Access 2003 code corruption problems

I'm running into all sorts of problems with Access 2003 - now I have a
weird error where it cannot find a macro called '..'. It seems to be
remarkably less stable that the previous versions. And I don't know it
works internally, but the saving of code/form changes seems hit and
miss.

Nov 13 '05 #3

James Beswick <ja**********@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm running into all sorts of problems with Access 2003 - now I have a
weird error where it cannot find a macro called '..'. It seems to be
remarkably less stable that the previous versions. And I don't know it
works internally, but the saving of code/form changes seems hit and
miss.

I've found no compelling reason to use A2003 since it still supports the
A2000 format.

There are quite a few things though that don't work as expected.

eg. Things that worked fine in A2000 but not in A2003 (using exact same
2000 format database) in my experience...

TransferText in an ADP returns an error like "Jet can't find table
dbo__tblMyTable". It doesn't seem to interpret the owner/table
correctly. If you use just the table name by itself it will work but if
you are not the owner it will create a second table of the same name
belonging to the current user. In A2000 it works fine. (I've basically
build my own text file importing routines when using ADPs. In theory you
should be importing into SQL server directly but it's not always
practical for users).

Form Conditional Formatting doesn't work as expected and seems to not
update until record looses focus/updates.

I've got a form that has a button that calls up another form. It works
in A2000, but in A2003 it crashes. If I call it from a menu item it
works though.

There are a number of other "quirks" I can't recall offhand.....

And of course editing an A2000 in A2003 causes the database to become
corrupted.

The 'ol general rule of thumb is to skip every second version of
Access.. but I don't think that works anymore:). Many people skipped
A2002.... many still use A2000. I doubt A2005/6 will offer much but we
can hope it's more stable, has better performance and has some better
form design features.
--
regards,

Bradley

A Christian Response
http://www.pastornet.net.au/response

Nov 13 '05 #4

It's good to hear that my experience is not one-of-a-kind. I think I'm
going to make the transition to .NET, as it seems Microsoft is steadily
pushing up all there. Looking through the message boards, there are
dozens of strange errors in Access that point to poor software design
on the MS end, which is a shame given how many of us have built complex
systems based on it.

Regards,
James

http://mckarkquey.blogspot.com/

Nov 13 '05 #5

ja**********@gmail.com wrote in
news:11**********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:

I've been using Access since version 97 and I've migrated to 2003.
I've noticed a substantial number of strange ActiveX/OLE and code
corruption problems when writing databases. The only solution I've
found is to create a new database and import all the objects from
the corrupted file.

Has anyone else found a solution to this annoying problem? I
cannot find anything useful on Microsoft's website and I haven't
seen any posts about the cause of these issues.

Do you have conditional compiling turned off?

Do you decompile periodically during the development process?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #6

"Br@dley" <n0****@4u.com> wrote in
news:Qs******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

The 'ol general rule of thumb is to skip every second version of
Access.. but I don't think that works anymore:). Many people
skipped A2002.... many still use A2000. I doubt A2005/6 will offer
much but we can hope it's more stable, has better performance and
has some better form design features.

Looks to me like your problems are all caused by choosing to use
ADPs, which to me seem like just about the most useless thing MS has
provided in Access in years.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #7

"James Beswick" <ja**********@gmail.com> wrote in
news:11*********************@g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com:

It's good to hear that my experience is not one-of-a-kind. I think
I'm going to make the transition to .NET, as it seems Microsoft is
steadily pushing up all there. Looking through the message boards,
there are dozens of strange errors in Access that point to poor
software design on the MS end, which is a shame given how many of
us have built complex systems based on it.

Well, to be honest, I haven't seen much at all in this newsgroup in
regard to corruption in A2K3. One person replied to you and reported
a bunch of corruptions in ADPs, but, well, ADPs have been known to
be a disaster from the first release in A2K (and are a moving
target, with known bugs that disappear in one version only to
re-appear in the next).

I would not be surprised to find that ADPs are unstable and corrupt
easily between versions. Indeed, given the numerous changes between
A2K, A2K2 and A2K3 in regard to ADPs, it would surprise me if there
were *not* corruption problems.

The mistake, in my opinion, is in using ADPs. The entire
justification for the ADP is completely bugus (i.e., the "Jetless"
Access client, as though you can open Access without involving
Jet!), and I don't know why so many people drank the ADP Kool Aid.

