DescentBB

I have a software program that logs data from my car and creates a text doc that excel opens. When it's opened the top row (cells across) hold the name of the columns below. For example AirFuel mix, injector pulse width, rpm's, O2 adj.% etc. etc.
So when I scroll down to see what was happening and when, the top row with the column names scrolls off the top and I no longer can look up to see what column holds what data...

Is there a way to make row one stay at the top and have the scrolling start at row 2? Or a way to rename the A B C D labels above row 1 with the names from the cells in row 1?
Many thanks from an Excel idiot!

Highlight the row under the row you want to lock, then click Window->Freeze Panes

edit: I had this in a tab for 15 minutes?

There is also a great feature in Excel 2007 which will put a selected table's headings inside the sheet header. So instead of saying \"A B C\" it will say \"Column1 Column2 MyCoolColumnName\", etc.

Like so:
http://www.isamrad.com/dgainer/t3_10-26-2005.png

Blog post on this:
http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/200 ... 85747.aspx

Awesome...only took you guys 7 versions

Testi: It's a spreadsheet, not a database... something tells me that feature was brought about by so many people using Excel for an Access job.

Topher: Does that mean I can address a range using MyColName for the column index?

I don't think so, there's nothing that I'm aware of that ensures column names in tables are unique. Plus tables can be in the same columns in different rows with different names for their columns. The feature I pointed out was more of a visual, UI nicety.

Of course, DC, most of corporate uses Excel where everyone else would use Access. You would be giving too much credit to the suits if you think they can handle Access. (Besides, IT usually buys the non-Access version of Office for the executives)

Yes... Excel is often used where Access should be used... and why? Because Access can be downright frustrating. Sure it can do a great many things, by why can't so many of the more simple (and commonly used) functions be a built-in routine and have to be scripting?

Access would be a lot more popular if they took some usability hints from their competitors.

Do I sound frustrated? You bet. I have to use Access at my work and I curse it every single time it can't do (without vb scripting) tasks that are simple, common place (and built in) in just about ANY other brand of database.

Other than that, Access is a good tool.

Access should be nothing but tables and columns and rows. It's when you venture into anything else, you have problems.

I had a manager once tell me that it was easier to write a Profit and Loss application IN Access. I laughed him right out of a job, eventually. Hah..progrqamming in Access..what a waste. He actually thought a 10,000+ line app would be \"OK\" in Access..and he used to be a programmer!

there have been a handful of times I've considered doing something in access, then realized PHP + a real database is easier.

fliptw wrote:there have been a handful of times I've considered doing something in access, then realized PHP + a real database is easier.

flip: there are certain instances when Access is really the easiest way to do something. If you need something that's fast, responsive, and has a good UI for non-techies, without going through the expense of actually designing a web page (or maybe if you don't have a spare webserver), then Access is it. Probably the easiest way to do tasks that involve calculating domain values (DSum, DAvg...) or using master-detail relationships (create the two tables, draw a one-to-many relationship, create a form and add a subform -- done!).

DCrazy wrote:flip: there are certain instances when Access is really the easiest way to do something. If you need something that's fast, responsive, and has a good UI for non-techies, without going through the expense of actually designing a web page (or maybe if you don't have a spare webserver), then Access is it. Probably the easiest way to do tasks that involve calculating domain values (DSum, DAvg...) or using master-detail relationships (create the two tables, draw a one-to-many relationship, create a form and add a subform -- done!).

FileMaker is by far much easier than Access for doing that. IMHO

TechPro: Maybe so (never used FileMaker), but which is the one that's part of Office, and can do nifty things like automatically import data from Excel, create a mail merge with Word, and send it out as an email via Outlook, all from a macro?

And for Testi: Access is included with Office 2007 Pro and up (4 out of 8 SKUs). Not sure about which editions of 2K3 had Access, but I'd wager about the same.

I should probably clarify that I often find myself frustrated with Access (actually the underlying Jet engine) due to its inability to handle some moderately advanced (and some not-so-advanced!) SQL statements, and bizarre requirements such as the inability to ORDER BY a field if it was included in a wildcard, but Access doesn't deserve a lot of the bad rap it's gotten. Just keep it to single-user, single-purpose applications, please, and stop making it the backend for commercial fricken applications that deal with over 60,000 records from multiple concurrent users...

DCrazy wrote:TechPro: Maybe so (never used FileMaker), but which is the one that's part of Office, and can do nifty things like automatically import data from Excel, create a mail merge with Word, and send it out as an email via Outlook, all from a macro?

And for Testi: Access is included with Office 2007 Pro and up (4 out of 8 SKUs). Not sure about which editions of 2K3 had Access, but I'd wager about the same.

I should probably clarify that I often find myself frustrated with Access (actually the underlying Jet engine) due to its inability to handle some moderately advanced (and some not-so-advanced!) SQL statements, and bizarre requirements such as the inability to ORDER BY a field if it was included in a wildcard, but Access doesn't deserve a lot of the bad rap it's gotten. Just keep it to single-user, single-purpose applications, please, and stop making it the backend for commercial fricken applications that deal with over 60,000 records from multiple concurrent users...

You're right, that underlying Jet engine is... "entertaining".