Your Opinion of Access 2007

#11

timmg <tmillsgroninger (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Spot on. 97 had the best help system ever

I still use A97 help as much as possible.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

#12

Jet never became reliable.

That is an urban myth.

If your database doesn't support Wireless, WAN, VPN or even a simple
subnet-- then maybe it's time to move to SQL Server

On Jan 6, 11:54*am, "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse... (AT) dfenton (DOT) com.invalid>
wrote:

Quote:

"Larry Linson" <boun... (AT) localhost (DOT) not> wrote innews:3AB8l.3782$Es4.3383 (AT) nwrddc01 (DOT) gnilink.net:

Access 2.0

You left out the whole Jet 2.5 Service Pack debacle. The original
Access 2 was horribly unreliable and only really bacame usable with
the release of Jet 2.5 (Access 2 was originally released with Jet
2.0).

--
David W. Fenton * * * * * * * * *http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com * *http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

#13

Tim;

it's called 'egocentrism' when you think that the whole world does
everything just because you _THINK_ that it might be faster

Office 2007 is by far the most successful Office launch ever.

Anyone that still uses an ancient platform is just plain fucking
stupid (because they don't understand anything about IT security).

Old MS Access and Old Office Formats are a huge security risk.
And security risks are everywhere.

In a perfect world, nobody would have a connection to any other
networks.
But if you have any network connections; you have a moral obligation
to use the latest version

On Jan 6, 8:20*am, timmg <tmillsgronin... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jan 5, 11:00*pm, "Larry Linson" <boun... (AT) localhost (DOT) not> wrote:

"lyle fairfield" <lyle.fairfi... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

*> YES, there's a question in this. How do you rank
*> Access 95, Access 2000 (the original) and Access
*> 2007 in terms of frustration, banal show-person-ship,
*> trite tricks, and just plain incompetence?

In my not-so-humble opinion:

Access 2.0 -- a good, solid 16-bit release,..
Access 95 -- unarguably the worst release, ever...
Access 97 -- arguably the best release ever...
Access 2000 -- pretty bad as released...

Spot on. *97 had the best help system ever

Access 2002 and 2003 -- a few feature improvements...

2002 was a solid release, but the security warnings on '03 were
obnoxious. *"Your program might contain code..." *Geesh.

Access 2007 -- my potential clients find the new UI so frustrating thatthey
aren't moving from Access 2003...

Indeed, the UI suffers from multiple personality disorder - it can't
tell when it's being end-user focused or developer friendly. *This
might relate to MS's overall ambiviance to Access as neither fish nor
fowl, not a development tool, not an end-user tool.

The real issue for me and 2007 is performance; even with upgraded
hardware it runs much slower than earlier version. *Maybe Windows 7
will help a bit, but I generally recommend against move to Office '07
right now. *AFAIK most corporate America agrees - Office 2003 still
seems to dominate.

tim

#14

David;

you and your replication are just dumb

move on-- if you need the same thing now, you're required to use SQL
Server.

(especially if you want to support X64)

-Aaron

On Jan 6, 11:58*am, "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse... (AT) dfenton (DOT) com.invalid>
wrote:

Quote:

timmg <tmillsgronin... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote innews:e38b1137-e086-4283-bc19-bae92928cd6a (AT) f40g2000pri (DOT) googlegroups.co
m:

I generally recommend against move to Office '07
right now. *AFAIK most corporate America agrees - Office 2003
still seems to dominate.

For me, as someone who was heavily wedded to Jet replication, Access
2000 was a truly bittersweet release, since it made such incredibly
strong improvements to Jet replication. But otherwise, it was awful
that I avoided it with all my clients for about 2 years.

Does anyone think there is anything at all in Access 2007 that is
comparable to the huge leap in capability that Jet 4 provided in
regard to replication? I don't see anything at all in A2K7 except
the implementation of MS's first-draft attempt at a new user
interface, and an emphasis on end-user usability. Sharepoint
intergration is just a non-starter for me, as most of my clients
don't have a friggin' server. And I'm not sure that it would offer
anything at all to those who *do* have a server.

Does anyone have any favorite A2K7 features that they think are
really important? Essential? Earth-shatteringly innovative?

--
David W. Fenton * * * * * * * * *http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com * *http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

#15

<aaron.kempf (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

In a perfect world

I wouldn't have to read any of your drivel. Oh, hang on, what's this?
<PLONK>

#16

On Jan 7, 1:30*am, "aaron.ke... (AT) gmail (DOT) com" <aaron.ke... (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

Tim;

it's called 'egocentrism' when you think that the whole world does
everything just because you _THINK_ that it might be faster

Granted, I'm a tad ego-centric. But then I also have major self worth
issues, so, all in all it tends to balance out <g>

However, I'm having trouble parsing the rest of your sentence. I
think that you're agreeing that the whole world has not moved to
Office 2007. I haven't looked at the recent research, but a few
months ago corporate adoption was low.

Quote:

Office 2007 is by far the most successful Office launch ever.