..NET won't get you anywhere in regard to RAD productivity with
database applications, at least not for the desktop, and certainly
not in comparison to traditional Access.

So, chill out on the Access condemnation. If you use half-baked
Microsoft technologies in the face of clear evidence that they were
half-baked from the beginning, you can't really blame Microsoft.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #8

David W. Fenton <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
<>

The mistake, in my opinion, is in using ADPs. The entire
justification for the ADP is completely bugus (i.e., the "Jetless"
Access client, as though you can open Access without involving
Jet!), and I don't know why so many people drank the ADP Kool Aid.

I find using an ADP as opposed to a linked MDB is much easier when using
SQL server. For me it promotes much better design by forcing me to do
work on the server end instead of just linking the tables (or views in
my case as users don't see the base tables at all) and doing things the
old way.

Yep, ADPs aren't great, especially in A2000 where you need to do several
"tricks" so you can have updateable recordsets on forms. You also have
to do some "tricks" to refresh the data on forms (.refresh does a
requery so you need to manually move back to the record you were on).
But I still prefer them when the backend is SQL server.

BTW, not all the problems with A2003 are from using ADPs...

<>
--
regards,

Bradley

A Christian Response
http://www.pastornet.net.au/response

Nov 13 '05 #9

..NET and Access are aimed at different kind of application environments. I
don't think it would be a proper decision to "move to .NET because Microsoft
is promoting it" unless you are going to be doing huge, enterprise,
distributed applications. And, if you have been doing your applications in
Access, you clearly have not been doing so thus far.

I have not experienced the quantity and kind of problems you describe, but I
have not given Access 2003 a really tough workout, yet. Access 2002,
however, seems stable and works well for me.

To agree with David, first thing I would do is ditch the ADP and go back to
the tried and true MDB - DAO - Jet - ODBC - MS SQL Server. That is what
knowledgeable Microsoft insiders now suggest is generally superior for new
projects than ADPs.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

"James Beswick" <ja**********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

It's good to hear that my experience is not one-of-a-kind. I think I'm
going to make the transition to .NET, as it seems Microsoft is steadily
pushing up all there. Looking through the message boards, there are
dozens of strange errors in Access that point to poor software design
on the MS end, which is a shame given how many of us have built complex
systems based on it.

Regards,
James

http://mckarkquey.blogspot.com/

Nov 13 '05 #10

Just for the record, I'm not using ADPs, and I'd agree that Access is a
great RAD tool that I'd rather stick with cf. .NET.

Now I'm getting another error: 'can't find the macro
[Event Procedure].' Apparently this is because of a space or hidden
character inadvertently entered in one of my controls.

Bring back Access 97!

-- James
http://mckarkquey.blogspot.com

Nov 13 '05 #11

"Br@dley" <n0****@4u.com> wrote in
news:gi******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

David W. Fenton <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
<>
The mistake, in my opinion, is in using ADPs. The entire
justification for the ADP is completely bugus (i.e., the
"Jetless" Access client, as though you can open Access without
involving Jet!), and I don't know why so many people drank the
ADP Kool Aid.
I find using an ADP as opposed to a linked MDB is much easier when
using SQL server. For me it promotes much better design by forcing
me to do work on the server end instead of just linking the tables
(or views in my case as users don't see the base tables at all)
and doing things the old way.

In other words, you were too lazy to do those things with an MDB,
but were forced to do them with an ADP.

Seems like a problem with *you* rather than with MDBs.

[]
BTW, not all the problems with A2003 are from using ADPs...

In this thread, I don't recall but one report of corruption in a
non-ADP, and that was the basis of the conclusion by someone that
A2K3 is prone to code corruption.

That's balderdash -- it's *not* prone to code corruption any more
than any previous version of Access, at least, not when using MDBs.

Which wraps right around to where I came in on this discussion. . .

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #12

"James Beswick" wrote

Just for the record, I'm not using
ADPs, and I'd agree that Access is a
great RAD tool that I'd rather stick
with cf. .NET.

Now I'm getting another error: 'can't
find the macro [Event Procedure].'
Apparently this is because of a space
or hidden character inadvertently
entered in one of my controls.

Bring back Access 97!

I haven't done any work with Access 97 in some time, except to test an
occasional response to a newsgroup question, but it was, and is, a good
version. They fixed the major bugs that plagued Access 95, which made Access
95 arguably the worst release ever.

