By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,709 Members | 2,164 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,709 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Access 2.0 supported Application.SetOption "Show ToolTips", False What can I run with Access 97 to achieve the same objective?

P: n/a
MLH
Does Access 97 have something like this?
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
11 Replies


P: n/a
Access 2.0 did *not* support Application.SetOption "Show Tooltips", False
because ... there is no build-in-option like that in Access 2.0 ......

btw: I (and a lot of other's I guess) can't read the subject-line properly ...

Arno R

"MLH" <CR**@NorthState.net> schreef in bericht news:3t********************************@4ax.com...
Does Access 97 have something like this?

Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
Access 97 supported Applicatiotn.SetOption, but I don't see ShowToolTips
among the options you can set - nor is it under Tools - Options.
The only mention of ShowToolTips I see in the help file only affects
CommandBars.

HTH

"MLH" <CR**@NorthState.net> wrote in message
news:3t********************************@4ax.com...
Does Access 97 have something like this?

Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
MLH
Understood on the subject line. Best to repeat Q inside the post.
But I have used Application.SetOption "Show Tooltips", False in
access 2.0 for years. Never gave me a problem. I used it in an
initialization procedure on most applications. Kind-a-like this...

If CurrentUser() <> "mlh" Then
Application.SetOption "Show ToolTips", False
Application.SetOption "Key Assignment Macro", "NonExistent"
Application.SetOption "Built-In ToolBars Available", False
End If

' This snippet keeps me from running into
' the age-old problem of default toolbars
' showing up when User Group ID's log in
' after I've gone to great lengths to disable
' them during development and customize others.
Access 2.0 did *not* support Application.SetOption "Show Tooltips", False
because ... there is no build-in-option like that in Access 2.0 .....

btw: I (and a lot of other's I guess) can't read the subject-line properly ...

Arno R

"MLH" <CR**@NorthState.net> schreef in bericht news:3t********************************@4ax.com...
Does Access 97 have something like this?


Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a

"MLH" <CR**@NorthState.net> schreef in bericht news:2m********************************@4ax.com...
But I have used Application.SetOption "Show Tooltips", False in
access 2.0 for years. Never gave me a problem.


You are right. I was to quick in answering this one. Sorry
There is such an option in Access 2.0 indeed.
I was confused because Access 2.0 did not support Tooltips for buttons, controls and such.
What you are/were disabeling in Access 2.0 are the Tooltips for commandbar/toolbar buttons.
But why would you do that ???

There is no such option in Access 97 AFAIK.

Arno R
Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
MLH
On Thu, 26 May 2005 09:14:36 +0200, "Arno R"
<ar***********@tiscali.nl> wrote:

"MLH" <CR**@NorthState.net> schreef in bericht news:2m********************************@4ax.com...
But I have used Application.SetOption "Show Tooltips", False in
access 2.0 for years. Never gave me a problem.


You are right. I was to quick in answering this one. Sorry
There is such an option in Access 2.0 indeed.
I was confused because Access 2.0 did not support Tooltips for buttons, controls and such.
What you are/were disabeling in Access 2.0 are the Tooltips for commandbar/toolbar buttons.
But why would you do that ???

There is no such option in Access 97 AFAIK.

Arno R

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I probably sought out and invoked every line of disabling code I could
get my hands on. I wrote very tight apps and didn't want users to have
any possibility of using menus, tool bars, help - or even to know they
were there..

Am trying to migrate now to A97 and was importing old code lines
simply because they were important to me then. I have the ODE
tools and have never created an A97 runtime. Looking forward to
trying it out.
Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a
>
Am trying to migrate now to A97 and was importing old code lines
simply because they were important to me then. I have the ODE
tools and have never created an A97 runtime. Looking forward to
trying it out.


Went the same route, but as I wrote a week ago in the thread: "Semi-OT:Access 2.0 Wakeup Call" :
It's a hassle to deploy 32-bit runtimes. I don't even try this again with new clients.

If you manage to get it work (I mean Access '97 RT without errors) I would love to hear back from you.
Still sometimes I deploy an Access '97 RT on a new machine and there are ALWAYS errors.
If you just ignore them it's allright (provided there is NO other Office-version with Access installed)
It is that I know this specific client, and can explain what happens, but M$ should be ashamed IMO.

