By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,486 Members | 2,124 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,486 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Using Access for a multi user system

P: n/a
Hi,

I'm new to Access and have been asked to develop a simple Access system
to replace one that already exists. There are five users of the
current Access system and each of the users works off a copy of the
system on their local machines.

I would like to develop my new system as a multi-user system and place
it on a server to be accessed remotely by each of the users. I have
read that the locking in MS Access can be hellish. Most of the
articles I've read however have been .asp articles that were written
about internet applications that would have more than five users. I
would love for maintainability etc to store my system centrally but
will MS Access be able to handle my five users hitting the database
concurrently? It could be worth noting that no two users would ever be
editing the same record.

Thanks in advance for your help

MM

Aug 21 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
45 Replies


P: n/a
Luvin lunch wrote:
Hi,

I'm new to Access and have been asked to develop a simple Access
system to replace one that already exists. There are five users of
the current Access system and each of the users works off a copy of
the system on their local machines.

I would like to develop my new system as a multi-user system and place
it on a server to be accessed remotely by each of the users. I have
read that the locking in MS Access can be hellish. Most of the
articles I've read however have been .asp articles that were written
about internet applications that would have more than five users. I
would love for maintainability etc to store my system centrally but
will MS Access be able to handle my five users hitting the database
concurrently? It could be worth noting that no two users would ever
be editing the same record.

Thanks in advance for your help

MM
It's a bad idea, but not for the reason you stated. Multiple users using
the same file over a network significantly increases the chances of file
corruption. A split design where the data file is shared on a server and
each user has their own local copy of the front end file is considered the
proper way to handle multiple user applications.

The centrally located "single file" is actually harder to maintain because
you have to kick all users out while you make changes. With a split design
this is not an issue and setting up a system to automatically push updates
to the users is no big deal.
--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Aug 21 '06 #2

P: n/a
"Luvin lunch" <ma************@o2.iewrote in message
news:11**********************@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Hi,

I'm new to Access and have been asked to develop a simple Access system
to replace one that already exists. There are five users of the
current Access system and each of the users works off a copy of the
system on their local machines.

I would like to develop my new system as a multi-user system and place
it on a server to be accessed remotely by each of the users. I have
read that the locking in MS Access can be hellish. Most of the
articles I've read however have been .asp articles that were written
about internet applications that would have more than five users. I
would love for maintainability etc to store my system centrally but
will MS Access be able to handle my five users hitting the database
concurrently? It could be worth noting that no two users would ever be
editing the same record.
Access will handle your requirements in its sleep. I would highly recommend
that you split your database and provide each of your users with their own
local front end copy. If this concept is new to you, search the help for
"split database". Don't be tempted to provide just one file on a server,
this configuration is widely suspected as being the possible cause of data
corruption.

Good luck with your project.

Keith.
www.keithwilby.com
Aug 21 '06 #3

P: n/a
For stability in a multi-user setup, you can read my article on how to make
this work quite well. Especially if you only have 5 users..

I explain how you can set this up here:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKal...plit/index.htm
>articles that were written
about internet applications

Oh, my...are you talking about a few users at work on you local network
(LAN), or are you talking about users remotely using the system over the
internet? If you are talking about the internet, then you can read the
following article of mine, and I offer some solutions you can consider for
remote users, and using ms-access OVER the itnternet....

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal//Wan/Wans.html
--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
Aug 21 '06 #4

P: n/a
Access can easily handle this.

First of all, I would skip everyone's advice of Front End/Back End.
For 5 users it's really not worth it. For 20+ it definitely is, but
for 5 it's really not an issue.

Make sure the database is designed properly. I would suggest taking a
full day (or maybe 2) to allow yourself to become familiar with the
tables and how they need to relate to each other. This will be HUGE
when you go to produce desired results and find out your tables aren't
properly related. It's worth the day or 2 to make sure now, then the 3
or 4 weeks to redo the layout 4 months from now. Don't forget to index
the tables properly, as an inefficient index (or no index at all) can
put a huge drag on a database and slow it down considerably.