Have you used Office Update to ensure that you have the Service Pack and any
subsequent patches applied to Access 2003? There was almost no
Access-specific change between 2002 and 2003, and 2002 works nicely for me.

I use Access 2002 for most of my current development because I like the Help
engine better -- a lot better (but not as much as I liked WinHelp). Even
with a high-speed, always-on Internet connection, I don't like their
online-is-primary approach to Help.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

Nov 13 '05 #13

Too right about Access 95 - I've been using 97 for years and have
written everything from simply databases to full CRM system backed by
Sybase (urgh) and it's worked amazingly well.

I have installed all the latest service packs and updates but I found
one setting yesterday that's made all the difference. By default (I
think) it stores the database in an Access 2000-compatible format, so I
switch the option in Tools to store as an Access 2003 format.
Immediately, it's been much more reliable and stable.

I'm treating VBA more like VB with forms raising events to each other,
which seemed to cause some very weird behavior before when you flip
from runtime to design time. But now, all is well!

I take back what I said about Access, as I still think it's the best
RAD tool out there and I built my career on it. So I shouldn't bite the
hand that feeds me!!!

Thanks,
James

-------------
Join the campaign to stop Ben Affleck from making another movie:
http://www.jamesbeswick.com

Nov 13 '05 #14

David,

I think you should have a little more respect for the writers in this
thread. I've been working with Access for over ten years and I can tell
you that 2003 has some strange code corruption problems that were not
in Access 97. And don't call the guy lazy - I'm sure he knows what he's
doing too. Let's keep polite on these boards, please.

-- James

Nov 13 '05 #15

"James Beswick" wrote

I'm treating VBA more like VB with
forms raising events to each other,
which seemed to cause some very
weird behavior before when you flip
from runtime to design time. But now,
all is well!
I've used Access since V 1.0 creating "normal kinds of business solutions"
and never found the need to have forms raise events for other forms. I've
always found that if I learned the "Access way" and took advantage of it,
that I could do everything I needed to do and I didn't encounter the
problems that some seemed to find lurking around every corner.

In fact, when I have worked on databases originally created by "refugees
from VB", and it is easy to see from the coding style, I have found that
trying to force Access' object model into the VB object model causes a lot
of problems. Access' object model is, after all, designed to work with
databases, and VB's was a general application generator.

I haven't had any problems that I could trace to the default (you are
correct) save to Access 2000 file format (other than new features don't
work), but there certainly could be lingering bugs in Access 2000 that show
up only under unusual circumstances.
. . . Access, as I still think it's the best
RAD tool out there and I built my career
on it. . . .

I agree that there's no better RAD tool for normal business database
applications, ranging from single-user to client-server. I built my second
computing career _mostly_ on Access, too. My first computing career was in a
"previous incarnation" as a mainframer and minicomputer developer.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

Nov 13 '05 #16

I'm writing quite a bit of POS stuff (point of sale, hopefully not
piece of ****, but you'd have to ask my clients!). I find that writing
some forms like VB components that throw events very helpful - eg,
touch screen keypads that don't know which forms are listening.

I try to avoid doing that when any data binding is involved, but for
generic non-database-specific features I find it quite useful. It's
true though that people with a VB background just love to throw events
all over the place, so I try to only do it when needed. :-)

-- James

Nov 13 '05 #17

David W. Fenton <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

"Br@dley" <n0****@4u.com> wrote in
news:gi******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
David W. Fenton <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
<>
The mistake, in my opinion, is in using ADPs. The entire
justification for the ADP is completely bugus (i.e., the
"Jetless" Access client, as though you can open Access without
involving Jet!), and I don't know why so many people drank the
ADP Kool Aid.
I find using an ADP as opposed to a linked MDB is much easier when
using SQL server. For me it promotes much better design by forcing
me to do work on the server end instead of just linking the tables
(or views in my case as users don't see the base tables at all)
and doing things the old way.
In other words, you were too lazy to do those things with an MDB,
but were forced to do them with an ADP.
It's lazy to redesign an app as an ADP forcing you to rewrite large
slabs of code as SP/UDF/etc (which has led to better
design/performance/etc)? Yeah, good one. Sheesh.

