I press <F5> while viewing a report and I get "Microsoft Access has
stopped working, Windows is checking for a solution for the problem."
It occurs to me that in my experience VISTA has NEVER found a solution
for ANY problem.
And I realize that prior to Vista and Office 2007 I could just press
<Ctrl><C> to copy that error message, but no more; now I must remember
the message and type it myself.
When I first started with Access many, many years ago I used to think
that one must be both intellectually backward and politically
compliant to work for Microsoft. Now I'm convinced. Who are these
bozos? Where do they come from? Why do they generate infinite crap?
And does Bill store all those souls he has purchased in one place or
does he incinerate them?
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?

At least you haven't been called a "troll" and a "lier" by a Microsoft MVP
yet like I was for questioning Access. I think you've hit the nail on the
head here myself.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:50:03 -0500, lyle fairfield
<lyle.fairfield (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Jan 1, 9:50*am, lyle fairfield <lyle.fairfi... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
How do you rank Access 95, Access
IMO Access 2007 is as slow as a wet week, as is the rest of Office
2007. Excel is just plain atrocious in some areas.

And while I'm venting, how "these bozos" as you call them could get
rid of custom menus, replace them with the ribbon and then neglect to
include some sort of ribbon builder is beyond me. The only option is
to learn xml which doesn't tickle everyone's fancy or shell out cash
on a third party ribbon builder like I have done. I don't use it much
though because I will continue to build in A2003 for as long as I can
get away with it for compatibility reasons and also because A2007 just
doesn't get me excited.

Yes, it has some neat features, but the fact that I find it slower
offsets those neat features. Is it too much to expect for newer
versions of the OS and Office to at least perform functions as fast as
their predecessor? Office 2007 and Vista have been sorely
disappointing in this area. MS may have learnt something from Vista
though, because Windows 7 looks like it is going to be quite snappy on
current hardware. Hopefully we'll see the same with the next version
of Office.

"Donald Calloway" <drcalloway (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

Can we just clarify something? David Fenton used the word troll and the word lying.
He is not a Microsoft MVP. Indeed his occasional rude postings are his biggest
impepiment to being recognized as such.

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/

In article
<4fa8d5eb-432f-4fba-8e43-20a8ad2feee0 (AT) r28g2000vbp (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
lyle fairfield <lyle.fairfield (AT) gmail (DOT) com> Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:50:03
writes

We have an Access 97 commercial application selling for the last 15
years. It is stable, simple to maintain. Customers are very happy. We
have no intention of upgrading unless there is no other choice.

Very buggy and we have never used it for real applications.

A2003 is much better than 2000 and we do use it where we need the
multilingual facilities which A97 does not have.

Development though is much simpler in A97. If ever you stop using A97
make sure you save the A97 help file!

Never tried it. Ask us maybe in 5 years time.
--
Les Desser
(The Reply-to address IS valid)

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

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.

On Jan 6, 3:00*pm, "Larry Linson" <boun... (AT) localhost (DOT) not> wrote:

Excellent wrap up of the different versions Larry.

Because you mention clients I'm assuming that you are referring to the
Ribbon? Or are you referring to the design interface in general.

On Jan 5, 11:00*pm, "Larry Linson" <boun... (AT) localhost (DOT) not> wrote:
Spot on. 97 had the best help system ever

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

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

On Jan 7, 2:20*am, timmg <tmillsgronin... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Finally. Someone else who sees this. I've mentioned the speed issue
in this thread and others and nobody has ever really agreed until
now. Even with cutting edge hardware, it's still a slug compared to
A2003 on that same hardware. The whole of Office 2007 is slow. What
were the developers thinking?

On Jan 7, 5:58*am, "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse... (AT) dfenton (DOT) com.invalid>
wrote:

None that I can't do without. The things that I find extremely
annoying are: It's slow. They've failed to include any sort of built
in Ribbon builder. The objects panel can't be undocked or set to "not
always on top".