Text 3551, 100 rader
Skriven 2005-04-10 18:06:40 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 3548 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: s/w patents bad 4 ms...
===================================
From: Mike '/m' <mike@barkto.com>


btw, for more info:

SYMPTOMS
When you link (attach) a table from an ODBC data source, such as Microsoft SQL
Server or ORACLE, and that table contains more than one unique index, Microsoft
Access may select the wrong index as the primary key.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;292047

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;169777

Notice the "This behavior is by design." under the Status category of the
second link.

The existence of this problem, and Microsoft's lack of interest in resolving
it, was noticed at the CEO and CFO level in my company.  I suspect that such a
cavalier attitude by Microsoft towards the validity of the results that MS
Access provides will not be A [long-term] Good Thing for Microsoft at my
company.

The question I cannot understand is how can Microsft leave such a known and
critical bug unfixed for over ten years?

 /m

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:42:55 -0700, Ellen K.
<72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote:

>That's pretty gross all right.
>
>What versions of Access and Oracle?
>
>I used Access 97 against Oracle 8i at Kaiser without this problem, and
>know I didn't have it because I would periodically check the Oracle data
>(retrieved using Access) against the DB2 data on the mainframe
>(retrieved interactively) of which it was a clone.
>
>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:10:42 -0400, Mike '/m' <mike@barkto.com> wrote in
>message <d5ji511u416i5k7mrgpcdrrk8h8b8ljbtb@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:51:59 -0400, "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Adam Flinton" <adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4258f782$1@w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>>> Anyway....the point that was made then was along the lines of that's it
>>>> for upgrades of office coz quite frankly the users have everything they
>>>> need now
>>>
>>>I don't think MS realizes yet what it was that powered that growth surge
>>>they had in the 90's.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>As for Office, we never used it. We went with Works because our users simply
>>>don't have the skills to require more than that. We've got maybe 4 copies of
>>>Office  but only so we can convert files we get from customers, and we
>>>convert those to paper <g>.
>>>
>>>When I order new computers, I order them without hard drives as a way to
>>>insure that I'm not going to pay for any new copies of an OS I'm not going
>>>to be using. (well except for laptops)
>>
>>We use MS Office across the board where I work.  Unfortunately, MS
>>Access is becoming entrenched as well.  That is frightening because of
>>all the problems it has, especially the one we found last week.  MS
>>Access seems to return "unexpected results" when used with an ODBC
>>connection in some instances.  We had production and accounting people
>>making customer-affecting decisions based upon the bad data that MS
>>Access was returning.  The Software Engineer (one of the most senior on
>>the team) wrote this in his status report:
>>
>>===
>>Worked with [names of users and other Software Engineers deleted to
>>protect the innocent] to design and implement a work-around for a
>>stunningly stupid bug in Microsoft Access.  When Access is used to
>>view/update an Oracle table, it sometimes fetches the wrong rows.  There
>>is no error or warning.  The bad data could easily be accepted and used
>>in producing a sample, updating panelist accounts, or whatever the user
>>is doing.... This bug has existed for over ten years, and is documented
>>on Microsoft's web site.  They apparently have no interest in fixing
>>it....
>>===
>>
>>For that particular Software Engineer to use the phrase "stunningly
>>stupid bug" (he bolded and italicized it) in his status report is
>>amazing.  He is usually (nearly always) very low-key.  *Very* low key.
>>
>>
>> /m
>>
>>
>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)