Is Microsoft phasing out Access?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Lauren Wilson

unread,
May 8, 2005, 1:04:19 AM5/8/05
to

Hello folks,

Would love yo get all informed opinions and/or facts on the following:

Over the last few weeks I have spent quite a bit of time reviewing all
the Access and .NET stuff I could find on Microsoft.com. It's seems
harder and harder to find much of anything about Access as a primary
development platform. I am getting the uneasy feeling that Microsoft
is slowly phasing out Access.

Am I incorrect about this? Does anyone have a link to a clear
statement of intent from Microsoft on the role they have planned for
Access and VBA in the future?

Allen Browne

unread,
May 8, 2005, 4:47:59 AM5/8/05
to
No. They are not phasing out Access.

This article from the Jan '05 edition of Access Advisor includes an
interview with people inside Microsoft regarding the next version:
http://msaccessadvisor.com/doc/14978

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Lauren Wilson" <nos...@private.com> wrote in message
news:p47r711vmlodgujkr...@4ax.com...

Saintor

unread,
May 8, 2005, 9:19:34 AM5/8/05
to
[quote from Access Advisor] Microsoft Access lead program manager Clint
Covington says, "You'll find a strategic commitment to radically upgrade the
quality of Access applications by improving the core forms and reports
experience, using Jet as the query processor." [/quote]

Sounds like music to my ears.


"Allen Browne" <Allen...@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote in message
news:427dd241$1$22969$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

Stefano Berardi

unread,
May 8, 2005, 1:59:42 PM5/8/05
to

Lauren Wilson

unread,
May 8, 2005, 3:32:48 PM5/8/05
to
On Sun, 8 May 2005 16:47:59 +0800, "Allen Browne"
<Allen...@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote:

>No. They are not phasing out Access.
>
>This article from the Jan '05 edition of Access Advisor includes an
>interview with people inside Microsoft regarding the next version:
> http://msaccessadvisor.com/doc/14978

Thanks Allen. This is encouraging. I'm still confused about how
Access fits into the .NET framework (assuming it does somehow). Any
pointers to articles on that?

BTW -- love your site.

Larry Linson

unread,
May 8, 2005, 7:48:52 PM5/8/05
to

"Lauren Wilson" <nos...@private.com> wrote in message
news:p47r711vmlodgujkr...@4ax.com...
>


I still don't understand why MS had to change Access 2.0. So maybe I'm not
really qualified to make pronouncements on this subject, but I feel the 16
bit Access was just fine the way it was. It was easy to use and I could
understand just about all of it. Then they went to 32 bit Access and I was
sort of lost for awhile. Actually I never really did much work in the 32
bit versions except for writing replies in this NG.

Now we have Dot Net and it's way too complicated for me! But I haven't
really looked at it. I'll stick with the old versions of Access even if the
support disappeared years ago. As for new Access apps who cares? The
people I deal with don't know the difference between one flavor of Access
and another.

Larry Linson
(caster of one of the official votes approving
establishing this newsgroup back in 1993, and,
more recently, Microsoft Access MVP)


Lyle Fairfield

unread,
May 8, 2005, 8:22:27 PM5/8/05
to
"Larry Linson" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in
news:1115596180.0a02bc9a5f3aeef49625ef9a2a54f893@teranews:

> I'll stick with the old versions of Access even if
> the support disappeared years ago.

Actually, Don, (it's probably obvious to all that Larry didn't write the
parent post) Larry has become quite current. His recent posts are scholarly
and objective, and his admonitions measured and helpful.

I hope I shall not carry on with enmity forever (and I am sorry for pursuing
disagreements with Larry, and the nastiness I exhibited in doing so). What
was done was done, but it is in the past. In the present and the future we
could try to look at the strenghts we all have, and build upon and support
them.

Perhaps, even Don Mellon could return here as a helpful skilled contributor.

--
Lyle Fairfield

Allen Browne

unread,
May 8, 2005, 8:38:53 PM5/8/05
to
I can't give you any info on how Access will fit into the .NET framework,
but I would expect to continue using VBA for some time yet. Whether the
functionity in Access will be extended to be more web-centric, I can't say.