Arno R

Nov 13 '05 #7

P: n/a
MLH <CR**@NorthState.net> wrote in
news:61********************************@4ax.com:
I probably sought out and invoked every line of disabling code I
could get my hands on. I wrote very tight apps and didn't want
users to have any possibility of using menus, tool bars, help - or
even to know they were there..


If you design your own custom menus and toolbars don't give them
tooltips.

I don't understand your hostility towards features that make
applications easier to use. Sounds like hostility to users.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #8

P: n/a
MLH
In the corporate environment, its called self-preservation.
If you are writing entirely for paying customers, the con-
cept may be foreign to you. Its second nature to lots of
others.

I don't understand your hostility towards features that make
applications easier to use. Sounds like hostility to users.


Nov 13 '05 #9

P: n/a
MLH
I would like to read the thread you mentioned...
was it "Semi-OT:Access 2.0 Wakeup Call". I
had Free Agent do a search - no luck.

Thx.
Nov 13 '05 #10

P: n/a
MLH
Oops. Spoke too soon. Found
it on deja.com.

Interesting reading.
Nov 13 '05 #11

P: n/a
MLH wrote:
In the corporate environment, its called self-preservation.
If you are writing entirely for paying customers, the con-
cept may be foreign to you. Its second nature to lots of
others.


Please ignore any ranting that follows. It sounds foreign to me also.
Please explain the logic behind how what you're doing helps them want
to keep you. It almost sounds like the shameful tactic of writing
labyrinthine and obfuscated code so that if they get rid of you the
next programmer will have a mess on her hands. Of course, I'm not
entirely innocent. Although I write code so that another programmer
can maintain it easily it is still complicated enough without trying
that it will take her quite a while to get up to speed. Plus, because
the code is working so well my clients would rather have me work on new
features than document old ones. I'm a bit incredulous that none of my
clients have asked for any documentation about how the program is
designed, ever! One has five years of continuous software development
by me without a shred of documentation. It's their nickel.

Usually it's the larger companies that lock themselves into situations
that will cost them choices. I did an Access database for the largest
hospital in my state. It had every feature they requested plus source
code. A large software company convinced them that a compiled VB
version would be much more professional. They supply a nice executable
without source code so that they are locked in to that software company
(very professional). Nevermind that I could have done it in VB also.

It's almost the same way with Crystal Reports. Because a lot of VB
programmers use Crystal Reports and because the name was well chosen,
people thought that Crystal Reports was more professional than having
VB call up an Access report.

The e-commerce application I did in 2000 was my first ASP project. I
had not even had a class in ASP. I just got on the internet and
Googled nearly everything I needed to learn. Two huge software
companies tried it and were not able to do it. They charged (and got)
about $17,000 each. I got about $4,000 and stock reputedly worth
$11,000 (because they were broke after paying the huge companies). I'm
pretty sure they're going to try to stiff me for the $11,000. Plus,
they're using the site as advertising for the kind of work they can do.
I just don't think they can deliver on any major design changes to the
backend. Worse yet, they'll be trying to pull the same stock stunt on
the next programmer. But I was able to show that large software
companies are not always better than a small developer. I have
personal reasons for not suing that company.

I did a database for a professional sports team to track every pill
taken by every player. When they were audited by the NFL they received
a 100% compliance for the first time ever. The program worked
perfectly and has been working perfectly AFAIK for several years. When
they needed some new features the first thing they did was start
dialing large software companies! I guess I need to hire a bunch of
programmers, rent an expensive office and start "Fortune Custom
Business Software" as soon as the economy allows ;-). In the meantime
I have thought of offering to buy insurance in the client's name so
that if I am the only one developing software for them and something
happens to me they can hire a RBSC (really big software company) to
finish it. But in spite of all that happened I have plenty of work
(i.e., I'm not in self-preservation mode) so I would be intrigued by
the techniques used by corporate programmers who are in
self-preservation mode.

James A. Fortune

Nov 13 '05 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.