How to filter table with parameter in 2007+ - usage help

[OlNGrumpy]

I'm coming from Acc2003. When I want to filter data in a ACC2003 table (100K+ records) I select a cell(field), right-click and enter a parameter [Enter value] in the "FILTER FOR:" box. I'm prompted for the entry and I get the filtered result. When I want to repeat the same all I have to do is press "APPLY FILTER/SORT", enter a new value and get another filtered result.
I'm trying to do the same in ACC2007 and ACC2010. When I enter the [Enter value] parameter to criteria in "ADVANCE FILTER/SORT" it prompts me the first time I toggle the filter on but if I press "APPLY FILTER/SORT" it returns the same filtered result every time without prompting me for a new value. It's as if the parameter is now a constant.


Am I missing something or is this the way Acc2007+ works? I do a lot of add-hoc filtering on tables; composing or modifying queries is slow and time consuming. It is faster to enter a value, like a six digit id, than searching 1000+ values and selecting from drop down filter, especially with multiple parameters.

[orange]

If you know the records you want to filter for, you could put those values in a table - say table A.
Then join that table (table A) with the table you are trying to filter, and get a set of records that match.
Then process the records as needed.

[OlNGrumpy]

I see a value and use in your reply. However, I guess I'm spoiled in ACC2003 for speed and simplicity; I ctrl-C a value from another application, press "APPLY FILTER" in Access, ctrl-V in the parameter prompt, press enter, and I get the new record set. I am trying to do the same in ACC2010 without creating or modifying tables and queries.

[orange]

I don't think there is anything between 2003 and 2010 that precludes you from that approach.
It just seems like a heavy manual effort, especially if you would have to repeat it in future.

If you can deal with record identifiers or some simple, appropriate value, and place those in a table. You may be able to do a join and some logic to update the records "programmatically".
Of course the devil is always in the details.