What is clear is that you will be able to continue to use Access as a
desktop database for a long time yet.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Lauren Wilson" <nos...@private.com> wrote in message

news:u7qs711467ia19o7t...@4ax.com...

Albert D. Kallal

unread,
May 8, 2005, 11:00:12 PM5/8/05
to
Well, access 2003 that I been using for about a year now does have xml
support.

In addition, Microsoft also relapsed the soap ad in kit for
ms-access/office.

What is means is that you cant create a web service, or make a .net service
with ms-access, but you can certainly CONSUME .net web services now with
ms-access.

Here is a older link with some very cool screen shots:
:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/previous/xp/webservices/toolkit.asp

And here is the link to download the latest soap tools for ms-access.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=fa36018a-e1cf-48a3-9b35-169d819ecf18&displaylang=en

So, it is not like the new technologies like XML and using web services has
been left out of ms-access, and as I mentioned, these features are available
now. So, as new technologies come out, MS certainly has been spending the
dollars on ms-access to go along with this great ride...

The future of ms-access looks really good these days......


--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOO...@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal


Albert D. Kallal

unread,
May 8, 2005, 11:06:20 PM5/8/05
to

>
> In addition, Microsoft also relapsed the soap ad in kit for
> ms-access/office.

The above should read:

> In addition, Microsoft also RELEASED relapsed the soap ad in kit for
> ms-access/office.


Allen Browne

unread,
May 9, 2005, 2:31:28 AM5/9/05
to
"Albert D. Kallal" <kal...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:MsAfe.1288695$6l.923561@pd7tw2no...
>
> In addition, Microsoft also released relapsed the soap ad in kit ...

You can make money with Access by serving ads? ;-)

Mike MacSween

unread,
May 9, 2005, 9:52:11 AM5/9/05
to
"Lyle Fairfield" <Look...@FFDBA.Com> wrote in message
news:Xns9650CF9...@216.221.81.119...

> Perhaps, even Don Mellon could return here as a helpful skilled
> contributor.

Don't hold your breath.


David W. Fenton

unread,
May 9, 2005, 3:01:22 PM5/9/05
to
"Larry Linson" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in
news:1115596180.0a02bc9a5f3aeef49625ef9a2a54f893@teranews:

>

> "Lauren Wilson" <nos...@private.com> wrote in message
> news:p47r711vmlodgujkr...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> Would love yo get all informed opinions and/or facts on the
>> following:
>>
>> Over the last few weeks I have spent quite a bit of time
>> reviewing all the Access and .NET stuff I could find on
>> Microsoft.com. It's seems harder and harder to find much of
>> anything about Access as a primary development platform. I am
>> getting the uneasy feeling that Microsoft is slowly phasing out
>> Access.
>>
>> Am I incorrect about this? Does anyone have a link to a clear
>> statement of intent from Microsoft on the role they have planned
>> for Access and VBA in the future?
>
>
> I still don't understand why MS had to change Access 2.0. So
> maybe I'm not really qualified to make pronouncements on this
> subject, but I feel the 16 bit Access was just fine the way it
> was. It was easy to use and I could understand just about all of
> it. Then they went to 32 bit Access and I was sort of lost for
> awhile. Actually I never really did much work in the 32 bit
> versions except for writing replies in this NG.

Well, there were huge advantages to the 32-bit version. For one, it
was more stable, because of the advantages of 32-bit applications in
regard to the operating system's memory management. Access 2 was
vulnerable to the crash of any 16-bit application, since all 16-bit
apps running simultaneously are running in the same virtual machine.

Now, I don't mean to imply that in Win9x 32-bit Access was
invulnerable from crashes in 16-bit apps, since Win9x had many
16-bit components that would be executing in a virtual machine that
might be taken down by another 16-bit application.

Now, in regard to features, 32-bit Access was part of the
integration of VBA into the whole Office suite, and that gave Access
a great deal of power as your base for creating meta-applications
that utilized Word and Excel and Outlook within your database
application. That was a huge innovation and highly useful for a
number of reasons.

Now, after Access 97, I can't see any pressing new features, and
that's why a number of my clients are staying with A97.

> Now we have Dot Net and it's way too complicated for me! But I
> haven't really looked at it. I'll stick with the old versions of
> Access even if the support disappeared years ago. As for new
> Access apps who cares? The people I deal with don't know the
> difference between one flavor of Access and another.

The real disadvantage of Access 2 for me is the non-compliant user
interface, which is very, very different from that of modern
versions of Windows and of modern Windows applications. The
differences are not just cosmetic (e.g., the file open dialog is
completely differently structured, and doesn't understand long
filenames), and that's very important.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Larry Linson

unread,
May 9, 2005, 3:10:18 PM5/9/05
to
"Lyle Fairfield" wrote

> What was done was done, but it is
> in the past. In the present and the
> future we could try to look at the

> strengths we all have, and build
> upon and support them.

I agree. The newsgroup is for helping each other.

> Perhaps, even Don Mellon could
> return here as a helpful skilled
> contributor.

Only because of the high respect in which I hold your opinions will I
concede this might be possible, Lyle. <GRIN>

Steven Zuch

unread,
May 9, 2005, 4:06:13 PM5/9/05
to
My concern is that Office can be installed without VBA, and if Visual Studio
.Net Tools for Office can be used instead, will more companies employ such a
configuration? Would Microsoft push Visual Studio at the expense of Access?

Steven


"Allen Browne" <Allen...@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote in message

news:427eb11e$0$13232$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

Allen Browne

unread,
May 9, 2005, 9:04:42 PM5/9/05
to
Access is the best selling database product ever. They would be foolish to
just ignore the entire base of installed users. I am therefore expecting VBA
support in the next version at least.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Steven Zuch" <st...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:VoPfe.23$Ee6...@fe12.lga...


> My concern is that Office can be installed without VBA, and if Visual
> Studio .Net Tools for Office can be used instead, will more companies
> employ such a configuration? Would Microsoft push Visual Studio at the
> expense of Access?
>
> Steven
>
>
> "Allen Browne" <Allen...@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote in message
> news:427eb11e$0$13232$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>I can't give you any info on how Access will fit into the .NET framework,
>>but I would expect to continue using VBA for some time yet. Whether the
>>functionity in Access will be extended to be more web-centric, I can't
>>say.
>>
>> What is clear is that you will be able to continue to use Access as a
>> desktop database for a long time yet.
>>
>>

Larry Linson

unread,
May 9, 2005, 11:57:36 PM5/9/05
to
"Steven Zuch" wrote

> My concern is that Office can be
> installed without VBA, and if Visual Studio
> .Net Tools for Office can be used instead,
> will more companies employ such a
> configuration?

Visual Studio Tools for Office System 2003 provides C# and VB.NET but those
languages are NOT usable as a replacement for VBA; they allow use of Office
in the .NET environment, but (repeat) are NOT usable instead of VBA.

> Would Microsoft push Visual Studio
> at the expense of Access?

They certainly would, if they thought it to their business or financial
advantage. I suspect, though, that The Boys and Girls in Redmond are way too
bright to think that doing so would not hack off the customers of the cash
cow that provides a goodly chunk of their earnings and be to their financial
DISadvantage.

Note: none of the above is "inside" information nor information covered by a
"non-disclosure agreement". It is just applying a little logic to the facts
of the situation. And then taking a wild *** guess or two or three.

And, a caveat: some of the many analyses I have performed in a long career
in the compuer business have been 'way off the mark, so you shouldn't make
any substantive plans based on my speculations.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP


Trevor Best

unread,
May 10, 2005, 3:28:44 AM5/10/05
to
Allen Browne wrote:
> Access is the best selling database product ever. They would be foolish to
> just ignore the entire base of installed users. I am therefore expecting VBA
> support in the next version at least.
>

hmmm, in the UK Ford had the No 1 and 2 best selling cars, the Escort
and the Cortina (Taunus in Aus I think), they suddenly scrapped the
Cortina and introduced some jelly mould called a Serria. Later they
scrapped the Escort in favor of the weired shaped Focus.