Record locking is a nightmare in Access, this is true. However, with a
small amount of users you are not likely to run into any issues. I
wouldn't be concerned about this at all for the moment.

http://www.eyesoft.net

Luvin lunch wrote:
Hi,

I'm new to Access and have been asked to develop a simple Access system
to replace one that already exists. There are five users of the
current Access system and each of the users works off a copy of the
system on their local machines.

I would like to develop my new system as a multi-user system and place
it on a server to be accessed remotely by each of the users. I have
read that the locking in MS Access can be hellish. Most of the
articles I've read however have been .asp articles that were written
about internet applications that would have more than five users. I
would love for maintainability etc to store my system centrally but
will MS Access be able to handle my five users hitting the database
concurrently? It could be worth noting that no two users would ever be
editing the same record.

Thanks in advance for your help

MM
Aug 21 '06 #5

P: n/a
ManningFan wrote:
First of all, I would skip everyone's advice of Front End/Back End.
For 5 users it's really not worth it.
Anyone seen my jaw? It fell off when my mouth dropped open.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
Aug 21 '06 #6

P: n/a
For 5 users you're going to split a FE/BE? Seriously? I think that's
overkill. The load on a 5 user database is so inconsequential it's not
worth mentioning.

Tim Marshall wrote:
ManningFan wrote:
First of all, I would skip everyone's advice of Front End/Back End.
For 5 users it's really not worth it.

Anyone seen my jaw? It fell off when my mouth dropped open.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
Aug 21 '06 #7

P: n/a
ManningFan wrote:
For 5 users you're going to split a FE/BE? Seriously? I think that's
overkill. The load on a 5 user database is so inconsequential it's
not worth mentioning.
The benefits of splitting have nothing to do with "load". A split app is a
superior setup even on a single user app run on local disk.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Aug 21 '06 #8

P: n/a
And how many "single user app run on local disk" have you ever seen?
With that few people, who use 2 seperate DBs and have to open both to
edit forms/data? "superior setup", maybe. Overkill, definitely.
Rick Brandt wrote:
ManningFan wrote:
For 5 users you're going to split a FE/BE? Seriously? I think that's
overkill. The load on a 5 user database is so inconsequential it's
not worth mentioning.

The benefits of splitting have nothing to do with "load". A split app is a
superior setup even on a single user app run on local disk.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Aug 21 '06 #9

P: n/a
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in
news:11**********************@74g2000cwt.googlegro ups.com:
Access can easily handle this.

First of all, I would skip everyone's advice of Front End/Back
End. For 5 users it's really not worth it. For 20+ it definitely
is, but for 5 it's really not an issue.
It just astonishes me that someone like you has enough sense to
breathe.

You are a complete and utter fool when it comes to anything related
to Access. Whatever advice you are giving, anyone should probably do
just the opposite.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Aug 21 '06 #10

P: n/a
First of all, I would skip everyone's advice of Front End/Back End.
For 5 users it's really not worth it. For 20+ it definitely is, but
for 5 it's really not an issue.
It is VERY important to NOT allow multiplate users into that single frnt
end. I man, can you imaonge if one user have a probelm with word, and then
every other user in the building also had aproblem?

If one computer has a pobelm with the appcaiton, it can then thow everyone
else in

>
Make sure the database is designed properly. I would suggest taking a
full day (or maybe 2) to allow yourself to become familiar with the
tables and how they need to relate to each other. This will be HUGE
when you go to produce desired results and find out your tables aren't
properly related. It's worth the day or 2 to make sure now, then the 3
or 4 weeks to redo the layout 4 months from now. Don't forget to index
the tables properly, as an inefficient index (or no index at all) can
put a huge drag on a database and slow it down considerably.

Record locking is a nightmare in Access, this is true. However, with a
small amount of users you are not likely to run into any issues. I
wouldn't be concerned about this at all for the moment.

http://www.eyesoft.net

Luvin lunch wrote:
>Hi,

I'm new to Access and have been asked to develop a simple Access system
to replace one that already exists. There are five users of the
current Access system and each of the users works off a copy of the
system on their local machines.

I would like to develop my new system as a multi-user system and place
it on a server to be accessed remotely by each of the users. I have
read that the locking in MS Access can be hellish. Most of the
articles I've read however have been .asp articles that were written
about internet applications that would have more than five users. I
would love for maintainability etc to store my system centrally but
will MS Access be able to handle my five users hitting the database
concurrently? It could be worth noting that no two users would ever be
editing the same record.

Thanks in advance for your help

MM

Aug 21 '06 #11

P: n/a
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@m79g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
For 5 users you're going to split a FE/BE? Seriously? I think that's
overkill. The load on a 5 user database is so inconsequential it's not
worth mentioning.

It is VERY important to NOT allow multiple users into that single front
end. I man, can you imagine if one user have a problem with word, and then
every other user in the building also had problem?

If one computer has a problem with the application, it can then throw
everyone
else in into a problem. With 5 users..you have 5 times the likely of a
problem. that means problem once in 5 months, or problems each month....

I explain why you split here, and if you read carefully, it will explain HOW
YOU HAVE installed software on your computer for the last 20 years. the
reason for splitting goes far far beyond bandwidth issues.....

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKal...plit/index.htm

In fact, after you read the above, you will realize that there is a
difference between data, and something called an application. this is VERY
important distinction to make.

I mean, read my article, and then tell me why you always install software on
each pc?

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
Aug 21 '06 #12

P: n/a
Pull your head out of your rear and think with it once in a while.
Telling the guy to split a database that 5 people are using is pure
lunacy. Get over the "I'm better than you" mentality you geeks seem to
have, it makes you look spiteful.

The reality is, in an app 5 people are using, splitting the database
forces data to pass from the front end to the back end and back, using
resources for no reason. There's no danger of record locking issues,
there's no more danger of corruption than if you did it all in one app,
and there's no need to go fishing for corruption to determine if it
happened in the front end or the back end. It's a waste of time. Get
that through your thick skull.

Stop having people jump through hoops just so you can say, "Now it
conforms to geek standards".
David W. Fenton wrote:
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in
news:11**********************@74g2000cwt.googlegro ups.com:
Access can easily handle this.

First of all, I would skip everyone's advice of Front End/Back
End. For 5 users it's really not worth it. For 20+ it definitely
is, but for 5 it's really not an issue.

It just astonishes me that someone like you has enough sense to
breathe.

You are a complete and utter fool when it comes to anything related
to Access. Whatever advice you are giving, anyone should probably do
just the opposite.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Aug 22 '06 #13

P: n/a
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@i3g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
And how many "single user app run on local disk" have you ever seen?
With that few people, who use 2 seperate DBs and have to open both to
edit forms/data? "superior setup", maybe. Overkill, definitely.
Have you ever split a database? It takes about 5 minutes. Has someone
redefined "overkill" when I wasn't looking? It might take longer than 5
minutes to kick all users out to provide an update on a single file setup.
Even then you'd have to fanny around importing objects into the user copy.
Even more of a nightmare with ULS.

Keith.
Aug 22 '06 #14

P: n/a
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
There's no danger of record locking issues,
there's no more danger of corruption than if you did it all in one app,
and there's no need to go fishing for corruption to determine if it
happened in the front end or the back end. It's a waste of time.
A waste of 5 minutes? Here's a snapshot of my experience: 20 split
applications with an average of 15 concurrent users in 15 years, 0
corruptions. Before I learned about corruption the hard way I had at least
3 corruptions per year and that's 3 too many. I'm no geek but I'm more than
happy to "waste" that 5 minutes for pure peace of mind - the evidence, for
me, speaks for itself.

Keith.
Aug 22 '06 #15

P: n/a
"20 split applications with an average of 15 concurrent users in 15
years"

20 whole apps?!?! That certainly makes you an expert. Forgive me,
Master.

I write more than that a MONTH.
Keith Wilby wrote:
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
There's no danger of record locking issues,
there's no more danger of corruption than if you did it all in one app,
and there's no need to go fishing for corruption to determine if it
happened in the front end or the back end. It's a waste of time.

