

When we first moved into our new office, I spent the whole day trying to program our voice mail system - it was a new system, the previous owners had it programmed some strange way, and what I thought should have been called one thing, the instruction book called another. (Who here knows what a "hunt group" is?) Anyway after I let it sit for a while, I went back to it and got it right away.

But I thought these programs were supposed to make my job easier!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: NightWing
Date: 08 May 02 - 02:11 PM

You're working on the hard part. Once you have this query working it WILL make the job easier. But getting to the easy part is often hard. *sigh*

BB,
NightWing

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 May 02 - 02:12 PM

I'm sure it will do in time Kim.

I am finding difficulty in seeing the relationships here. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm seeing 3 separte tables perhaps with the same structure.

One way with Access to merge the results of similar tables is to run a UNION query on the data.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 May 02 - 02:19 PM

Another thought Kim, if you have 3 tables, counselors, psychiatrists, support groups. And the structure is similar, e.g. Name, Address, Telepone etc. It may be worth considering re-designing to have one table say contact holding all the information and a field "contact type" within that table to differentaite between the 3 groups.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 08 May 02 - 02:27 PM

GUESS WHAT?

It worked when I removed all the relationships from between the tables.

I have no idea why, unless it's because Access automatically relates similar fields in different tables. I don't know. All I know is when I did what the book said, it didn't work.

Thanks everyone for all your help! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 May 02 - 02:46 PM

Kim make sure you haven't created a "multiple" i.e make sure that each entry in each table appears once and only once in the query.

Jon

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: IvanB
Date: 08 May 02 - 03:05 PM

The tables in this case sound so similar that I think Jon Freeman had the right idea - why not create on table for all the data? All you would have to do is create an empty table with all the fields that occur in any of the three tables and import the data from each of the filled tables into it.

It may be that when the tables were queried no records were returned because no relationship field had the same data in all three tables. Queries can be tricky things and, although they're great once the syntax is learned, they can have a fairly steep learning curve.

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 08 May 02 - 03:44 PM

Well, shoot.

You're right -- it didn't come out exactly like it should have. I did import the Customer Diagnosis table from another database, but in the final query, each resource comes up in each category. It's a start, as far as getting things to show up, but not exactly what I hoped for. Anyway it will buy me some time!

I think having a master table is a good idea - I didn't set up the database to begin with, or I probably would have done it that way. The person who started it was an intern and doesn't work here anymore so I'm taking up where she left off and I'm not entirely sure what she did. Each table has different field names.

Now... there is one table that won't let me into design mode. It says either I have something open, or I don't have permission, even when I close everything and open it again.

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 May 02 - 04:10 PM

Kim, you have a customer diagnosis table too? If we are saying that you have customers and those customers each have a counsellor, each attend a support group, etc. I would say that counsellor, support group, etc. should be separate entities (or tables if you prefer).

I know you have been landed with this job but, really it pays to understand a little about relational database design before diving into a project. Have a look through your book on Access and see if you can find any mention of Entities or of Normalisation. If there is any mention, it will probably be near the back of the book.

If you really get stuck, if you like, you can send me an empty copy of the existing database together with some brief explaination as to how the database fits your real world working and I will attempt to come up with a design that follows established database rules.

Jon

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 08 May 02 - 04:21 PM

What we're working on is a database of resources that anyone in our office can easily access when someone calls with a question, so that they don't have to flip through 20 bajillion papers & such to find the answer. Just about everything is on a separate table already - but the clinical director doesn't want it that way. She wants it all in one place together, mostly because she doesn't want to have to learn any new computer stuff. That's what I'm here for.

I guess what I don't understand is this: if I relate Field A to Field B, and Field B to Field C, are those the only three fields I can have in the query? And if I make a master table of EVERYthing, then I don't really need the query, do I?

We have some other databases set up to where we can enter date parameters and find out how many calls we had in a certain period. What I thought we could do was query on certain things, for instance "depression," and have all the counselors, doctors, support groups, etc., come up, without having to navigate a master table. Maybe it doesn't work that way.

I have been going through my books and none of them make any sense. I mean, I thought I was following all the instructions but I'm not getting what I hoped for.

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 08 May 02 - 04:42 PM

Okay, I think I have something that will work now.

I did a Master Table, with a criteria parameter of "type in customer diagnosis." So you type in what you're looking for, and up pop the associated resources.

It will probably need some fine tuning but I think I am on the right track. Thanks again everyone. :-)

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Barbara Shaw
Date: 08 May 02 - 04:42 PM

Access is deceptively simple looking, but can be very tricky, and database design can be very complex. Depending on what you are trying to do, you may be better off combining all the resources into one "resource" table and identify them by category, such as support group, counselling, psychiatry. If you are working with existing tables on (for example) a LAN server, you may not have access to change the design, thus the permissions message, but you could import them into a new table of your design.

A reason for still needing a query would depend on what you want to get as a result. Do you want to list every item in the database every time? If so, you don't need a query; you just need a table print once. If you want just the ones in a certain city or certain telephone exchange or certain category, you would want a query. If you are trying to list all the particular resources who treat depression, for example, you would need to identify every condition that each resource handles, which might mean a row for each one, or another table to identify the conditions that each category treats.

I'd better quit now. Sounds like I'm just making things worse, but I want you to realize that this can be a very tricky thing to do and not something you can necessarily work out in an hour, especially without Access training.

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 May 02 - 04:52 PM

Kim, I suspect where things are going wrong is a missunderstanding of relationships.

An example of a relationship could be that we have counsellors and patients. Each patient could be allocated one counsellor and each counsellor could see many patients.

If I jumped onto the tables, we could have:

Patient Table
PatientNumber (a unique identifier for the primary key)
PatientName
OtherDetails
CounsellorNumber

Counsellor Table
CounsellorNumber (a uniqe identifier) CounsellorName
OtherDetails

Note that the only reference to the counsellor in the Patient Table is the CounsellorNumber. Any other details about a patient's counsellor can be found from there. In database speak, CounsellorNumber is a foreign key in the Patient Table. Under access, you would go to tools/relationships and set up a link between the Counsellor fields in both tables and set a one to many relationship there (I think it is under the bit that says referential integrity).

What you seem to have is unrelated tables. Lets say you have Counsellor and Psychiatrist tables. They could both contain identical fields but there is nothing to relate them (even if access tries to form a link). To be able to relate them you would have to be able to say and include in your model something like "A psychiaritrist has many counsellors working for him and each counsellor reports to one psychiatrist".

Hope that makes some degree of sense to you.

Jon

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 May 02 - 04:54 PM

Kim, I posted that before reading your last post. You may not need it now.

Jon

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 08 May 02 - 05:18 PM

Thanks Jon------ what I have set up will be all right for the time being, but I suspect that in the future, more will have to be done as we add more data, and the people who don't actually have to tinker with the programs will want it to do everything but fold the laundry, so to speak. And the main person who will be using it is extremely technically challenged, so it has to be kept pretty simple.

I'm still not sure I understand the concept of unrelated tables, though... I will have to go and play with it some more. Eventually the light bulb will go off! :-)

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 May 02 - 06:41 PM

Well good luck Kim.

If you are likely to be doing a lot with Acess Databases, I would suggest that you try to learn a little about (formal) database design. I've got an Access book here - a big fat one and it does't go on to the sort of areas I'm talking about until page seven hundered and something where it calls it an advanced topic.

In fairness, it is not the easiest topic in the book but one IMO that would be better dealt with much earlier. The arlier stuff is fine if you just want to use single tables but I believe that a user could easily become "unstuck" if they wanted to do more than single tables without this later knowledge.

I only have basic knowledge but I can assure you that I have foud the ability to construct a simple Entity Relationship type diagram most useful.

Maybe one of the several experienced proffesional programmers here may disagree with me but my own feeling is that in the long run, you will save yourself a lot of grief by learning some of this sooner rather than later.

Jon

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From:
Date: 08 May 02 - 07:15 PM

Just got to the thread now. I agree with Jon, though I am not a professional programmer.

I have done a fair amount of programming over the years, and one thing that chops the job in half, is a thorough understanding of the basics of what you are doing. In this case, design of databases. It is probably one of the most underrated tasks of the programming pantheon. Deceptively simple to grasp the simpler structures, it is impossible to make things easier without the background in why you do certain things in certain ways. In many ways it likens closest to an alchemist being formulae driven.

It can be a daunting task, but I suggest finding a course in basic database design (tied into using Access would be best).

And getting a good grounding in the larger relationship patterns. It'll help, believe me. Finding good ways to "see" the way the data inter-relates is what makes a great database.

Sounds like you're a fast learner, Kim, so keep up the good work.

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: GUEST,Phil Manchester UK
Date: 08 May 02 - 07:34 PM

Kim-I found this link to be very useful regarding basic database design principles. All the best with your project-Access is probably the steepest learning curve of the whole Microsoft canon. It looks easy on the surface but as others here have said, without the underpinning knowledge you are soon out of your depth as I have also found out on many occasions.Best of luck.

http://w3.softlookup.com/database.html

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 02 - 09:57 PM

Sympathies, Kim. Normalizing data and knowing what relationships should exist is a real art, butI think you're on the right track. From the above it sounds like one attribute in table A should be identical in table B and should have a one-to-one relationship with its record in BOTH table. So, if phone number is the linked attribute, make sure that each phone number isu nique to its record in both tables. No 1:n or n:1 relationships will work as the linking field. (This makes sense to me, but if it doesn;t make sense to you, feel free to ignore it!)

