Access and Office 365 - limitations

[Paul H]

I have tinkered with SharePoint, using lists as a backend for a couple of small Access databases. I simply created and then linked to the lists as opposed to publishing the Access databases to SharePoint.

I now have a fairly large project - the Access accdb file is around 100MB and there are around 20 tables in the database. We want to migrate the tables to SharePoint lists.

We have run a few tests uploading the data and encountered several errors and issues e.g.

1. Larger tables (50,000+ rows) have all kinds of problems converting to lists. In the end we had to upload the data in chunks to get it all into SharePoint. I spoke to the Office 365 support team about this and they kept referring the "5,000 list view limit". I explained that we were merely uploading data directly from Access. The guy kept banging on about the 5,000 record limit but could not clearly explain when and why I might encounter errors, he simply said I should "get less errors using Access". My understanding is that the limit refers to how many records I can view in a browser, but as I have repeatedly explained to MS, that is not what we are doing. As soon as you mention a list with more than 5,000 rows in it there is a sharp intake of breath but very little relevant discussion. I really feel that anyone that I talk to at Microsoft really doesn't get what Access developers are trying to do with SharePoint...they just think 'SharePoint = Collaboration'.

2. I also encountered other 365 "features" like the inability to delete a site that has lists in it!! Very tedious if you want to rebuild a site from scratch. Likewise we had problems deleting lists that had data in them.

So, can someone shed some light on the 5,000 list limitation and whether I should be worried about it in larger systems, or is it just that the 365 version of SharePoint is poorly implemented or inapropriate for this type of use?

If that is the case, does anyone know of any SharePoint hosting companies in the UK that do not charge the earth for managed hosting?

At this point in time I am very wary about using SharePoint as a backend for anything other than very small, very simple systems.

Paul

[Neil]

Re. 1: my experience with Office 365 support is that a) they are very
friendly; b) they are good at sharing basic/standard information; c)
beyond that, they know very little.

I don't think it's their fault. I just have the impression that the
people they're using as "support" are just not trained to a very high level.

That being said, I have a friend who has an Enterprise account, which
allows e-mail support, as opposed to message board support. The level of
support he's gotten there, from what I've seen, has been great, with
very knowledgeable answers; sample code sent in reply; and even a
follow-up phone call to see if everything was working OK!!

Bottom line: P account = little or no support. E account = good support.

To get to your situation, yes, you're right, the 5,000 record view limit
has nothing to do with what you're doing. They're just confused.

I have found that SharePoint tends to choke when you try to upload large
amounts of data at once.

Best thing is just to create the tables, and then write a VBA routine to
loop through the tables, and upload the records one-by-one (or in query
batches), and just leave it running overnight.

50,000 rows per tables should be fine. It's just a question of getting
the data in there that's a problem.

Neil

[Albert D. Kallal]

"Paul H" wrote in message
news:d7beb33f-8a71-4052...@googlegroups.com...

>I now have a fairly large project - the Access accdb file is around 100MB
>and there are around 20 tables in the database. We want to migrate the
>tables to SharePoint lists.
>
>We have run a few tests uploading the data and encountered several errors
>and issues e.g.
>
>1. Larger tables (50,000+ rows) have all kinds of problems converting to
>lists.

First of all, I commend you for doing some testing, some gathering of the
landscape, and checking out what kind of works, and what kind of does not.

I have so often seen people assume that they can simply split an access
database, and then use it over a VPN. Boy, do such folks get egg on their
face!

And I even seen people migrate Access back ends to SQL and then stand
in shock and horror that performance did NOT increase!

Now while the above of trying to run a split database over the Internet via
a VPN, or some migration project in which back in tables are pushed up to
SQL server, the outcome of such projects is often the either a really big
surprise, or no surprise at all.

In fact what we're talking about here, is experience!

So at the end of the day, you get high marks and a fantastic high five for
doing some stress testing.

And, you also not afraid to ask and point out tough questions!

You are doing some feeling of the landscape. This means you are asking,
testing, probing. The result here is you will walk away with having some
great NEW experience and knowledge in our industry.

Ok, so, to make are long story short, back in the Access 2003 days which is
about 10 years ago, (and not to wax eloquent about how amazingly fast time
seems to fly - but just wow!, access 2003 is now about 10 years old!)

Any way back then, access 2003 had introduced some new SharePoint features.
And I think few realize back then, this was around the time that office live
small business was introduced, and even more amazing is back then few
realized that office live small business was actually free. And it included
SharePoint features, and you could publish (migrate) your access tables to
share
point!

I was so excited, that I actually committed to some projects for some
customers to use the cloud for the backend end part. Remember 10 years ago I
don't think we even use the term cloud!

It turns out that performance was not sufficient. So, backed into a corner I
switched the back ends back over to using hosted SQL server. As a result I
been using SQL hosed and been deploying Access front ends to their desktops
that consumes the backend database over the Internet.

So, using SQL server is always a great possibility here. I been doing this
for 10 years now.

And Access 2010 has support baked into the product for SQL Azure (cloud
edition).

In a way, I'm am much happy and better off that the older SharePoint setup
did not
Work. As a result I gained a lot of experience and learned a lot of
cool techniques for supporting customers and clients. And it also means I
became experienced with SQL server, and MORE so in deployed access databases
to the desktop, but using SQL server back end over the Internet.

I Point the above story out for two very important reasons, one is SQL
server is always a great possibility here, and secondly the limits and
performance of SharePoint have been long and widely known in this industry
for 10 years, and is not something new.

>My understanding is that the limit refers to how many records I can view in
>a browser

Actually, to be honest, in reading almost every article in the last 10 years
going well before we ever had some web browser options available for access
developers, the suggestion was to keep those lists well below 5000 records.
This is not any new news here.

So just like the person that discovers it's a great idea to split your
access database, this is just WIDELY known knowledge that one learns over
time. It would be dishonest of me to stand here and state that the first
day I use access, I knew that I was to split the database. But I would not
stand here and tell me golly, this is new news or some big revelation that
were supposed to split!

So with gaining knowledge of SharePoint, it pretty much a given that the
widespread knowledge of limits of SharePoint are widely known and talked
about in our industry, and the same thing goes for Access and learning
simple basic concepts such as normalization, or something like it's a good
idea to split your database.

As always, you have to use the right horse for the right course.

Back in Access 2003 days, with office Live small business, or say tomorrow,
if you have a sales force of 3-4 four people on the road working contacts in
a new city, and say you have a list of perhaps 200 to 300 contacts that they
all must share and update at the same time? Then using a linked table to
SharePoint is an absolutely ideal solution here.

The above allows you to coordinate the contacting of those customers, and
while your sales force is in that area, you won't do the stupid thing of
contacting a customer that you've already contacted, or one that say that
there are ready not interested. So you don't bother customers, and you don't
re-do and waste sales force time doing the same time two times.

Now having said the above, with the advent of Access 2010, and the new data
cache model, then this setup SUBSTANTIALLY changes what is now possible.
The substantial changes open MORE options and a whole bunch of doors here.

And for those learning, I'm going to take a cut and paste from a recent post
of mine here from this newsgroup.

So here a "general" rundown of my experiences for these limits with Access
and SharePoint:

<quote>
Access and SharePoint Access 2003 - maybe 2-5% of applications would work
with SharePoint
Access 2007 - much better - perhaps 20%, maybe 30% of applications could
work with SharePoint - but we had no relational features.
Access 2010 - 60-75% of applications could now use SharePoint. And WE NOW
have relational database features for SharePoint such as cascade delete.
</quote>

In other words if we have a list of 500 names of customers and a sales force
working in a new area to go out and contact customers? Then sure even Access
2003 and SharePoint (or back then the FREE SharePoint from Officer Live
Small business) would and could work quite well. (and amazing how few people
realized this service was free!!!).

And note in the above the one big gem stone:
2010 has Referential integrity.

Obviously if you have an application that has a lot of child tables then,
then obviously to utilize any version of SharePoint BEFORE 2010 would
(could) be problematic in those cases where your code or application
requires or relies on cascade deletes.

It would be stupid to stand here and state that every table we have in every
application has related tables. It would be equally stupid to ignore that
such requirements are most often typical.

One can write your own cascade delete routines, but for the most part such
efforts are not likely worth it. The reason is twofold:

If you have related tables, then you likely are starting to have more data,
and if the relation is more than 1 table deep, then you quite much have to
resort to using recursion to solve this – and in fact that is exactly the
code solution I used (else such code become quite messy to code any other
way – Google "recursion" if you don't know this term).