MDBs weren't designed to work with SP/UDF/etc. IMO, use ADPs for what
they were designed for. Sure, they have issues but IMO so did MDBs
before they matured, and we just worked around them. If you want to
still use MDBs with an SQL server backend then qudos to you mate, but in
my experience the ADP gave us a better designed SQL Server app.
BTW, not all the problems with A2003 are from using ADPs...

In this thread, I don't recall but one report of corruption in a
non-ADP...

If you bothered to note I said "problems" not just corruption. The
corruption issue is but one of the problems that I listed previously in
this thread. The other problems are not specific to ADPs.

<>
--
regards,

Bradley

A Christian Response
http://www.pastornet.net.au/response

Nov 13 '05 #18

"James Beswick" <ja**********@gmail.com> wrote in
news:11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:

I think you should have a little more respect for the writers in
this thread. I've been working with Access for over ten years and
I can tell you that 2003 has some strange code corruption problems
that were not in Access 97. And don't call the guy lazy - I'm sure
he knows what he's doing too. Let's keep polite on these boards,
please.

There was far too insufficient evidence adduced on the subject of
code corruption in A2K3 to justify the ridiculous remarks about
switching to .NET, as well as the off-the-wall blanket criticisms of
Microsoft.

I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I think it's best to not waste time
levelling charges at them that are undeserved.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #19

"Br@dley" <n0****@4u.com> wrote in
news:rK*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

David W. Fenton <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

[]

In this thread, I don't recall but one report of corruption in a
non-ADP...

If you bothered to note I said "problems" not just corruption. The
corruption issue is but one of the problems that I listed
previously in this thread. The other problems are not specific to
ADPs.

The thread subject is "Access 2003 code corruption problems." Is it
wrong of me to assume that this is actually the topic we are
discussing in this thread?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #20

David W. Fenton <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
<>

The thread subject is "Access 2003 code corruption problems." Is it
wrong of me to assume that this is actually the topic we are
discussing in this thread?

The post you were responding to also was discussing other A2003 issues.
--
regards,

Bradley

A Christian Response
http://www.pastornet.net.au/response

Nov 13 '05 #21

The one thing I've always hated about IT is the holy-than-thou attitude
that people express when they're hiding behind a keyboard, even though
the same people wouldn't cross words with someone in a pub.

I love the superfluous words: "ridiculous", "lazy", "undeserved". Can
we focus on the issues rather than defending baseless academic
viewpoints that serve no point whatsoever?

Or should we write papers and carry out research to satisfy academic
newsgroups before we even dare ask questions on your newsgroup.

Nov 13 '05 #22

Couldn't agree more. Don't you just love getting into intellectual
pissing matches when the whole point of newsgroups is to help each
other? More Bradley and Larry, less David.

Have a good one, everyone.
-- James

Nov 13 '05 #23

"James Beswick" <ja**********@gmail.com> wrote in
news:11**********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:

The one thing I've always hated about IT is the holy-than-thou
attitude that people express when they're hiding behind a
keyboard, even though the same people wouldn't cross words with
someone in a pub.
You don't know me at all. I'm just as abrasive and curmudgeonly in
person as in the newsgroup.
I love the superfluous words: "ridiculous", "lazy", "undeserved".
Can we focus on the issues rather than defending baseless academic
viewpoints that serve no point whatsoever?
What academic viewpoint would that be?
Or should we write papers and carry out research to satisfy
academic newsgroups before we even dare ask questions on your
newsgroup.

Eh? What the heck are you talking about?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #24

"Br@dley" <n0****@4u.com> wrote in
news:VK****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

David W. Fenton <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
<>
The thread subject is "Access 2003 code corruption problems." Is
it wrong of me to assume that this is actually the topic we are
discussing in this thread?

The post you were responding to also was discussing other A2003
issues.

Bit *I* wasn't addressing those issues, only the ones that were
on-topic to the thread.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #25

"James Beswick" <ja**********@gmail.com> wrote in
news:11**********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:

Couldn't agree more. Don't you just love getting into intellectual
pissing matches when the whole point of newsgroups is to help each
other? More Bradley and Larry, less David.

What pissing match?

People made unsupported assertions about Access 2003, and I called
them on it. No one has provided any proof for the assertions that I
said were wrong. Instead, the subject has changed to ad hominem
attacks on *me*.

That is usually a sign that the person making the attacks has no
actual evidence to back up their point of view. If they did, why
would they need to resort to attacks on a person?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #26