Search results

No doubt - you had well noted this was a external type of drive....(and still VERY fast!). All in all? Well, over the years I always seemed to have hardware that was lagging behind the software. And by the time I would get a new computer, then all of the software bloated so much, I was back to...

NVe drives are even faster. Even on my laptop, without a raid drive? I often see this: And windows is "ready" for the future, since as you hit about 990 mb per seconds? Then it jumps over to gb/s, such as this: Imagine that - 1 gb per second!!!!..... And my setup is by no means a fast...

Well, how cool is that! I did not realize that both the client and server were Access here. I had "guessed" that you were communicating with some type of machine (photo copier, press machine, or whatever). The fact that both ends are Access? Well, then that would/should facilitate some testing...

Ok, I wish I had some example for you! It's not hard to build the .net class (use vb.net - code is much like VBA). So, in theory, you would use the .net sockets (System.Net.Sockets) So, not clear if you using TcpClient, networkSteam, or Socket? So, you can/could create a .net class, and...

Well, we have two goals: First goal, find some kind of code or "thing" to replace the OCX. 2nd goal: eliminate current polling that you have???? So, we have to keep both of these things somewhat "separate" for our goals here. So, you may well not need some kind of "polling", but if you looking...

I would suggest using the vb.net sockets, and then call that code from VBA. It's not clear if you using the ActiveX controll (dropped into a Access form), or using the TCP library direct from VBA? Over the years, going back to VB5, VB6 days, and even now in .net? I never had to use TCP library...

Really do appreciate that article - thanks for sharing that. Only a few minutes to read - but over a 1/4 of a century! Sends some chills down my back.... Like opening a old high school yearbook! Have to think that a97, a2003, and a2010 where those "really great release" years. Again, thanks...

Golly, version 1.1? I remember "trying" 2.0, but it was Access 97 was when I jumped in! Regards, Albert Kallal Edmonton Alberta, Canada

Yes, you are correct!!! (happy to be corrected on this issue == thanks for the follow up). So, ignore my "narrative" on needing some extra textbox or control to receive the focus - not required. So, good = don't try to use the UI for this - use recordset data processing. So, bad = my bad is...

As a general rule, no, if there are no other controls on that form, then hitting tab will not fire the after update event. However, in this case, we MOST certainly have another control on the form - that's the sub form control! And that means that focus is now moving from main form to sub...

Excellent! And the UI will be smooth as butter for this operation...... And like everyone else here? Just adding my 2 cents worth here..... As noted, if there is only one control on the main form, and when that "scanner keyboard" hits tab for you? Make sure there is another control on the main...

A few things - but just a quick look here at what we have so far? First, don't use on-current - avoid if possible. Next up, a goToControl is placed/moved to the sub form. I suggest to NOT do this. So, keep/write ALL of the code in the main form - don't use the "UI" to set focus in sub form...

Agree. but then again, my Access applicaitons when run from RDP launch the local copy of outlook (and with attached PDF's etc.). And we do the same for hyperlinks in Access - we launch + use the local copy of web browser. So, only software we install on the RDP is the free Access runtime. .Full...

We just turned it on about 2 months ago. We have a screen in which comments for a project (one of multiple components for the project) could be searched. We also wanted to be able to search for a project name, and also that of a company name. Hence, there was about 2-4 fields, and we always had...

As noted, just turn on full text indexing. Full text indexing will pluck out each word, and thus any word any place in the text will use a high speed index. As a result, you probably not require the % sign. So, say for this text The user purchased a dell computer With full text indexing, then...

Nice tip to share! - And I often use the above. And as such ? Well, VERY hard to make the "lazy" case that no getter/setter is required, since that's what your suggesting does anyway! However, while in .net you can still just declare the var as public? (but BETTER is to use your suggesting)...

As noted, not a huge deal anyway. But, as per above, I would have just made m_Error public - and then you don't need the Get/Let. It's a minor point on my part, and in a lot of cases, I skip the Get/Let, and just declare the var as public at the class level. As such, then the var is exposed, and...

But any var declared as public in that class? You get intel-sense anyway - hard to make a case for then writing out a getter/setter, right? There are SOME use cases for Get/Set, but 99% of the time, if you just setting a var value? Make it public - you don't need the get/sets..... and in...

I not tested nor attempted to sink events into such .dll's. But, few require this ability. So, for last 10+ years of building interfaces to accounting packages, PDF merging, and a whole lot more in .net? Never needed or wanted to sink events into such external library code anyway. However...

Well, if you add a reference to the runtime host, then that's another reference that can break. So, with my .net loader, then zero additional references are required. So, if the .net .dll is written to support regasm, (exposes a com interface) then it should work with my loader. Only difference...