Okay having said the above, let's address a little bit of this 5000 record
issue, and what is going on here.

First up, and important is that of using a hosted provider, or are you using
cloud computing?

I should point out, that there is a Mount Everest of a DIFFERENCE between
hosted servers, and that of using cloud computing. This is just one of
those things you have to learn like splitting an access database, or
learning for the first time about the concept of normalizing tables!

So grasping and learning that cloud computing is HUGE and different form
hosted services is something you simply have to learn over time.

And of course also what type of network connection do you have to the server
also going to be REALLY big issue here. So what kind of network are you
dealing with? This is such a HUGE and often LEFT OUT detail that to me this
is worse than someone admitting to me that they never heard or realized that
database normalization is a good thing!

So for anybody that does not grasp and understand the differences in the
type of network connections they are using, or if they're going to utilize
the Internet as opposed to their local network, then they better have the
realization that such connections are approximately 100 times slower. I
really cannot stress except hit you over the head with a frying pan two or
three times and state this again:

The internet is 100 times slower than your local network! Got it?

And if you can't grasp the above statement, read it again 10 times! Then
read the following article of mine in which I explain the spectacularly
simple concept of this network speed.

http://www.kallal.ca//Wan/Wans.html

And for some reason no matter how hard I try to explain this simple issue,
even AFTER people read the above article of mine, the simple statements in
above continues to be spectacularly ignored and spectacularly not gasped by
most people in our industry.

99% the time they come back to me and say, well I have this high speed
Internet? And my answer back is what part about the 100 times slower did you
not grasp?

So, for example on my local network and SharePoint 2010, I can have no
problem pushing up 80,000 rows. It still slower than pushing up to SQL
server, but it not a big deal either.

However doing the same thing over the internet is VERY different matter.

Then there is the issue of using cloud computing such as office 365 and that
again is an ENTIRELY different matter.

>2. I also encountered other 365 "features" like the inability to delete a
>site that has lists in it!! Very tedious if you want to rebuild a site from
>scratch. Likewise we had problems deleting lists that had data in them.

Yes, as noted, there are some big differences between hosted systems (and
this does not only apply to SharePoint, but as noted often is a cloud
issue).

So, in the case of 365, yes, unfortunately some of the issues have much to
do with governors put in place to prevent users from placing excessive load
on that utility service.

A really great way to think of this is how your local electric company can
provide electricity for THOUSANDS if not millions of home.

However, if you go to a typical jobsite and watch them do some welding with
electricity you see they use a truck with a diesel generator on the back. So
there is this massive electric company with giga watts of power! - yet they
use a diesel truck with a welding rig mounted on the back!

Why?

Of course in many cases such mounted welding and diesel generators are use
since the job site is new, and there is the issue of convenience of not
having to find or even have electricity on site.

However, EVEN in those cases where electricity is all around them, they
still utilize that diesel generator to do that on site welding. The REASON
is the electrical grid in most cases cannot easily supply that kind of power
required for welding. In other words there some pretty significant limits on
how much power you can draw out of electrical grid.

Grasping this computing resource management and concept of utility or so
called cloud computing as opposed to a server based system is quite much the
same paradigm change and reasoning you have to adopt.

And like learning it was a cool idea to split your database, the same thing
occurs when using office 365.

So you need to test, and also learn what works, and what does not. (so
applications that update lots of rows will not work well with 365). So you
want to push up against the walls and probe and prod and find out what kind
of limits you have and see what works and what doesn't.

I suppose this is no different than deciding at what point in time should
you migrate your typical access application up to SQL server because you've
outgrown the limits of access?

I've seen some cases were a person has a table grow to only 1000 records,
and they thought that was too large for access to handle so then they
brought in people to start using SQL server for that data!

>So, can someone shed some light on the 5,000 list limitation and whether I
>should be worried about it in larger systems, or is it just that the 365

>version of SharePoint is poorly implemented or inappropriate for this type
>of use?

An excellent question!

The first issue of thing to keep in mind, is unfortunately that if you
attempt to load a table larger than 5000 records at one time, then you're
going to put yourself in a bit of a pickle.

The simple reason is there are some hard limit settings in office 365.

(remember the huge, large, massive, big difference between cloud based
systems as opposed to hosted systems).

So, there are some governors in place that will not allow you to set
and delete or remove indexes on tables in excess of 5000 records. This means
if you upload a table of 6000 records, then you CANNOT set indexes after you
upload (and this ALSO means your existing index settings are ignored!).

With this knowledge, then you can get around this issue and limits if your
initial table that you create has less than 5000 records. In other words
setting up the relationships, setting up the indexing, and doing all these
things is possible if you start out with something of less than 5000
records.

With a hosted provider, you can (but not always) change these limits. And if
your company runs SharePoint, then these limits can be changed.

And using the paradigm of utility computing, a great example of this is
probably how long it takes you to fill your swimming pool. You only have a
garden hose, and it doesn't go very fast. In fact they can take many days
to achieve such a task.

Compare that to firefighting equipment in which they have big huge diesel
trucks with built in tanks. And they ALSO have specialized attachments to
the water mains and utility that BYPASSES the typical limits of how much
water you can draw from that system. So what you can draw and use for your
household is LIMITED.

So once again the paradigm of utility computing is a great way to think
about this stuff.

And of course once you do get the pool filled up with water eventually, then
you can enjoy this big pool water without excessive load on the local water
utility. And I suppose the same goes for office 365:

If you do manage to get a big table up there, and correctly set up, then
you can pretty much enjoy that table without an excessive load on their
servers.

The above also means that if you have to often or rapidly fill a big pool of
water than your garden hose connection to the water main is not going to
solve this issue for you, and if you're using 365, that's not going to be
your best choice either.

As noted, thus you better had your designs, your table structures, and
everything you need setup in those tables and hopefully start out with well
under 5000 records. And to be honest, I'm sure there was a day when you
started out with your access application that the tables had very few rows
of data in them, and over time they grew.

Or perhaps you're starting a new application, and therefore you're not
having to worry about these data limits and all.

And I suppose having experienced on mainframe computers, or even multi user
small business systems in which they were quite sensitive to the amount of
data, processing, and memory you could use.

The problem here is often due to the desktop having probably in excess of
1000 times the computing power and processing ability that we had about 15
years ago, then many people have a complete warped view of reality of what
type the resources they have available even when using a mainframe or large
system.

The problem is when you start moving back to a mainframe or centralize
server based system, then the amount of processing that can be allocated to
each individual user drops back to what was very much like the early days of
PC desktops.

So keep in mind while there are long time historic issues with a 5000 record
limit
that was a "general" recommend over the last 10 years with SharePoint
, and then there is the 5000 record limits in place for office 365, and they
are NOT related to the longer history limits.

So the above longtime historic limit, was never really any real limit. And
even back in the 2003 days, and using a Microsoft's Office live small
business (the successor to office 365), I was able to push Access tables
from
2003 in the 80,000 record range.

However office 365 is a different matter, and this is a different set of
issues here.

>If that is the case, does anyone know of any SharePoint hosting companies
>in the UK that do not charge the earth for managed hosting?

The above is a great question. I'm not from the par the world, so I have no
idea. However, there is an incredible lesson here to utilize and make note
of when you mention the high cost of such sub hosting.

You would HAVE TO BE LIVING IN A CAVE if you've not noticed every single
computer magazine, every single industry trade publication, and just about
EVERY CEO from Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, Google etc. are ALL SINGING
THE DANCE of this new cloud computing thing!

The REASON WHY these people are so big on could computing is because cloud
computing means VERY LOW COST COMPUTER SERVICES just like utilities offer
for water or electricity.

Although to be honest these days, a lot of cities have jacked up electricity
and water rates not because the cost of water and electricity has increased,
but this being used as a means to increase city revenues without causing a
tax revolt.

So I want to exercise some caution here in stating that office 365 can
handle some pretty amazing applications, but like any new technology, some
caution is required. I would not stand here and state that office 365 is
for only simple applications.

Of course such attitudes are nothing new in this newsgroup. I think for more
than 10+ years we've all fought the idea and concept that Access is a tory
and cannot be used for any kind of business applications. So I think we've
all suffered the other side of this calling, and I daresay that often a lot
of people make the same limited statements about office 365 without
knowledge and understanding of what they're doing.

Right now taking an application with say 20 tables and lots of them with
relationships, and tons of VBA code? If most of the tables are below 50,000
records, then such applications will work quite well.