As for the "boss who wants it all in one place", be very wary of requirements voiced in haste by the ignorant. She may not know what she is saying!!

I would suspect that what she really wants is a front end that can tell her whatever she needs to know and she actually does not care what data is in which tables, as long as she gets the front end she needs. Regards,

A

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: YOR
Date: 08 May 02 - 10:42 PM

I'm late in on this. I liked the combine all into one table idea, temp or perm, both are possable.

Suggestion for the future, not that it is going to solve the current problem. When I reached that brick wall in getting Access to do what I wanted it to do I learned SQL (Structured Query Language). You can make a database sing with SQL. Experiment, in your QBE window do menu|views|sql view. Even reading through the crazy text can sometimes help, copy and paste to notepad for further study. When closing save design changes NO!

Good luck! Roy

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 09 May 02 - 10:42 AM

Wow, y'all, great information and suggestions.

Access for Dummies doesn't like working with SQL, but it sounds important.

And I have a 1000+ page textbook, which is a bear to wade through.

I think the idea of learning basic database design is a very good one and I'm going to see if I can find a class in it somewhere. It seems like the Access manuals assume that the user already knows how to design a database.

And Amos, my superiors are Very Good at making ignorant suggestions in haste. :-)

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 09 May 02 - 11:20 AM

Kim, I find that the Access query designer is a great tool and I tend to use it in preference to SQL but there are some queries, e.g. the Union query mentioned by homeless and myself that you cann't produce with it, there are occasions where you may find you wish to "tweak" what Access has produced and there are certainly occasions where I find it useful to see what Access has produced - sometimes seeing the text (which would probably make some degree of sense to you even now) can make the reason for a problem clear...

SQL is an industry standard. Understanding it will take you a lot further than just Access, you would be equipped to write queries in Oracle, MS SQLServer, MySQL, etc.

Jon

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: GUEST,Geoff
Date: 09 May 02 - 11:26 AM

Jon,

Do you have any suggestions as to going about learning SQL?

I'm faily computer literate, but know very little about databases, which are probably the most important thing in computing today.

How did you learn?

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 09 May 02 - 11:49 AM

Now you are asking. I learned most of what I know on SQL (I had dabbled before just with Access) and methods of database design while on an HNC in Business IT.

I must admit that there are parts of SQL, e.g. Creating tables and creating fields that I have completely forgotten and have lost the notes that went with the course.

I am currently going through a change over here from Windows from Linux and one project I intend to undertake is to move the forum I run, the Annexe away from Access and onto MySql. I feel I'm going to need a good reference for that.

Maybe in a month or so, I could come up with a good reccomendation but at the moment, I seem to have got my own brain in some degree of confusion with making changes, trying to undertand this an that within UNIX type environments, etc.

Hopefully, someone here will be able to point us both towards a good book.

Jon

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 09 May 02 - 12:23 PM

Oh and one other bit and can give you is the way we learned.

For the most part, it was hands on. We each had an Oracle database set up and most of the time in SQL was spent doing excercises e.g we could have a question, "List the employees by region, in salary order". The tutor (who happened to be one of the ones who had worked in Industry before coming to teaching - I always found those the best BTW) seemed to feel that practice was a big part in learning SQL.

Jon

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: YOR
Date: 09 May 02 - 12:53 PM

I started with dBase III, III+, IV, V and Visual Basis V and moved to Access 95 when my dBase kept hanging up and losing my fresh inputted data. If you don't get a clean save and exit all is lost.

I learned Access 95 just by just doing it and using the help files and the Microsoft book (as weak as it is). Later I bought the QUE book "Using Access 97". When that brick wall I mentioned came up I bought the Prentice Hall book "SQL Fundamentals" by John Patrick. Great book, it came with a CD of sample databases for each chapter so I didn't have to waste my time inputting worthless information just to learn it. Over the years I transitioned from Access 95, 97, 98 and 2000.

I use the graphic interface for all table design, its just easier than SQL. I start my queries with the graphic interface and the wizards and then switch to SQL view. It saves a lot of typing.

Great topic here, Roy

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 09 May 02 - 01:43 PM

I haven't had time to go through the whole site that Guest Phil mentioned above, but I have bookmarked it.

Also New Horizons Computer Center offers online courses pretty much anywhere in the world: New Horizons

This has really been fabulous... nobody in my office knows how to use this program, and I hop on the Mudcat, and all these people come to help me! Thanks so much. :-)

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 02 - 04:28 PM

There are several basic books on SQL, and I think there's an SQL fer Dummies.

