While I do not disagree with you, I honestly can not find any place to
tighten this up. I am inheriting this from the previous programmer so
there is a good bit of legacy code, stuff that has been used for 6
years or so, however all of it is used, we have counters keeping track
of how often all of the forms are being opened and all of them get
used at least two or three times a week (for the more specialized
forms) to upwards of 3000 times a week(busier forms like orders
entries, invoicing, job progress tracking, customers, vendors,
manufacturers, outsourcing, material purchase orders).
We do a lot with this software. I know i'm being pretty non specific
here but we do a lot, the only thing a bit of software like the
recently released enterprise version of Quick Books does that we don't
is taxes, a few accounting specific re****ts and ahhh ... yeah ...
There is a lot we do that Quick Books doesn't do like tracking what
machine any one individual order is being processed on and how far
along it is on that machine/process(which employee is doing so and how
long he personally has been doing so), keeping track of the versions
of all our final manufactured assemblies (just in case a customer
needs something we made 3 years ago to be made exactly for a
replacement part) along with double checking what was actually done
against engineering specs entered into the database to make sure
everything is with in tolerances. I could go one but really we track
every part of our process and check most everything we do.
nothing is done in our office in a word do***ents or on an excel
spreadsheets, no memos are physically passed through the offices.
everything is stored and sorted and cataloged with in our database.
they system as it stands should scale up to an operation that does the
same manufacturing we do to a business of any size with multiple
locations all working on different things or even the same orders (we
have 4 locations some in wildly disparate locations working in tandem
through our software).
yes we probably should be doing this in something more robust in
access, i was trying to see what experience others have had with
having an application grow like this has within access and how hard
they have pushed the limits of access and what happens when/if it
breaks down under the strain.
On Jul 2, 9:01=A0am, "Keith Wilby" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <howard.cana...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:02e684ca-5f95-444e-9033-36f47e85eb5d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > IT has about 700 forms and re****ts
>
> > Because at one point we had close to 1000 forms and re****ts
>
> I don't think I'd be alone in thinking that an app with so many objects
> would need a major overhaul, if not a redesign from scratch.
>
> Keith.
|