A waste of 5 minutes? Here's a snapshot of my experience: 20 split
applications with an average of 15 concurrent users in 15 years, 0
corruptions. Before I learned about corruption the hard way I had at least
3 corruptions per year and that's 3 too many. I'm no geek but I'm more than
happy to "waste" that 5 minutes for pure peace of mind - the evidence, for
me, speaks for itself.

Keith.
Aug 22 '06 #16

P: n/a
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
"20 split applications with an average of 15 concurrent users in 15
years"

20 whole apps?!?! That certainly makes you an expert. Forgive me,
Master.

I write more than that a MONTH.
So not only do you not understand "overkill", you don't understand
"snapshot" either. Idiot.

<PLONK>
Aug 22 '06 #17

P: n/a
Well Ladies,

When I asked a question about multi users I never thought it would end
in name calling. Not that I'm complaining mind you. It all makes for
very entertaining reading.

Thanks for the input. I think I'll probably split the database. I'm a
bit of a sceptic when it comes to Microsoft. In my experience when you
read that a specific thing "should be" alright in Microsoft it tends to
be the very thing that comes back and bites you in the *ss. So I'll
err on the side of caution and split it.

Thanks again for the input. You can all put the handbags down now and
get back to work ;-)

MM
Keith Wilby wrote:
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
"20 split applications with an average of 15 concurrent users in 15
years"

20 whole apps?!?! That certainly makes you an expert. Forgive me,
Master.

I write more than that a MONTH.

So not only do you not understand "overkill", you don't understand
"snapshot" either. Idiot.

<PLONK>
Aug 22 '06 #18

P: n/a
Luvin lunch wrote:
Well Ladies,

When I asked a question about multi users I never thought it would end
in name calling. Not that I'm complaining mind you. It all makes for
very entertaining reading.

Thanks for the input. I think I'll probably split the database. I'm a
bit of a sceptic when it comes to Microsoft. In my experience when you
read that a specific thing "should be" alright in Microsoft it tends to
be the very thing that comes back and bites you in the *ss. So I'll
err on the side of caution and split it.

Thanks again for the input. You can all put the handbags down now and
get back to work ;-)

MM
Keith Wilby wrote:
>>"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@m73g2000cwd.googleg roups.com...
>>>"20 split applications with an average of 15 concurrent users in 15
years"

20 whole apps?!?! That certainly makes you an expert. Forgive me,
Master.

I write more than that a MONTH.

So not only do you not understand "overkill", you don't understand
"snapshot" either. Idiot.

<PLONK>

....handbags...

Are you calling us all *itches?????
Aug 22 '06 #19

P: n/a
"Luvin lunch" <ma************@o2.iewrote in message
news:11**********************@i3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>
Thanks again for the input. You can all put the handbags down now and
get back to work ;-)
It's not the first time the Fanning Man has gone against the grain - which
is fine if you have a valid point, but the simple fact is, he doesn't. My
handbag is firmly back in its holster now that he is in my KF. :-)

Keith.
Aug 22 '06 #20

P: n/a
That's 3 times I've been "KF'd" by Wilby. I guess his KF is as
effective as his Access coding...

Keith Wilby wrote:
It's not the first time the Fanning Man has gone against the grain - which
is fine if you have a valid point, but the simple fact is, he doesn't. My
handbag is firmly back in its holster now that he is in my KF. :-)

Keith.
Aug 22 '06 #21

P: n/a
Luvin lunch wrote:
Well Ladies,
Can you explain your usage of the term "ladies" please?
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
Aug 22 '06 #22

P: n/a
ManningFan wrote:
20 whole apps?!?! That certainly makes you an expert. Forgive me,
Master.

I write more than that a MONTH.
Hi,

I'm so sorry this has gotten a bit heated, but I'm one of those who
thinks splitting is much better.

And if you're writing more than 20 applications in a month, while I'm
sure, given your positive participation on this group, that they are
pretty solid, I don't think they can be really big ones. Not that such
a thing matters. FWIW, I've just finished a very large app that's got,
including the shortish proc that calculates this:

90666 Lines of Code, consisting of
48205 Lines of Code in 30 Standard Modules;
40555 Lines of Code in 50 Form Class Modules; and
1906 Lines of Code in 15 Report Class Modules.

