Access/Office 07

#31

On Feb 28, 9:12 am, lyle fairfield <lylef... (AT) yah00 (DOT) ca> wrote:

Quote:

I saw this some time ago, but not now I think any of these may have helped:

1. rebuilding objects, created in previous versions, in Access 2007;
2. SP1;
3. a dual core processor.

In any case, Access 2007 is now quite snappy for me.

Lyle, which operating system are you using?

#32

Wayne <cqdigital (AT) volcanomail (DOT) com> wrote in
news:fb1a252b-ee54-47c6-8606-7a6734c2c751 (AT) s19g2000prg (DOT) googlegroups.com:

Quote:

On Feb 28, 9:12 am, lyle fairfield <lylef... (AT) yah00 (DOT) ca> wrote:

I saw this some time ago, but not now I think any of these may have
helped:

1. rebuilding objects, created in previous versions, in Access 2007;
2. SP1;
3. a dual core processor.

In any case, Access 2007 is now quite snappy for me.

Lyle, which operating system are you using?

Vista

#33

On Feb 27, 2:53*am, "Larry Linson" <boun... (AT) localhost (DOT) not> wrote:

Quote:

I feel obligated to point out that, in his comments in the referenced blog,
Jensen heard what he wanted to hear rather than what was actually said. You
could easily get the idea that there was a groundswell of general approval
and that the assembled audience of MVPs had swarmed the stage to grab a
handful of his clothing like teeny-boppers swarming the stage to touch
Elvis. (And, I think Tony can vouch for the fact that there was no such
swarm -- I'm quite sure he was in that meeting, too.)

There was at the end of the meeting he described, and still is, a
substantial body of opinion in the MVP and the user communities that the
"reasons" given were, largely, "rationalizations" and that the investment in
retraining and, even worse, in clearing muscle-memory and relearning what
has become "second nature" to users over the last 14 - 15 years far
outweighs any advantage for "new users" (and wonder just how many "new
users" there are likely to be versus "old users" for a product that everyone
concedes holds well over 90% of the market).

And, just for the record, anytime someone justifies something new by
denigrating "the old paradigm", know that is
management-consultant-weasel-speak or marketing-weasel-speak and get a firm
grasp on your wallet.

And, one should keep separate the design and appearance, and the ease of
(re-)finding functionality from the implementation. *It's really immaterial
to the companies whose employees have to be retrained and suffer
productivity hits for months whether it is implemented with XML, straight
old-time C, or some programming dialect of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Those things only matter to the people who implement it, or developers who
are going to modify it, and that's a tiny fraction of the user community.

(And, as a matter of fact, since battlers in the "language wars" seem to
have a leg-up on getting paid for articles, I may just give that
"programming dialect of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics" another look. After
all, Object-Obsessed-Programming is getting to be "old hat" -- "conventional
wisdom" that's ready to be replaced by The Next Big Thing.)

*Larry Linson
*Microsoft Office Access MVP

"Tony Toews [MVP]" <tto... (AT) telusplanet (DOT) net> wrote in messagenews:slf9s3t9205t4rtoiub07ogkgnvdqq7ui8 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

CDMAPos... (AT) fortunejames (DOT) com wrote:

What my clients/customers don't like is being forced to retrain their
employees and suffering through the familiarization curve to replace
what
has become second nature to their staff over the past 14 - 15 years. I
wouldn't venture to speculate on the motive for making such a drastic
change.

One of the PDC 05 presentations went into the rationale behind the
ribbon. *It included a history of the interfaces used for Word. *The
old paradigm was simply inadequate

We MVPs saw the same, or a similar presentation.

Learning From the MVPs
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...04/476846.aspx.

and I give Microsoft credit for
realizing that and for attempting to come up with a new paradigm. *I
feel that the same holds true for moving to XML. *There are some
problems caused by them that they could have solved better,

I agree that the Ribbon is a better solution going forward. *Yes, it's
going to
require work learning the new commands, etc. * *However one Excel MVP
stated that he
was no longer going to be the Excel expert in the office because now
everyone can
find the functions they need to do their job. * And that I agree with.

but I
applaud their courage for going to XML

Well, I'm not so convinced about XML. *<smile

I have demonstrated over and over that I try to help individuals and
companies save money. Also, I'm no fan of Microsoft. I am usually
criticizing Microsoft, but I try to praise them when they make good
decisions :-). And I like old-time C and Egyptian hieroglyphs too,
but I have never programmed in hieroglyphs. I moved to Visual C++
when it came out because I thought it was a better paradigm than C
without thinking that Microsoft was just trying to get more money out
of me. I think many of the changes to Windows and Office came too
fast for too much expense to get too little in new features. Vista
and Office 2007 seem like they took more effort by Microsoft.

I think Microsoft would have suffered greatly by not going to XML.
The old interface also needed to be changed. I think that better ways
to solve the interface problem could have been dreamed up, but I don't
doubt that the old interface was inadequate. Do you disagree that the
old paradigm is inadequate? Do you think Microsoft should have tried
to stretch the technology instead? I think they picked the right time
for a paradigm shift. I don't think they were thinking, "We haven't
changed the features much, but a new interface should convince them
that we did a lot of work." However, I could be wrong about their
thoughts.

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster (AT) FortuneJames (DOT) com

#34

Jim,

The previous "paradigm" (a word that you may guess from my previous posts is
not one I often use)has been perfectly adequate for my clients/users and for
me for all the things we have done and do with Microsoft Access, and, for
me, perfectly adequate for using the rest of Office.

I have privately, at some length and with some strength, expressed my views
on the new interface to Microsoft -- to the extent that I am certain I am
no longer in the 'good graces' of some in the Access sphere in Redmond.
Additional discussion, publicly, will serve no useful purpose.

Office, including Access, is Microsoft's product and they are entitled to
make whatever changes they wish to that product. I understand that, if I am
to continue to use and support that product, I am going to have to adapt,
learn, and use the product they produce. But that does not mean I am going
to have to like it, nor that I won't comment when I believe someone's
personal preference got in the way of hearing the opposing views to their
personal preference.

Larry

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Access/Office 07

comp.databases.ms-access comp.databases.ms-access

Re: Access/Office 07 - 02-27-2008 , 07:39 PM

Re: Access/Office 07 - 02-27-2008 , 07:46 PM

Re: Access/Office 07 - 02-28-2008 , 05:33 PM

Re: Access/Office 07 - 02-28-2008 , 07:35 PM