Good for Microsoft. I'm certainly a user, and some clients have moved
because they found it hard to get 2003.

Quote:

Anyone that still uses an ancient platform is just plain fucking
stupid (because they don't understand anything about IT security).

Ancient? I give you ancient: a buddy of mine wants me to troubleshoot
his IBM PC running WordStar. Not that's ancient. OTOH, I wouldn't
call XP and later ancient

Quote:

Old MS Access and Old Office Formats are a huge security risk.
And security risks are everywhere.

I choose to politely disagree on the size of the risk.

Quote:

In a perfect world, nobody would have a connection to any other
networks.
But if you have any network connections; you have a moral obligation
to use the latest version

I don't think that it's a moral question. Good training and network
security are the keys to mitigating risk.

On the same note, those who refused to upgrade to Vista have forced
Microsoft to speed up the delivery of its sucessor. An argument can
be made that we have a moral obligation _not_ to upgrade until there
is a compelling reason to do, thus forcing Microsoft to be more
responsive to market forces and less willing to release new products
because they need to meet revenue forcasts.

....

Quote:

The real issue for me and 2007 is performance; even with upgraded
hardware it runs much slower than earlier version. *Maybe Windows 7
will help a bit, but I generally recommend against move to Office '07
right now. *AFAIK most corporate America agrees - Office 2003 still
seems to dominate.

tim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

#17

On Jan 8, 2:25*am, timmg <tmillsgronin... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

All very well said, but you've made the mistake of feeding the
troll. :-)

#18

"David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet (AT) dfenton (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

Quote:

Access 2.0

You left out the whole Jet 2.5 Service Pack debacle. The original
Access 2 was horribly unreliable and only really bacame usable with
the release of Jet 2.5 (Access 2 was originally released with Jet
2.0).

Ah, you have a good memory, David. I still have sneaker-net copies of the
Service Release* on 3.5" diskettes... hey, my only copy of Access 2.0
resides on the obsolescent machine that's the only one I own that has a
diskette reader, so I could still use them.

* other software got Service Packs, even then,
I think, but Access had "Service Releases"

#19

"David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet (AT) dfenton (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

Quote:

. . . While I was at it, I also recoded all the
insanity in it that predates my having learned
my ass from my elbow in respect to
programming in Access.

I probably could, if I dug hard enough, find a diskette containing the
example database that I used to illustrate Access features and functions to
my user group, 'way back then. I shudder to think what the Access Basic code
would look like to me, now, so I think I'll just let it be "preserved as a
historic artifact".

On the other hand, by then, I had 35 years of programming experience, and
nearly 20 of using BASIC at some level -- so it wasn't completely "novice
work". But, I was still learning The Access Way.

Larry

#20

I have found a few odd things happening in 2007. The new interface takes
some getting used to. It has some nice touches though...for me not having to
write code for a calendar is useful.

For FREE Access ebook and videos click here
http://access-databases.com/ebook

"Larry Linson" <bouncer (AT) localhost (DOT) not> wrote

Quote:

"lyle fairfield" <lyle.fairfield (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

YES, there's a question in this. How do you rank
Access 95, Access 2000 (the original) and Access
2007 in terms of frustration, banal show-person-ship,
trite tricks, and just plain incompetence?

In my not-so-humble opinion:

Access 2.0 -- a good, solid 16-bit release, if protecting your database
objects was not a high priority (security had a hole big enough to fly a
space station through, sometimes called the "CopyObject Flaw"). If you
have an older machine and a useful Access 2.0 application, there's no need
to upgrade; but it can't handle more than 1 GB of RAM (I hear you can run
it on a VM assigned 1 GB or less, but haven't tried it myself).

Access 95 -- unarguably the worst release, ever, of Access; so bad they
didn't even issue a SP, but devoted all their effort to speeding up the
release of Access 97, arguably the best release ever of Access

Access 97 -- arguably the best release ever of Access, but still required
a couple of SPs over its lifetime. Many still use it in preference to
later versions, but in my case, it's on an obsolete desktop machine of
which I just haven't disposed, available if needed, but rarely used.

Access 2000 -- pretty bad as released, but after three SPs and a few
fixes, seems now to be reasonably stable, solid, and usable

Access 2002 and 2003 -- a few feature improvements, but each was improved
over Access 2000 (sans SPs) in stability, solidity, and real usability.
For developing, I prefer Access 2003 because its Help content is better.
I wish it were "local/offline primary" but the primary "online" Help is
better than Access 2002.

Access 2007 -- my potential clients find the new UI so frustrating that
they aren't moving from Access 2003, so my experience is limited. I'm not
fond of the new UI, either, so I am not rushing them along. Exciting
areas, as addressed by Albert Kallal in a recent thread here, include
using Access 2007 with SharePoint 3.0 (significant improvements over 2003
and SharePoint 2.0). It's clear that the folks in Redmond have recognized
the importance of easy, simple access to data stored on the Internet or
intranets, and are pursuing that goal.