It's quite large (for me, anyway), because I create Oracle pass through
queries instead of using saved querydefs. It's taken me the better part
of two years to complete. And there was plenty of other work involved,
but that has been my main effort.

Now, while you may do 20+ apps a month, I suspect I would effortlessly
run circles around you with respect to using Access as a front end to
Oracle (though of course I could be wrong - I don't know your line of work).

Numbers of apps is nothing. It's how much work one does with Access or
whatever development platform one uses. 8)
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
Aug 22 '06 #23

P: n/a
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in
news:11**********************@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com:
Pull your head out of your rear and think with it once in a while.
Telling the guy to split a database that 5 people are using is
pure lunacy.
You're the one with his head in his ass. You should split any app
that has its data stored on a network, even if it's run by one
person only.

The reasons for this are obvious to anyone who actually *uses*
Access applications on a regular basis.

If you don't agree with it, then you have NO REAL-LIFE PRODUCTION
EXPERIENCE in deploying Access applications.

This makes your advice on the subject completely worthless.

But that should be obvious to anyone who has read one or two of your
posts -- you manage to pack the maximum amount of idiocy into the
smallest possible space.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Aug 22 '06 #24

P: n/a
Tim Marshall <TI****@PurplePandaChasers.Moertheriumwrote in
news:ec**********@coranto.ucs.mun.ca:
Numbers of apps is nothing. It's how much work one does with
Access or whatever development platform one uses.
ManningFan is lying. He doesn't ever create Access apps that anyone
ever uses. If he did, then he wouldn't be recommending such
incredible stupidity.

And he does it repeatedly. That's why I plonked him a *long* time
ago. I wish I could plonk him for the benefit of the innocents who
might take his advice.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Aug 23 '06 #25

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@127.0.0.1 ...
That's why I plonked him a *long* time
ago. I wish I could plonk him for the benefit of the innocents who
might take his advice.
I also have KF'd him more than once. I really must review my policy of
clearing my KF periodically, my BenefitOfTheDoubt-ometer must be on the
blink.

Keith.
Aug 23 '06 #26

P: n/a
"Tim Marshall" <TI****@PurplePandaChasers.Moertheriumwrote in message
news:ec**********@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
>
Now, while you may do 20+ apps a month, I suspect I would effortlessly run
circles around you with respect to using Access as a front end to Oracle
(though of course I could be wrong - I don't know your line of work).

Numbers of apps is nothing. It's how much work one does with Access or
whatever development platform one uses. 8)
In my line of work, small to medium apps come and go in 3 to 4 years, they
simply become obsolete as project requirements change. Those I deployed
10-15 years ago and are still in use are *relatively* few and far between,
but still run error and corruption-free thanks, in part at least I believe,
to being split.

A claim of 20 apps per months is just too ridiculous to contemplate.
Perhaps it's the same app being re-worked over and over in the hope that it
may one day work.

Keith.
Aug 23 '06 #27

P: n/a
I wish I lived in YOUR world...

And you DIDN'T "plonk" me, or you wouldn't keep responding to my posts.

You're right. I've never even used Access. In fact, the random posts
I've made where people thanked me for my help were all just pure dumb
luck that I guessed correctly. Which is easy to do when you've never
deployed an app. Right?

Jagoff.

David W. Fenton wrote:
That's why I plonked him a *long* time
ago. I wish I could plonk him for the benefit of the innocents who
might take his advice.
Aug 23 '06 #28

P: n/a

"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
The reality is, in an app 5 people are using, splitting the database
forces data to pass from the front end to the back end and back, using
resources for no reason.
The data needs to be pulled to the local workstations from the server,
regardless of the splitting or not.

Of course, placing the application portion of the database on the local
workstations via splitting, removes the need for the local workstation to
pull down this part of the database from the server.
>There's no danger of record locking issues,
there's no more danger of corruption than if you did it all in one app,
and there's no need to go fishing for corruption to determine if it
happened in the front end or the back end.
Record (page) locking is an issue regardless of where the application
portion resides.