And just like some users can get Access to work well for 10 users, we see
some you're complaining that their application runs too slow with 1 user!

And speaking of using Access on a network with a split front end and a back
in folder file share on the server? (so without SQL server, and without
SharePoint)

We had reports in of people managing to run in excess as 100 users! Now
course this is an environment in which everything was absolutely perfect
setup.

And today with SQL server having nice free editions, I think a sweet spot
without any kind of server is about 10 users on your local network, and I
think the start hitting about 20 users, then I think while performance can
be adequate, today it makes a lot of sense to utilize SQL server.

And I dare say in those environments in which the application fits into
using office 365 as the backend, then I think again those 10 to 20 users
will have not have any problems at all.

And as pointed out due to the NEW Access/SharePoint local data caching
system, there are a number scenarios in which Access to SharePoint backend
database are FAR BETTER of a choice then SQL server. In other words you run
a report on a table with 20,000 records, and you have a "poor" Internet
connection then with Access and SharePoint you don't suffer any bandwidth
cost or issues – the report runs instantly and locally without any data
transfer required at all. Such report the SQL server can be extremely
problematic when you're running over an Internet connection to the access
front end.

Another major reason why the setup works so well, is that access and
SharePoint are designed with the new world of the Internet and web based
types of connections. Those connections are not always stable, and are
often intermittent, and therefore in such environments once again access and
SharePoint runs absolute circles around the same setup with SQL server (SQL
server right now unfortunately does not take well to those breaks and
connections that so often occur when using an Internet type of connection).

In other words this new Access choice is a modern technology that gives you
a lot more leeway and as noted in some instances the performance absolutely
runs circles around the same setup utilizing SQL server.

On the other hand like anything else, this is a question of the right kind
of horse for the right kind of chore.

A person can certainly use cloud based editions of hosted SQL server (SQL
azure), or even pursue low cost web hosting of which a good many providers
allow external connections to the database. (I still do this setup for some
clients).

At the end of the day the best scenario for all of these cases is to do some
initial testing and some leg work to find out what works what does not.

As I've pointed out, some people recommend for anything more than two users,
then you'd be crazy to use access on your local network and you have to
adopt SQL server. Well I don't buy that recommendation!

And the same thing goes for office 365. The amount of typical type of Access
applications that can now work with office 365 is quite large. But this is a
relative term.

So just like an accDB back end or SQL server is not the solution for
everything, the same goes for office 365.

I can remember companies paying about $40,000 dollars for a 10 user multi
user Computer System, and around the capacity to handle about maybe 25,000
rows of data.

Today you can take 10 laptops, send them out the door, and use office 365
for mere $6 per month, and be off to the races in less time than it took me
to write this post out. So for some this might not be a big deal, and for
others at this low cost?

This is nothing short of a miracle.

Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
PleaseNoS...@msn.com

[Paul H]

>snip

Thanks for the replies chaps. You have put my mind at rest regarding the capabilities of SharePoint.

As for Microsoft support, I have spoken to them on the phone several times and they are helpful, willing but unfortunately not very knowledgeable beyond "brochure" type information. The 365 forums aren't too dissimilar - I have followed many threads where I have read and understood the original poster's concerns immediately, yet the MS support guy has completely failed to grasp the point, clearly through lack of experience and in-depth knowledge. In my experience, a lot of support issues, either by phone or forum, are resolved by simply pointing people at the documentation. On one occasion, I was told to download and read all of the documents on the following page to find the answer to my question:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=13602

Quite shocking really!

I guess that this, above all else, is what makes me uneasy - it doesn't matter how capable the product is, if the support is useless there is always that thought in the back of my mind..."What if the sh*t hit's the fan? Who do I call?"


Paul

[Neil]

>>On one occasion, I was told to download and read all of the documents
on the following page to find the answer to my question<<

I guess that's the equivalent of "reinstall windows to resolve the problem."

>>I guess that this, above all else, is what makes me uneasy - it
doesn't matter how capable the product is, if the support is useless
there is always that thought in the back of my mind..."What if the sh*t
hit's the fan? Who do I call?"<<

You might want to consider switching to AccessHosting.com. I hear their
support is pretty good, and they actually work with you. A few dollars
more, though (though, depending on how many licenses you need, it might
end up being about the same).

Neil

[Albert D. Kallal]

I see the issue and problem here as the person making some kind of big deal
here and attempting to make this situation somehow special and different
than the rest of their experience in this IT industry.

Unless the person shares their experience of using products like Turbo
Pascal, or Delphi, or FoxPro, or some other product in the past, and then
explains to me who they called and what their experience was like in terms
of support, then it is SPECTACULARLY irresponsible, if not stupid in public
to claim that some lack of a straight answer in a Brochure is the means to
judge the lack of support that's going deeper received for using such
services.

In other words it I open up a brochure for some truck and it does not have
some information inside of that Brochure, it means your local service
department is going to be crap? Geehsh, I tell ya, some people sure give
out the day pass for stupidity.

Fact the matter is when the person probably used FoxPro, or Delphi or even
windows, then exactly what the experience is in regards to that support and
unless shared here?
This is a complete straw man and false pretense type of argument.

In other words if the person is not satisfied with the support they received
for using windows all these years, then why would they expected to be any
different with any other department or product from Microsoft? But more
importantly is the reverse! If they've been using windows all these years,
what is their experience with support and can they claim that it's a
different in terms of their experience when they're paying for that support?
And compare this to other vendors in the industry (this last one is most
important).

And exactly when is the last most people used paid support at Microsoft for
Excel, Word or Access for that matter?

I don't mind a person having a legitimate complaint, but making a mountain
out of a molehill, or making a point based on ignorance and stupidity?

Yes, I do have a problem, however I don't care to waste my time in
responding to such posts because for the most part it doesn't matter!

I wasn't going to say anything here. However it's pretty clear and obvious
by not saying anything, now you're standing here saying that the person
should seek alternative means of paid support when we don't even have
verification that they're paying for this service and have attempted to use
a support to resolve a technical problem with that service in the first
place!

Furthermore we have not even determined the idea that using support would be
the appropriate path to find out and resolve this issue!

For example, your local dealer might be the one offering support to maintain
your automobile, but I can NOT say talking to the mechanic is going to be
the first person I call to tell me what options and features are available
on the particular car. The mechanic can't possibly know this, but not only
is the mechanic unlikely to know these types of answers, it is WORSE of a
reasoning process to outlay in public as this being the means as to which
the mechanics are bad or would be unable to maintain my car, or in this case
the office 365 service and support.

I am currently a paid subscriber to office 365.
Not only is office 365 a fantastic deal for small business, but the support
I've received has been excellent and above average in my experience in
dealing with software vendors over the years .

Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
PleaseNoS...@msn.com

--


"Neil" wrote in message news:k5jbl7$jmi$1...@dont-email.me...

[Paul H]

Albert,

All I am saying is that I telephoned Microsoft Sharepoint tech support and reported a few oddities, to which they did not have a clear explanation, the chap then conceded that he did not know the answers (as had other people in the same dept) and pointed me at several documents suggesting that I "might" find and answer there. Any way you look at it, that is crap support! Couple that with clear misunderstandings of similar questions put to support guys in the MS 365 forums. I stand by my negative opinion of MS SharePoint support at this time. And my concerns about where to turn if "the shit hits the fan" remain.

Sure I can get support elsewhere, you have helped me out many times and I am very grateful for it, but my experience with MS 365 support regarding SharePoint has been poor. Very helpful people, but lacking in knowledge.

Albert, the bottom line is, If you told me something about Sharepoint that directly contradicted what MS tech support had told me, I would most likely take your word over theirs!

FYI, I have a 365 P1 account and a Sharepoint Online P2 account.

Cheers,

Paul

[Albert D. Kallal]

>Albert,

>I stand by my negative opinion of MS SharePoint support at this time. And
>my concerns about where to turn if "the shit hits the fan" remain.

The above is a fair answer to me (really, it is!).

In fact, I not used Amazon or some of the other cloud services at this point
in time. So to be fair, in regards to cloud support and comparing how good
(or bad) this is would suggest that I cannot really give much opinion here
either!

However, in regards to vendor support, sure I can say support been great.

And I should point out that while support can be really great in response
time, cloud computing is a VERY different beast here.

Often tech support is NOT ABLE to do anything in helping due to a failure in
cloud computing service.

The reason why this is so?