Ther emay be community college or adult-ed intro courses in your area, too.

A

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: YOR
Date: 09 May 02 - 05:36 PM

Never tried "SQL for Dummies", although I have felt that way.

I have "VBA for Dummies" just starting to 'not' learn that, what a headache!

Thanks Kim C and many others for visiting my thread "Please make my wife cry for mother's day". It means a lot, she is going to love it.

Roy

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 09 May 02 - 07:15 PM

Oh, Dbase III, I did play with that but I can't remember using SQL - maybe I did...

The first version of Access I used was Access2 while trying to help one of my brothers out with something. We had a lot of problems with it and I ended up refusing to have any more to do with it. The final straw was a little bit of code - can't remember the syntax but as a general idea, by the time I'd re-written it , it ran along these lines:

  test = 0
  while test <> 1
     if test <> 1 then
        test = 1
        print "test is now set to 1"
     else        print "test is now equal to" & test & "I should leave next time"  

It just used to get stuck in a loop and it was not a case of a miss-spelt variable in the while (or whatever loop I used) loop - ended up having 2 people confirming it wasn't me...

I ended up swithing to Paradox and later moved onto Delphi which with BDE, used the Paradox tables.

Around the time I got to play with DBase III, I was also using Turbo Pascal and wrote a couple of programs in that, including one that was a sort of treatment appointment/register just using the TP file handling. The physio register one ran from about 1988 to 1998 - my mum's retirement on an 8086 and remained useful - not a great one but I'm still quite proud of that one - several thousand lines of TP which included the interface and I think only one bug found in that period.

Jon

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: hesperis
Date: 09 May 02 - 08:47 PM

You hired an intern, who left without completing the job and without letting you know how to use it? Want one who will not only set it up right, but also teach you how to do it yourself? I'm looking for work, and am available pretty immediately!

Been playing with both access98 and mysql lately, mostly mysql. I am currently working on a database to organize characters, quests, and descriptions for a computer game project. I've just got another team member set up with php and mysql, which he is now using to help me with with the database (it's a pretty complicated one), for his job, and for another game. I love doing stuff like this!

Where do you live? *g*

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: YOR
Date: 09 May 02 - 10:43 PM

The person who designed the program is gone. I know that story. The various programs were in either dBase IV or dBase V. Management task tracking and scheduling, shop orders and procurement stuff. Reports quit working, forms showed no data, no one wanted or knew how to fix it. I didn't want to fix it I wanted to replace it. Give me the data, all of it, look quickly at the rest of the crap and then trash it. Import and clean up the data (with SQL) and start all over with queries, forms and reports. It is so nice to have everything in one file and not a whole directory full of crap.

You see the craziest things, dates that are not dates because they have TBD, ASAP, N/A, 06/03E (for estimate) and A (for actual). Actually what? Actually wrong! What year was that?

Will keep you awake at work! Roy

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Terry K
Date: 10 May 02 - 04:12 AM

I've been a relational database nut for about 13 years now and thought when I changed to Access (4 years ago) that it would enhance my work. Silly boy. I find it so non-intuitive and the books and Help system so useless that I'm about to give up. I don't need in my life the amount of frustration that Access gives me. I thought maybe it was just me being thick, but this thread tells me that it's not just me after all.

Incidentally, the relational database that I used to use (for my thirteen linked sub-files with full query and report facility) came on a DOS 5.25 inch floppy. That's progress.

Cheers, Terry

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Barbara Shaw
Date: 10 May 02 - 08:33 AM

I found Access to be extremely powerful and fairly intuitive as a tool for reporting and simple as well as more complex databases. But then, I was a technoid for many years, and had dozens of other languages and database training behind me. If you intend to be a technical type, SQL is important, because it can be used on many different platforms, on the desktop as well as mainframe. With something like Access, you can tie together information from simple little user-built tables with huge, complex mainframe relational databases.

The information, the results, the reporting and records, are the point. The need a supervisor has for "all the information in one place" is really the reason for any of it. Whether it is physically or logically in one place is the decision of the programmers, but the end-users who are trying to do their jobs with information is the point.

Having been there, I know how easy it is to get caught up in the technology and have fun noodling around with the various software products that show up daily. However, having also been a technology consultant, I can also sympathize with the needs of the end users who don't want to know how to program, just want the information.

Subject: RE: tech: Access 97 Database: HELP!!!!!
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 10 May 02 - 09:02 AM

I've had no problems with Access 97 or Access 2000 but the list of problems I had with Access 2 were endless. One of the other problems I had was forms, usually code in forms, that stopped working. Believe it or not, copying the form, pasting it, deleting the old form, then renaming often fixed the problem. Although the database itself seemed fine, as far as I'm concerned it was the biggest pile of junk I've ever used.

Jon