RE: adding fully fuctional spread*** to a form

Hi Tim

I oviously did not make my point clear enough.

Which is that , if you can add a spreed*** version 10.0 (as at activx
control) on a form. Why do you loose any work that you do on that work***
when the form (in my case a form on a tabcontrol) is closed.
Yes I know you loose any work you do on that control - what I wanted to know
was can this work be saved, or was there a way of adding the same activx
control provided by another vendor.

And yes I do know the diff between spread*** and a databse - what I am
looking for is the flexability of working with in one application - so that
the end user does not have to switch between access and MS Excell.

Thanks your your comments

"Tim Ferguson" wrote:

> "=?Utf-8?B?RGFubnk=?=" <Danny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:B7A548BF-B930-4F84-BFE9-E4AE236A7AB0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> >> I have a question! I want to link a fully functional spread***
> >> with formulas with my access database. I linked them however when in
> >> access: one column that does not contain formulas is blank...also
> >> another column with the following formula
> >> =IF(AA4<0,"$0.00",IF(AA4>0,AA4)) is showing up with the following:
> >> #Num!. Also is there a way to use access only and have the formulas
> >> updated? The reason I linked the 2 is all the information was in
> >> excel and I need the formulas and my company wants the info in access
> >> to run reports and to store the info. Am I going about this in the
> >> right way? Help!!!
> >>
> > It's hard to beleive that with all the MV and programmers that a
> > solution is not out there, there must be others out there that need
> > this solution or is it that it's not in MS's interest to add this to
> > the functionality of access !
>
> My hammer is not particularly good at making toast either, but I don't
> plan to complain to Black and Decker about it. The jobs that spreadsheets
> and databases do are just about as different...
>
> First of all, Access is simply just not going to make any sense of
> something that depends on row numbers. Records in a database are just
> records -- there is no implicit sorting or recordnumbers. Roughly the
> same applies to columns: although it is possible to call a field "AA4" it
> would be a really stupid thing to do. Furthermore, there is no sense in
> which it would be helpful to define one field purely in terms of the
> values in (an)other field(s). Sorry: this is primary school R theory and
> if you don't understand it, then you need to do some basic reading.
>
> See the other reply upthread from the anonymous at earthlink.
>
> There are plenty of things to moan at Microsoft about -- to many minds
> there is already to much Excel-like crossover going on in Access already
> -- but this has nothing to do with MS's interests, being more about not
> making a dog's dinner out of a pretty good desktop R database system.
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> Tim F
>
>
.

Quantcast