Because they they don't have a single server or system that they can
re-boot. Often a fix has to rely on the system self healing, or they have to
inject some type of script or command into the system. The concept of a
single computer or server mattering in these systems does NOT matter!
Computers and single servers are NOT important in such systems and in fact
they cannot even re-boot them.

The result is when you experience a failure of service, then tech support is
in most cases power-less to help.

On the flip side, I can't say that issues of support are going to be less or
better with other vendors of cloud systems such as Amazon or Google. And
interesting it is of recent hat Amazon does support running of SharePoint on
their cloud services, but it not clear if this is a hosted server as oppose
to a true cloud setup.

I think our industry going to see somewhat of a learning curve as adopting
of cloud services occurs.

The issues that arise are rather different in terms of issues and concepts
that occur when compared to purchasing hosted services.

In effect, the industry moving forward on this at a fast pace, but the
ability of cloud providers to fix/solve issues when they occur remains a
un-proven issue in the marketplace, and I suspect their tools to manage and
run these systems are lagging somewhat.

[Neil]

Just saw this, Albert. I have to say I was quite surprised when I read
this. Is this not a forum where people can express their opinions? And
yet you're jumping all over me because I tried to help this person out.
You seem very angry and hostile in the below post, almost like you have
a vested interest in Microsoft and/or Office 365. Is that the case?
Unless one remains impartial, one's technical advice is going to be flawed.

I know for a fact that many people, including myself, are deeply
disappointed with the type of support that Office 365 provides - though,
as the OP noted, they are very nice and well-meaning people.

And I know for a fact that many Access developers are happy with
accesshosting.com as an alternative. One prominent Access SharePoint
developer with whom I had conversations said that he wouldn't recommend
anyone go to Office 365 for SharePoint, but to use accesshosting, instead.

Now, I don't have any interest in either company. And I'm happy to use
one or the other. But I know that I've found Office 365's support
lacking, whereas I've heard that accesshosting provides more direct
help. (I haven't used accesshosting, myself, so that's just what I've
heard from others.)

Plus there's the fact that for some strange reason, Office 365 still
hasn't even implemented reporting in Access Services for SharePoint! But
accesshosting has. Sure, we can use forms for reporting. To a degree.
But where's the grouping and totaling? All that has to be done manually
without true reports.

So, honestly, I don't know what you're getting so upset about. That I
recommended an alternative service that may meet the OP's needs better?
Why should that offend you so?

Honestly, Albert, if I didn't know you to be a sane, rational,
intelligent, and reasonable person, I would have thought that the post
came from a crazy person, and would have just laughed it off. Like this:

> Unless the person shares their experience of using products like Turbo
> Pascal, or Delphi, or FoxPro, or some other product in the past, and
> then explains to me who they called and what their experience was like
> in terms of support, then it is SPECTACULARLY irresponsible, if not
> stupid in public to claim that some lack of a straight answer in a
> Brochure is the means to judge the lack of support that's going deeper
> received for using such services.

Are you serious? They need to share their experiences with support of
other products AND give you the name of the person at Office 365 they
spoke with - otherwise it's SPECTACULARLY irresponsible to post anything
negative on a public board? Are you serious??

Honestly, it sounds like you're a part owner in the company, and you're
defending it because your own livelihood depends on it. Or something.

> This is a complete straw man and false pretense type of argument.

A straw man? They were sharing their opinion and their experience and
asking for feedback. But you're getting all hyper-defensive at their
post for some reason, like you're Office 365's attorney and this is a
court of law.

> In other words if the person is not satisfied with the support they
> received for using windows all these years, then why would they expected
> to be any different with any other department or product from
> Microsoft? But more importantly is the reverse! If they've been using
> windows all these years, what is their experience with support and can
> they claim that it's a different in terms of their experience when
> they're paying for that support?

Well, the difference is that Windows is a software product that one
purchases a license to, and Office 365 is a service that provides
support. If they didn't provide support, then, yes, it would be no
different than Windows. You pay a monthly fee, and you're on your own.
But since they do provide support as part of the package, one expects it
to be knowledgeable.

Furthermore, your point, why should we expect support to be different
than for any other Microsoft product, actually is not a positive thing.
I mentioned that I had heard that accesshosting has good support. So to
say that, well, why should we expect any better support from Microsoft
than we've gotten over the years really doesn't help your argument.
Maybe it's time that Microsoft steps up its game.

> I don't mind a person having a legitimate complaint, but making a
> mountain out of a molehill, or making a point based on ignorance and
> stupidity?

Really, Albert, this was uncalled for, and completely out of character
for you. To call someone ignorant and stupid? Because they complained
about bad support they got? Were you having a bad day or something? This
is completely inappropriate.

The person expressed their opinion, that Office 365 support was lacking.
And you, or anyone else, was certainly welcome to chime in and support
Office 365 and their level of support. But to attack the person by
calling them ignorant and stupid is just really uncalled for.

Again, I have the impression that you have some sort of personal
interest in Office 365. Otherwise, I really don't know why you would get
so hyper-defensive when someone says something negative about it.

Hope you're having a great day, and I'm looking forward to seeing more
of your usual positive and helpful posts, this one anomalous post
notwithstanding.

Regards,

Neil

[Albert D. Kallal]

"Neil" wrote in message news:50A654B5...@gmail.com...

>Is this not a forum where people can express their opinions?

Yes people most certainly are – I shall well assume that such a reasoning
and statement applies to me also!

The issue I have here is not someone expressing their opinion here (no big
deal to me at all, really!).

The issue is not someone has a complaint either!.

The real issue here is about rendering an opinion or judgment about
something in a responsible manner in public.

>And yet you're jumping all over me because I tried to help this person out.
>You seem very angry and hostile in the below post

Oh golly! No I don't live in some kind of hermetically sealed a bubble world
here.

I certainly did not mean or feel I was jumping all over you. My apologies if
you felt this way.

We are here in the trenches of the wild internet. As such, the comments here
can quite much fly hard and fast and at the end of the day, it just simply
not a big deal here for me.

I am not angry or feeling hostile at all. There is I supposed that old
saying about if the heat's too hot in the kitchen so to speak.

Perhaps I am just so used to hot kitchens that this is just not a big deal
for me. (so no, I am not mad at all!).

>I know for a fact that many people, including myself, are deeply
>disappointed with the type of support that Office 365 provides - though, as
>the OP noted, they are very nice and well-meaning people.

Yes, and you well note my comments stated what I believe issues are with
cloud computing. In other words I did point out what I feel is issue with
regards to cloud computing providers as opposed to hosted providers (and
there is VERY large and huge difference between cloud providers and those
providing hosted sites).

If you look at my comments on shortcomings, my point is much a technical one
not an emotional complaint.

As such, my point is much harsher then simply "support" was not great.

>And I know for a fact that many Access developers are happy with
>accesshosting.com as an alternative. One prominent Access SharePoint
>developer with whom I had conversations said that he wouldn't recommend
>anyone go to Office 365 for SharePoint, but to use accesshosting, instead.

That's fine with me! You seem to be fixed on some issue about the particular
vendor here and that really a miss que on your part of what my complaint is
about.

The person may have some great and legitimate reasons for their position.

The basic claim here is that based on support sending one to a brochure like
web site that as result of this action one should not use products from the
vendor.
.
If the person's going to make a public witness and testimony and render an
opinion such that one should not use a product from vendor "X" then I want
that complaint based on sound reason and experience. And they better tell me
and explain to me how that experience is different than other vendors in the
industry or even different then the SAME one they been using for years and
years.

It would be most naiveté if you're thinking that I'm looking to justify and
make a case for poor support, and I'm doing nothing of the sort. And it
would be even worse on your part if you think this is about me being a "fan
boy" and jumping to support of product "X" from vendor "Y".

My point as you shall see stands in regards to ANY vendor. I repeat ANY
vendor.

I also been in this industry a long time and been around that block also a
lot of times. And my experience with support people is not much different
from ANY OF THE VENDORS in regards the complaint that was made here.

If you are willing to stand up in public and state that being sent to a
Brochure like web site due to information request is the grounds and means
to eliminate that as a vendor of choice by all means state that position. In
fact I will FULLY RESPECT that position as long as your actions and
behaviors are consistent with your recommendation.

>Now, I don't have any interest in either company. And I'm happy to use one

>or the other. But I know that I've found Office 365's support Lacking

Right and my whole point is such kinds of support incidents are not ANY
different when you used such support for Excel? And ANY different when you
used such support for say Access?

You see what I'm looking here for is a person of integrity and someone who
is going to bear a consistent witness and testimony in public on a
particular issue.

In other words, if you did the same thing with asking support for Excel or
Word or other products and you were sent to some type of Brochure type of
information site then I would not be surprised. In other words I'm not
saying this is good or bad, but I would say I'm not at all much surprised
either.

If you come into an automobile form for Ford and state when you asked for
some particular information about their product was sent to some type of
Brochure type of site and now you're going to use that as JUSTIFICATION to
make a public claim that such actions puts in doubts the ability that vendor
to fix your car when it is broken is not a responsible claim or statement in
public.

However, if that person is really honestly believes that this is the
criteria they're going to use to choose a vendor, THEN I AM ALSO 100% FINE
IF THAT'S HOW THEY EVALUATE THEIR VENDORS

The problem:
If I am to respect this person's opinion in this matter and they're supposed
to have consistent behavior then why would the person continue to use
Windows, or Excel, or Word, or Access based on their experience with this
vendor then?

In other words if this is an honest opinion being rendered here in the
person says that the product is off their list for choice, then should not
their behavior be consistent with other products and their experiences with
that vendor?

The problem is my experience in this industry has been requests for such
informational requests OFTEN means as a general rule one will be sent off to
a site with a bunch of Brochure gobble lee gook. In fact I am hard pressed
to think when such experiences are much different.

If the person's telling me that they fell such requests and SUCH KIND
SUPPORT REALLY SUCKS THEN I AM 100% FINE WITH SUCH A STATEMENT.

However the public claim here is based on such a type of experience means
one should not choose that vendors product offering. If this is REALLY their
claim and position then why would not that experience that most and
including I had with the industry in terms of using windows or excel or
access be any different of a statement?

In other words if I'm going to respect the actions of this person and their
claim in public, then why are they continuing to use Windows or Excel or in
this case Access?

In other words if the statement of claim is that this vendor should not be
used, then why are the continuing to use such a vendor?

I mean if you have been using Ford Motor Products all your life, and you
come here and recommend to use these products based on your experience then
I am going to respect your advice based on your experiences.

And if you're coming here and tell me not to use Ford products based on your
experiences and they should not be used but going to your house find you
been using their Products for 20 years and YOU CONTINUE to use those
products then I'm going to wonder what is the reason for such a spectacular
boat of hypocrisy on your part?

In other words I want your actions and behavior to be consistent with your
witness and testimony and opinions on a given subject.

Now I suppose you could attempt to make a case that perhaps the person never
used support for these other products? But then you'd be arguing yourself
into another really bad corner since that would mean that the person doesn't
have any experience in using support for such products and therefore why
should I Trust and accept such an opinion?

>, whereas I've heard that accesshosting provides more direct help. (I
>haven't used accesshosting, myself, so that's just what I've heard from
>others.)

The issue has little to do with the fact that some other vendor may have
worse or better support. The issue is simply that this person has made a
statement of claim in public that they don't want to use vendor X based on
the basis of a given criteria for eliminating that vendor based on that kind
of support.

If this is truly the position of this person, then I am asking why doesn't
apply to other products such as excel or Word or other products such as
windows?

>So, honestly, I don't know what you're getting so upset about. That I
>recommended an alternative service that may meet the OP's needs better? Why
>should that offend you so?

Who says I'm offended in the least bit at all? Heck, who says I even upset?
I am not the least bit offended by anyone recommending a particular product!
(or recommending to avoid using a product).

However I am most certainly going to uphold somebody in public witness and
testimony stating their criteria for not using a vendor but then turning
around and continuing to use such vendor with other products in which they
to receiving the general same kind of support.

In other words I don't respect the person's actions if they're not going to
apply that intellectual reasoning to their choices in life.

Logically, I would fail to see how the above is any different than a priest
teaching morality and then going out back and screwing young boys – the
issue here is hypocrisy in your public witness and a behavior that's
completely contrary to that public statement.

So is it some big deal that am angry over? Of course not! My life doesn't
center on some newsgroup post and a little bit of enjoyment by me asking and
pointing out some people to exercise some integrity and responsibility in
their actions is actually a rather minor affair for me. In fact as a rule I
quite enjoy this whole process of debate.

>> Unless the person shares their experience of using products like Turbo
>> Pascal, or Delphi, or FoxPro, or some other product in the past, and
>> then explains to me who they called and what their experience was like
>> in terms of support, then it is SPECTACULARLY irresponsible, if not
>> stupid in public to claim that some lack of a straight answer in a
>> Brochure is the means to judge the lack of support that's going deeper
>> received for using such services.

>Are you serious? They need to share their experiences with support of
other products AND give you the name of the person at Office 365 they
spoke with - otherwise it's SPECTACULARLY irresponsible to post anything
negative on a public board? Are you serious??

>Honestly, it sounds like you're a part owner in the company, and you're
defending it because your own livelihood depends on it. Or something.

Now the above is pretty funny! You don't seem to grasp the basic concept of
people standing up and being accountable for their actions and statements
made in public. In other words you think this is somehow related to getting
the actual name of a person of support? Clearly you've missed the boat
entirely on my post all together then. I don't care or want the name of a
person! I simply want to verify and ascertain that their experience of using
support with other vendors in this industry is the SAME as what they stated!
(or in fact if it was different). When I say "who" they called, I don't mean
the person's name, I mean the vendor name and what department they talked
to. So talking to a sales rep at Comdex would not constitute working with
technical support to resolve a server that is down.

In other words, share your support experiences from the past! Because if
their experience is not any different, then it's rather irresponsible of an
statement in public to state that this vendor should not be used WHEN ALL OF
A LONG THEY'VE BROKEN THEIR OWN WORD AND THEIR OWN TESTIMONY ON THIS MATTER.
Why are they continuing to use a vendor in which their support experience
was exactly the same!

> > This is a complete straw man and false pretense type of argument.

>A straw man? They were sharing their opinion and their experience and
>asking for feedback. But you're getting all hyper-defensive at their post
>for some reason, like you're Office 365's attorney and this is a court of
>law.

Oh golly, was I hyper-defensive towards a particular vendor? Not even
talking about ANY particular vendor! This is not about a vendor X or Y!

The simple basic point here is if the person has a legitimate and honest to
reason for not using a vendor then why are they using that vendors other's
products in which the SAME problems and reasons exist in what you can expect
to get with support in this regards?

I WANT THIS person to stand up for what they believe in, and I want their
behavior to correspond to the statements they are making in public! If we
don't adhere to this type of reasoning, then basically you're taking the
position that anybody should say anything they want in public and not take
responsibility for those statements.

You have to take your responsibility for the witness you bear in public. It
is a spectacularly large difference of saying my next door neighbor is
beating their son, as opposed to he gave a cuff on the head because a
teenagers were caught in their garage smoking drugs. I could argue
semantically that both statements are true, and that I could stand by the
fact that perhaps I consider up cuff on the head factual evidence that he
was beating his son. However the context of how I make such a statement
requires much responsibility in public when making such statements - this
process is critical here.

It is possible that you've grown so used to this world in which politicians
and leaders of our country simply pass the buck and make all kinds of
statements without exercising any responsibility for such statements.

We have grown so accustom to people in public stating some particular point
of view, but then turning around and going back on what they preach and
completely and utterly ignoring THEIR OWN advice they JUST GAVE to everyone!

Why should I respect someone if their advice does NOT apply to themselves
but yet it applies to everyone else?

You have me entirely wrong if you think I'm standing here suggesting that
people should not complain about things that are wrong in our society!

In fact if you read what I'm saying, my very WHOLE post constitutes an act
of complaining on my part! it would be the ultimate in hypocrisy if I was
standing here saying don't complain, and yet this large post I am writing is
in fact a complaint! In other words I am most certainly willing to practice
what I preach., I am most certainly standing here stating in public that I
encourage everybody to make a complaint!. However, I do ask that such
complaints are done with integrity and the responsibility that "should" be
required when doing so in public.

I want this person to stand up for what they believe in and behave
correspondingly so. I want this person to show that they have integrity and
are willing to stand up by their words and claims they make in public.

If the person's claim that such a support incident means they should not use
that vendor, then they'd better explain why they are continuing to use that
vendor! They'd better be consistent with their actions, and stand up for
what they believe in.

A person is most free to run around and make statements of claims and
witness and testimony in public that such a vendor should not be used due to
a particular kind of support or lack of it! No big deal here!

I am neither mad nor sad here. I simply pointing out that don't given much
value to such witness and testimony in public UNLESS they demonstrate their
opinion and their actions they render ARE consistent and worthy of that
consideration. In other words their real world behavior better match their
claims else they just venting and ranting here.

Without consistent behavior on their claims then they become dishonest
claims by their own admission due to their actions not following their own
advice they claim to believe in.

>> In other words if the person is not satisfied with the support they
>> received for using windows all these years, then why would they expected
>> to be any different with any other department or product from
>> Microsoft? But more importantly is the reverse! If they've been using
>> windows all these years, what is their experience with support and can
>> they claim that it's a different in terms of their experience when
>> they're paying for that support?

>Well, the difference is that Windows is a software product that one
>purchases a license to, and Office 365 is a service that provides support.
>If they didn't provide support, then, yes, it would be no different than
>Windows. You pay a monthly fee, and you're on your own. But since they do
>provide support as part of the package, one expects it to be knowledgeable.

Why does the above change anything I said here? If you're making the
statement that in place of purchasing a license as opposed to an ongoing
service support contract then sure, I certainly most certainly agree that
perhaps YOUR EXPECTATION on the kind of support you receive should be
different.

However the fact that you expect it, or should be different is fine and
dandy. Unfortunately this does not apply in this case because at the end of
the day if you purchase a subscription to office or you purchase the box set
you WILL GET the same support people.

So perhaps in some magical ideal world there would be two sets of different
support people from the vendor for those purchasing office by different
methods. And as you point out there certainly made be along legitimate list
of reasons WHY you should get different support.

However, in this case?
There are not different support people!

Right now you get the SAME support people and you DEAL with the same group
of people and system either way.

As such, this issue and position does not change in any material way the
point I'm making here.

>Furthermore, your point, why should we expect support to be different than
>for any other Microsoft product, actually is not a positive thing.

I agree!

But as I stated my issue here is not about vendor X or Y or Z. It about a
consistent behavior in public from someone sharing their witness and
testimony in public as to how one should behave. And that behavior is to not
choose vendor X based on their experience.

If I'm going to respect the suggestion in public as to what kind of behavior
in terms of how we choose a vendor therefore means at least I want to ensure
and ascertain that the person suggesting this behavior is applying and
behaving in that fashion that they're suggesting everyone else here to
adhere to!

If they don't do this, then this has no more value then someone from Oracle
coming into this group and saying Access sucks! It is a cheap shot and a
rock throwing action.

I want that person to exercise and show that that's a legitimate position
based on their actions.

>I mentioned that I had heard that accesshosting has good support. So to say
>that, well, why should we expect any better support from Microsoft than
>we've gotten over the years really doesn't help your argument. Maybe it's
>time that Microsoft steps up its game.

Sure, absolutely lots of venders should step up their game. As long as
everybody realizes what the cost of such support is then no problem.

My experience in this industry that if you're dealing with a reputable
company, the cost of the particular kind and level support you pay for is
equal from most vendors.

In fact I shall share a story about a lunch I had with a acquaintance of
mine.

This person was a Oracle employee. We were comparing how much they receive
in terms of their base pay, their nice and generous car allowance (actually
a really cherry car lease deal), their nice office.

It turned out that when we compared his benefits that typical Oracle
employees receive, we're found there almost exactly the same to those people
in similar support positions at IBM. And guess what? It turns out using the
products from EITHER vendor means that you are going to pay ABOUT THE SAME
for that product and support. In other words if you're paying for certain
level of quality people, and a certain level of quality service. As a result
there is going to be LITTLE REASON for the different vendors to have
different cost structures simply because that's simply the cost of doing
that kind of business that way. There's no secret formula to changing a
cost structure in most of these businesses.

Now course the difference between Oracle and IBM is one of the vendors tends
to set things up that you often pay a little bit more upfront costs at the
start. However the basic cost of doing business, is the basic cost of doing
business. So one might have a slightly lower upfront cost, over the longer
term, they charge a higher fee and the resulting overall cost is the same at
the end of the day.

The lesson here is that when you are paying for the same kind of quality
people, the same kind nice car they drive, and you pay for similar kind of
quality people in similar types of offices?

At the end of the day this pretty much suggest you are going to pay similar
prices for similar levels of support in our industry!

There is no free lunch and the levels of support at a given cost are quite
consistent in my experience.

However as I stated and will state again:

This is NOT about standing up for "one" particular vendor!

This is about the witness and testimony and opinion of someone in public. I
am simply asking if their behavior is consistent with their witness and
testimony here.

Thus I made and make again the following statement:

> > I don't mind a person having a legitimate complaint, but making a
>> mountain out of a molehill, or making a point based on ignorance and
>> stupidity?

>Really, Albert, this was uncalled for, and completely out of character for
>you.

>To call someone ignorant and stupid? Because they complained about bad
>support they got? Were you having a bad day or something? This is
>completely inappropriate.

I would ask that you read the above STATEMENT AGAIN VERY CLEARLY. I did not
say the person was ignorant and stupid, I said they were making a claim in
public based on ignorance and stupidity, and there is a massive difference
between the two claims!

Note how I'm not saying the person is ignorant! I am stating the claim is
irresponsible and based on ignorance.

If the person's point they are making is not based on ignorance in our
industry, then they should be able with ease to share what their experiences
are like with other vendors in regards to informational requests, and more
specifically those requests being the basis for not using that vendor.

I simply want their past actions to match their claim and behaviors.

>The person expressed their opinion, that Office 365 support was lacking.
>And you, or anyone else, was certainly welcome to chime in and support
>Office 365 and their level of support. But to attack the person by calling
>them ignorant and stupid is just really uncalled for.

As I stated, I did not say the person was ignorant, I said their opinion was
based on ignorance UNLESS they supply additional information and can show
that their actions in public are consistent with what they're telling
everyone here to do.

>Again, I have the impression that you have some sort of personal interest
>in Office 365. Otherwise, I really don't know why you would get so
>hyper-defensive when someone says something negative about it.

I'm not at all defending office 365 at all! I'm asking the person to defend
their claims made in public with consistent behavior based on their
statements and recommendations here .

This has absolutely nothing to do with supporting vendor X or Y or Z.

In place of this whole long post I could replace every single thing I said
on the above with the following simple statement:

==
When you bear witness and testimony in public, be willing to stand up and
support those statements. Make such statements with caution especially when
such statements can disparage or taint or color people's opinion about
something, or someone, or somebody's reputation.
==

That really is quite it. A minor point at the end of the day. This is not
some huge deal to get all twisted up about.

We partake in this newsgroup and forum because we want to share experiences
and enrich the lives of others here. We want to make this form an enjoyable
place to come.

I want to ensure that everyone feels welcome here.

I want this forum to be a welcome mat and place where people are free to
express their ideas and opinions. That encouragement MOST certainly includes
not being happy with a particular vendor.

However I don't want somebody coming here and saying that Access is a toy or
Access sucks. People are most free to make such statements, but I would
hope they are responsible statements, and I will in these cases exercise to
the best my ability to point out when I feel the positions of such
statements are not warranted. Most of the time the complants against product
X or for example Access are not fair (but that does not suggest or shield
the product from fair complaints).

And I most certainly admit I have an self interest in using Access since
it's one of the tools I use that often puts food on my table.

In closing, I also have to take into account the levels of discussion and
what to expect to be in a newsgroup posting.

Taking everything into account, if my comments seemed a little harsh or
reactionary?

Then to everyone in this form, and those in this thread:

Please accept my sincere apologies. I certainly did not mean upset or hurt
anyone's feelings.

In fact, it is likely uncharitable and un kind on my part to assume and
demand that general public postings in such a newsgroup must adhere to my
personal high standards in regards to these types of issues.

In effect I shall strive in the future to be a little bit more softer with
the gloves I use in responding to such issues.

Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

nospam...@msn.com

[Neil]

>> And yet you're jumping all over me because I tried to help this person
>> out. You seem very angry and hostile in the below post
>
> Oh golly! No I don't live in some kind of hermetically sealed a bubble
> world here.
>
> I certainly did not mean or feel I was jumping all over you. My
> apologies if you felt this way.

OK, that's fine. That's the impression I got. But no problem.

>
> We are here in the trenches of the wild internet. As such, the comments
> here can quite much fly hard and fast

Which, I would imagine, is even more true for you, given the sheer
volume of material you write each day on various sites!!

> I am not angry or feeling hostile at all. There is I supposed that old
> saying about if the heat's too hot in the kitchen so to speak.