If the application portion is split and resides on the local workstation,
any corruption to the application portion can be easily isolated and fixed.

Splitting the database also allows you to update the application portion
(e.g. forms, reports, queries, VBA code) without worrying about overriding
the code. This is why for any database applicaiton that we distribute to
users, we split it, even if it is not a multi-user application.

Steven



It's a waste of time. Get
that through your thick skull.

Stop having people jump through hoops just so you can say, "Now it
conforms to geek standards".
David W. Fenton wrote:
>"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote in
news:11**********************@74g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com:
Access can easily handle this.

First of all, I would skip everyone's advice of Front End/Back
End. For 5 users it's really not worth it. For 20+ it definitely
is, but for 5 it's really not an issue.

It just astonishes me that someone like you has enough sense to
breathe.

You are a complete and utter fool when it comes to anything related
to Access. Whatever advice you are giving, anyone should probably do
just the opposite.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Aug 24 '06 #29

P: n/a
"ManningFan" wrote
You're right. I've never even used Access.
In fact, the random posts I've made where
people thanked me for my help were all
just pure dumb luck that I guessed correctly.
You _MUST_ be a lucky %@$+@<\ to have dumb luck like that.

What about all the posts where you were just about as wrong as anyone could
be about Access subjects? I guess those mean, when you made those guesses,
you were an UNlucky %@$+@<\.
Which is easy to do when you've never
deployed an app. Right?
I don't know... you are the one who could tell us that.
Jagoff.
Ah, at last we have a name for "ManningFan," Mr. Jagoff!

Larry
Aug 24 '06 #30

P: n/a
<SPNAK'D!>

Larry Linson wrote:
a bunch of useless junk that was all snipped...
Aug 24 '06 #31

P: n/a
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote
<SPNAK'D!>
Ah, so Jagoff the ManningFan is withdrawing from the discussion. Don't let
the door hit you in the nether regions on your way out, Jaggie.

Aug 25 '06 #32

P: n/a
Larry Linson wrote:
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote
<SPNAK'D!>

Ah, so Jagoff the ManningFan is withdrawing from the discussion. Don't let
the door hit you in the nether regions on your way out, Jaggie.
Sounds remarkably like "jack off" doesn't it?
Aug 25 '06 #33

P: n/a
Lawrence - If that's how you get your jollies, then have fun.

Larry Linson wrote:
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote
<SPNAK'D!>

Ah, so Jagoff the ManningFan is withdrawing from the discussion. Don't let
the door hit you in the nether regions on your way out, Jaggie.
Aug 25 '06 #34

P: n/a
"ManningFan" wrote
Lawrence - If that's how you get your
jollies, then have fun.
Well, Jagoff the Manning Fan, I _don't_ get my jollies by posting erroneous
information in the newsgroup on a regular basis in an attempt to appear more
knowledgeable than I actually am.

Nobody's perfect, but verifying that what you are about to post actually
works would be a significant improvement. How many times have respected,
experienced, knowledgeable posters here had to call you on the wrong answers
you posted? Quite a few, in my recollection.

Larry Linson
Aug 26 '06 #35

P: n/a
Actually, that's never happened. Any code I've offered here has been
dead on. I've answered some questions regarding people's _preferences_
that some "experts" like yourself have disagreed with, but none of my
answers have been wrong. But you go on believing what you want to
believe, everyone's entitled to their own fantasies and if you
fantasize about being correct on a newsgroup... well... then you go
right on fantasizing, Lawrence.

Larry Linson wrote:
Nobody's perfect, but verifying that what you are about to post actually
works would be a significant improvement. How many times have respected,
experienced, knowledgeable posters here had to call you on the wrong answers
you posted? Quite a few, in my recollection.

Larry Linson
Aug 26 '06 #36

P: n/a
I don't know what the going rate is for a load of manure, but you would to
be getting rich if only you could charge for yours, Jagoff the Manning Fan.