Are you telling me to get out?? How dare you!! The nerve!!

(OK, yes, I'm kidding. ;-) )

> Yes, and you well note my comments stated what I believe issues are with

> cloud computing.In other words I did point out what I feel is issue

> with regards to cloud computing providers as opposed to hosted providers
> (and there is VERY large and huge difference between cloud providers and
> those providing hosted sites).

We don't need to get back into the original discussion, because I think
that discussion is over. But I do believe the OP was talking, at least
in part, about technical help with implementation, not so much issues
with the site not running. Maybe we're talking about the same thing
here. But I just wanted to point that out.

Thus, I think, whether cloud computing or hosted, if a company says they
provide development support, then the people providing that support
should at least know what they're talking about, beyond the basics.

So I think that's a different issue than site administration, and the
drawbacks of cloud computing.

> If the person's going to make a public witness and testimony and render
> an opinion such that one should not use a product from vendor "X" then I
> want that complaint based on sound reason and experience. And they
> better tell me and explain to me how that experience is different than
> other vendors in the industry or even different then the SAME one they
> been using for years and years.

Again, I don't see it that way. I think if someone has a gripe, they're
welcome to share their gripe. If it's "unsubstantiated," then people are
welcome to respond and refute it. That's all.

Plus, he wasn't saying "one should not use a product from vendor x"; he
was saying that he's been very disappointed with the level of service
from vendor x, and wondered if there were any reasonably-priced
alternatives. That's all.

Frankly, I don't see anything at all wrong with his post, and, again, if
there was something untrue in his post, then people can refute it and
share their perspectives, instead.

But to say, "...they better tell me and explain to me how that

experience is different than other vendors in the industry or even

different then the SAME one they been using for years and years," is
just silly. They don't have to tell you anything. They're just sharing
their opinion/asking for feedback. They don't have substantiate anything
or give you any justification for their opinion or their post. They're
just sharing what they believe and what they've experienced, and if you
don't like it, then refute it. Or ask for more info. But to make a huge
issue over someone posting something you disagree with -- like I said,
that's just silly.

> My point as you shall see stands in regards to ANY vendor. I repeat ANY
> vendor.

OK, good to know.

>
> I also been in this industry a long time and been around that block also
> a lot of times. And my experience with support people is not much
> different from ANY OF THE VENDORS in regards the complaint that was made
> here.

And I simply shared that I had heard that the support from AccessHosting
was better than that from Office 365, which I believe is legitimate. To
say that all cloud support sucks because it's cloud support, I don't
think is necessarily true.

> If you are willing to stand up in public and state that being sent to a
> Brochure like web site due to information request is the grounds and
> means to eliminate that as a vendor of choice by all means state that
> position. In fact I will FULLY RESPECT that position as long as your
> actions and behaviors are consistent with your recommendation.

I think you're oversimplifying what the OP wrote. He didn't say that the
problem was that he was sent to the "brochure-like web site." He said
the problem was that, in response to a specific request, he was told to
go to that web site, read ALL the articles, and SOMETHING in there might
be able to help him!

That's almost the equivalent of no support at all! And if you think
that's "par for the course" for support from cloud computing vendors,
then, I'm sorry. I expect a little more than that. And I've received
more than that, even from Office 365 support.

So to say that being send to a library web site, told to read everything
in hopes that "something" in there might be able to help you is the
"normal" level of support one should expect to receive is just wrong, IMO.

Furthermore... neither he nor I said those were "grounds and means to
eliminate that as a vendor of choice." He was simply asking if anyone
knew of any reasonably-priced alternatives, and I simply responded that
I had heard that AccessHosting had better support than Office 365.
That's all.

No one ever said, "Don't use Office 365!" In fact, I still use Office 365.

So no one was saying what you are making them out to have said. And,
again, I think you were overreacting to this whole thing. My opinion,
anyway.

> Right and my whole point is such kinds of support incidents are not ANY
> different when you used such support for Excel? And ANY different when
> you used such support for say Access?

Apples and oranges. Excel and Access are products, not services.
Microsoft doesn't provide support at all for its products (except for
web-based articles), but it DOES provide support for its Office 365
service.

So that argument is completely disingenuous. They are two completely
different entities with two completely different support paradigms.

>
> You see what I'm looking here for is a person of integrity and someone
> who is going to bear a consistent witness and testimony in public on a
> particular issue.

It's a newsgroup. He posted an opinion and asked for feedback. That's
all. It's not a sworn deposition or a lawsuit.

> In other words, if you did the same thing with asking support for Excel
> or Word or other products and you were sent to some type of Brochure
> type of information site then I would not be surprised. In other words
> I'm not saying this is good or bad, but I would say I'm not at all much
> surprised either.

Again, apples and oranges.

>
> If you come into an automobile form for Ford and state when you asked
> for some particular information about their product was sent to some
> type of Brochure type of site and now you're going to use that as
> JUSTIFICATION to make a public claim that such actions puts in doubts
> the ability that vendor to fix your car when it is broken is not a
> responsible claim or statement in public.

Again, apples and oranges (or in this case, more like apples and
hamburgers). Microsoft doesn't provide support for its products like
Excel or Access, and car dealers don't provide support for their cars,
apart from referring people to documentation. So in that regard, your
analogy is correct.

However, Microsoft DOES provide support for its Office 365 service. So
the analogy completely falls apart there.

> The problem:
> If I am to respect this person's opinion in this matter and they're
> supposed to have consistent behavior then why would the person continue
> to use Windows, or Excel, or Word, or Access based on their experience
> with this vendor then?

Again, completely different issue.

>
> In other words if this is an honest opinion being rendered here in the
> person says that the product is off their list for choice, then should
> not their behavior be consistent with other products and their
> experiences with that vendor?

Again, Microsoft doesn't claim to provide support for their products,
but it does provide support for their services, and pays people to do
that. So it's a question of comparing support to support (Office 365 to
other services' support), not comparing support to product (Office 365
to Excel). Completely false comparison.

And, again, the person never said the product was "off their list," but
was merely asking for feedback for alternatives.

> However the public claim here is based on such a type of experience
> means one should not choose that vendors product offering. If this is
> REALLY their claim and position then why would not that experience that
> most and including I had with the industry in terms of using windows or
> excel or access be any different of a statement?
>
> In other words if I'm going to respect the actions of this person and
> their claim in public, then why are they continuing to use Windows or
> Excel or in this case Access?
>
> In other words if the statement of claim is that this vendor should not
> be used, then why are the continuing to use such a vendor?
>

Ditto, the above.

> I mean if you have been using Ford Motor Products all your life, and you
> come here and recommend to use these products based on your experience
> then I am going to respect your advice based on your experiences.
>
> And if you're coming here and tell me not to use Ford products based on
> your experiences and they should not be used but going to your house
> find you been using their Products for 20 years and YOU CONTINUE to use
> those products then I'm going to wonder what is the reason for such a
> spectacular boat of hypocrisy on your part?

Again, no one was saying not to use Microsoft PRODUCTS; he was only
asking if there was an alternative to a Microsoft SERVICE, which is a
completely different matter.

Plus, your whole philosophy of "what applies to one from a vendor
applies to all from that vendor, and anything else is hypocrisy" is false.

I personally, hate Outlook. Can't stand it. But I have it because it
comes with Office and I occasionally have to integrate it with Access.
And, while I have it, I keep my contacts there.

But I would never recommend someone buying Outlook in and of itself. And
if someone asked me if I recommended Outlook, I'd say no, get something
else.

But I LOVE OneNote, and would heartily recommend it to anyone who asked.

Yet both are from the same vendor! So, can I diss one, say that it
sucks, while still liking and using another product from the same
vendor?? I say I can! And I say that doing so would not be "hypocrisy"
at all.

But you can say to me, "How can you come here to this public forum and
publicly diss Outlook, and yet you continue to use Microsoft products??"
Yet that argument is completely meaningless. To say that you don't like
one product or service from a company does NOT mean that you are saying
that every product or service from that company is completely worthless,
which is what you are saying he was saying (by implication). It's a
completely false conclusion on your part, and does nothing to justify
the reaction you had to his comments.

> In other words I want your actions and behavior to be consistent with
> your witness and testimony and opinions on a given subject.

So if I say "Outlook sucks," then I can't use OneNote anymore? :-(

> Now I suppose you could attempt to make a case that perhaps the person
> never used support for these other products?

I, actually, wouldn't assume anything one way or the other, since he had
never discussed those other products, nor did he need to!

> But then you'd be arguing
> yourself into another really bad corner since that would mean that the
> person doesn't have any experience in using support for such products
> and therefore why should I Trust and accept such an opinion?

Fortunately, I didn't make such an argument. :-)

>> , whereas I've heard that accesshosting provides more direct help. (I
>> haven't used accesshosting, myself, so that's just what I've heard
>> from others.)
>
> The issue has little to do with the fact that some other vendor may have
> worse or better support. The issue is simply that this person has made
> a statement of claim in public that they don't want to use vendor X
> based on the basis of a given criteria for eliminating that vendor based
> on that kind of support.

Actually, I think it has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not some other
vendor may have worse or better support! The person said, in essence,
"I've been unhappy with the support I've received at Office 365. Does
anyone know of any reasonably-priced alternatives?"

So the response saying, "Yes, I know of a reasonably-priced alternative
that I heard has better support" is a completely appropriate one.

To say, on the other hand, "Don't say that people shouldn't use Office
365 unless you're willing to back it up with substantiation and unless
you've received better support with other Microsoft products" is a
completely inappropriate response and completely misses the point of
what the OP was asking and saying.

>
> If this is truly the position of this person, then I am asking why
> doesn't apply to other products such as excel or Word or other products
> such as windows?

Answered above.

> However I am most certainly going to uphold somebody in public witness
> and testimony stating their criteria for not using a vendor but then
> turning around and continuing to use such vendor with other products in
> which they to receiving the general same kind of support.

Again, apples and oranges. One's a product with no explicit support
provided, the other is a service with support provided. Apples and
oranges (although maybe in Canada you say "apples and boysenberries"? ;-) ).

>
> In other words I don't respect the person's actions if they're not going
> to apply that intellectual reasoning to their choices in life.
>
> Logically, I would fail to see how the above is any different than a
> priest teaching morality and then going out back and screwing young boys
> – the issue here is hypocrisy in your public witness and a behavior
> that's completely contrary to that public statement.

Wow, that's a completely inappropriate analogy on so many levels! First,
and not least of all, because it brings disgusting imagery into a simple
technical discussion - and such imagery is not at all appreciated.

And, second, because it is so over the top. Suppose I said, "Make a
statement like you did to the OP is like raping your mother!" I'm sure
you wouldn't appreciate that imagery, would you?

And, third, because it's completely false. No one was making general
statements about Microsoft. No one was saying, "Microsoft sucks in
everything it does" - in which case, yes, then continuing to use MS
products would be hypocrisy.

What was said was about a single MS product. And so, to continue to use
other MS products while expressing dissatisfaction with one, is
completely non-hypocritical to what was being said.

Furthermore, claiming that the fact that he continued to use Office 365
is hypocritical is another false statement. What was he supposed to do,
shut down his site until he found a better alternative? Of COURSE he's
going to continue to use Office 365! That's where his site is! He was
asking for suggestions for alternatives. And, one would assume that if
he found an alternative that looked better, that he would migrate to
that site.

But to say that he shouldn't be using Office 365 anymore after
complaining about it and asking for input regarding alternatives - to
say that to continue to use that site is hypocritical on his part -
well, that's just false and disingenuous. You don't really believe a
person should just close down their account because they're dissatisfied
with a service until they find an alternative, do you? And that's
exactly what he was doing - asking for input regarding alternatives.

>>> In other words if the person is not satisfied with the support they
>>> received for using windows all these years, then why would they expected
>>> to be any different with any other department or product from
>>> Microsoft? But more importantly is the reverse! If they've been using
>>> windows all these years, what is their experience with support and can
>>> they claim that it's a different in terms of their experience when
>>> they're paying for that support?
>
>> Well, the difference is that Windows is a software product that one
>> purchases a license to, and Office 365 is a service that provides
>> support. If they didn't provide support, then, yes, it would be no
>> different than Windows. You pay a monthly fee, and you're on your own.
>> But since they do provide support as part of the package, one expects
>> it to be knowledgeable.
>
>
> Why does the above change anything I said here? If you're making the
> statement that in place of purchasing a license as opposed to an ongoing
> service support contract then sure, I certainly most certainly agree
> that perhaps YOUR EXPECTATION on the kind of support you receive should
> be different.
>
> However the fact that you expect it, or should be different is fine and
> dandy. Unfortunately this does not apply in this case because at the end
> of the day if you purchase a subscription to office or you purchase the
> box set you WILL GET the same support people.

You missed the point of what I was saying. I was not talking about
purchasing a product versus purchasing a subscription. I was talking
about that Windows is a product that you purchase (or subscribe to, as
you say), and does not provide explicit support; whereas Office 365 is a
SERVICE (not a product) that DOES provide explicit support. That was my
point.

> So perhaps in some magical ideal world there would be two sets of
> different support people from the vendor for those purchasing office by
> different methods. And as you point out there certainly made be along
> legitimate list of reasons WHY you should get different support.

Again, that wasn't the point I was making. Wasn't making a distinction
between purchasing and subscribing, but between a product (Windows,
Office, etc.) and service (Office 365).

>
> However, in this case?
> There are not different support people!
>
> Right now you get the SAME support people and you DEAL with the same
> group of people and system either way.
>

For Office, yes. Same support regardless of how you get Office. But that
wasn't the point I was making.

> As such, this issue and position does not change in any material way the
> point I'm making here.

Well, maybe now (and especially regarding things that was said earlier
in my reply) you'll understand what I was saying better.

>> > I don't mind a person having a legitimate complaint, but making a
>>> mountain out of a molehill, or making a point based on ignorance and
>>> stupidity?
>
>> Really, Albert, this was uncalled for, and completely out of character
>> for you.
>
>> To call someone ignorant and stupid? Because they complained about bad
>> support they got? Were you having a bad day or something? This is
>> completely inappropriate.
>
> I would ask that you read the above STATEMENT AGAIN VERY CLEARLY. I did
> not say the person was ignorant and stupid, I said they were making a
> claim in public based on ignorance and stupidity, and there is a massive
> difference between the two claims!
>
> Note how I'm not saying the person is ignorant! I am stating the claim
> is irresponsible and based on ignorance.

Yes, you are right. You were not saying the person was ignorant. You
were saying they were making their statement based on ignorance. There's
a difference between the two, as you say.

However, "stupidity" is different than "ignorance." Ignorance is
something we have when we are ignorant of certain facts. It's not an
inherent trait.

Stupidity, on the other hand, is something we have based on being stupid.

Thus, by saying the person made their statement based on ignorance, you
were merely saying they were ignorant of the facts. But by saying the
person made their statement based on stupidity, you were calling them
stupid. There's no getting around that.

And, as I said, that kind of statement was inappropriate. Call someone
ignorant because they don't know something, OK. But don't call someone
stupid because you don't like what they're saying!

>> The person expressed their opinion, that Office 365 support was
>> lacking. And you, or anyone else, was certainly welcome to chime in
>> and support Office 365 and their level of support. But to attack the
>> person by calling them ignorant and stupid is just really uncalled for.
>
> As I stated, I did not say the person was ignorant, I said their opinion
> was based on ignorance UNLESS they supply additional information and
> can show that their actions in public are consistent with what they're
> telling everyone here to do.

Again, per above, "ignorance," OK. "Stupidity," not OK.

> Then to everyone in this form, and those in this thread:
>
> Please accept my sincere apologies. I certainly did not mean upset or
> hurt anyone's feelings.
>
> In fact, it is likely uncharitable and un kind on my part to assume and
> demand that general public postings in such a newsgroup must adhere to
> my personal high standards in regards to these types of issues.
>
> In effect I shall strive in the future to be a little bit more softer
> with the gloves I use in responding to such issues.

That's all anyone can ask for, really. :-) And, as I said in my original
reply, I regard you highly as a poster, both here and elsewhere. So
anything I said here should not be taken as a general statement towards
you, but only towards that one post you made. And, as you stated above
and as I replied in agreement with, given the volume of things you post,
it's inevitable that there would be something off here or there. So, no
worries. :-)

I would like to ask you something, though: how do you do it?? How do you
put out the high volume of posts that you do, many of which are very
lengthy like this one? Do you use a voice transcriber? (If so, it's a
damn good one! :-) ) Or are you just a super-fast typist? Honestly, I
don't know how you find the time to do all these posts, along with
everything else you do. How much sleep do you get a night?? :-D

Thanks, and regards,

Neil