Anyway, I thought you gave notice that you "walked away" from this thread.
I suppose your SPNAK'D was just as accurate as your answers I described.

Larry Linson
Aug 26 '06 #37

P: n/a
rkc
Larry Linson wrote:
ing Fan.
>
Anyway, I thought you gave notice that you "walked away" from this thread.
I suppose your SPNAK'D was just as accurate as your answers I described.
What be SPNAK'D?
Aug 26 '06 #38

P: n/a
"rkc" wrote
What be SPNAK'D?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SPNAK

And, since I had clearly not ducked out of the argument, he had to be
claiming a self-SPNAK. Or, perhaps he just didn't have a clue about what
SPNAK meant, as he doesn't have a clue about many Access subjects.
Aug 26 '06 #39

P: n/a
First off, I believe it is _you_ who were labeled the jagoff.

Second, if manure were gold then your "expert" status would be worth a
million bucks.

Last of all, I have SPNAK'D you, so deal with it. Sometimes you lose,
that's what happens to losers.

Thanks for playing, have a good day.

Larry Linson wrote:
I don't know what the going rate is for a load of manure, but you would to
be getting rich if only you could charge for yours, Jagoff the Manning Fan.

Anyway, I thought you gave notice that you "walked away" from this thread.
I suppose your SPNAK'D was just as accurate as your answers I described.

Larry Linson
Aug 26 '06 #40

P: n/a
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote
First off, I believe it is _you_ who were
labeled the jagoff.
"Were labeled?" Hoo-Ha, as though you had some divine commission as
Official Labeler! That was clearly your signature, Jagoff the Manning Fan.
Second, if manure were gold then your
"expert" status would be worth a
million bucks.
Too late... already been said, so that's only a "So are you!" and that
scores no points, not even for kindergartners.
Last of all, I have SPNAK'D you, so deal
with it. Sometimes you lose, that's what
happens to losers.
And, since I did not withdraw from the discussion, your claim of "SPNAK" was
meaningless, unless it was a self-SPNAK. You can't win by just saying you
did. Some try that when they have run out of rational arguments, but that
was not your situation -- you couldn't run out as you never brought any
rational arguments into the discussion.

Aug 27 '06 #41

P: n/a
ManningFan wrote:
Last of all, I have SPNAK'D you, so deal with it. Sometimes you lose,
that's what happens to losers.
Holy crap, what childish bullshit. No wonder you can claim "20 apps a
month", you're just full of baby talk.

Sorry, I tried to respond to you seriously.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
Aug 27 '06 #42

P: n/a
Obviously you understood that post about as well as you understand
Access, Lawrence...

SPNAK'D! C-ya.

Lawrence Linson uttered something stupid like:
"Were labeled?" Hoo-Ha, as though you had some divine commission as
Official Labeler! That was clearly your signature, Jagoff the Manning Fan.
Aug 27 '06 #43

P: n/a
Hey funny man,

You are one of the loomyloomlooms ??
Indeed, I guess this SPNAK-game certainly get's one loominated...

Arno R

"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comschreef in bericht news:11**********************@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
Obviously you understood that post about as well as you understand
Access, Lawrence...

SPNAK'D! C-ya.

Lawrence Linson uttered something stupid like:
>"Were labeled?" Hoo-Ha, as though you had some divine commission as
Official Labeler! That was clearly your signature, Jagoff the Manning Fan.
Aug 27 '06 #44

P: n/a
"ManningFan" <ma********@gmail.comwrote
Obviously you understood that post about
as well as you understand Access, Lawrence...
Jagoff the Manning Fan, not one of the people who've called you on your
erroneous responses could possibly lose an Access argument with you unless
they were comatose.

Larry
Aug 28 '06 #45

P: n/a
"Steve" <st***@nospam.netwrote in
news:AI*************@newsfe08.lga:
If the application portion is split and resides on the local
workstation, any corruption to the application portion can be
easily isolated and fixed.
Or you just replace the corrupted front end with a new copy. Front
ends should be fungible and discardible as they have no unique data
in them.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Aug 29 '06 #46

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.