Being a best seller doesn't always guarantee longevity.

--
[Oo=w=oO]

Mike MacSween

unread,
May 10, 2005, 3:31:12 AM5/10/05
to
"Trevor Best" <nos...@besty.org.uk> wrote in message
news:42806299$0$2602$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...

> hmmm, in the UK Ford had the No 1 and 2 best selling cars and the Cortina

you've just betrayed your age there Trevor!! You didn't have a yellow one
with the black vinyl roof did you?


Mike Preston

unread,
May 10, 2005, 5:34:19 AM5/10/05
to

Mine was fire engine red. I laid it to rest in 1974 somewhere in
Arizona. It survived cold winters in Michigan but gave up the ghost
when my mother spilled an orange soft drink onto the manual gearshift
boot - and unbeknownst to me at the time, said boot had a large hole
in it. :-(

mike

Lyle Fairfield

unread,
May 10, 2005, 10:26:40 AM5/10/05
to
"Allen Browne" <Allen...@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote in news:427dd241$1$22969
$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

> http://msaccessadvisor.com/doc/14978

***** quote from this article *****
"Microsoft wants to make it easier than ever to create Access
applications."
***** end quote *****

I wonder if it follows that the term "Access Developer" will be replaced
with "Access Rescuer".

The idea that clerical-management personnel will create adequate Access
applications seems to be brought into question by the very many posts here
from intelligent, well-meaning, conscientious persons who have created
their own solutions, and have come to the place where they cannot achieve
what they want to achieve. Many times the reason is that their db design is
inadequate, or their business logic is flawed, or their interface
sacrifices effectiveness for glitz or that they use what may be uniquely
Accessian ideas such as look-up-tables or that they try to emulate the
world of paper.

It's quite astounding to me when someone announces that she/he has been
selected to create the mission critical database application for a business
successful enough to hire many people, and his qualifications are that
he/she has played around with Access for a couple of years. I suppose that
this might occur because MS promotes this idea that anyone CAN do it. I
think they are wrong and irresponsible. If the quote above is true, they
seem bent on expanding on this notion.

Recently we had two good posts, one from Pete C about how fast and clean
Access 2.0 is/was, and another from Steve J about, (I would say), the
wisdom of identifying the key components of an application and
concentrating on dealing with these in a simple, effective manner.

I wonder if this notion of simple, fast effectiveness is likely to be
achieved in a technology whose goal is to make it easier than ever.

Many years ago Nantucket planned to create "Aspen" a version of Clipper
which would be strongly typed, and compilable (not to Pseudo-Code). Then
Nantucket was purchased by Computer Associates. Aspen was shelved and
"Visual Objects" was born. You know that famous program, don't you?

I haven't done anything serious in Access for more than year now (or it
seems that long). Access just does not seem to be the solution for any
problem which I need to solve.

Sorry for the vague ramblings; no one is likely to read them so they
probably won't hurt.

--
Lyle

"The aim of those who try to control thought is always the same. They find
one single explanation of the world, one system of thought and action that
will (they believe) cover everything; and then they try to impose that on
all thinking people."
- Gilbert Highet

Steven Zuch

unread,
May 10, 2005, 10:37:21 AM5/10/05
to

"Larry Linson" <bou...@localhost.not> wrote in message
news:QiWfe.23002$hh6.561@trnddc01...

> "Steven Zuch" wrote
>
> > My concern is that Office can be
> > installed without VBA, and if Visual Studio
> > .Net Tools for Office can be used instead,
> > will more companies employ such a
> > configuration?
>
> Visual Studio Tools for Office System 2003 provides C# and VB.NET but
> those
> languages are NOT usable as a replacement for VBA; they allow use of
> Office
> in the .NET environment, but (repeat) are NOT usable instead of VBA.
>

I am not sure what you mean "NOT usable instead of VBA"? Since Microsoft
talks about converting VBA to VB.Net (they do recognize certain difficulties
using C#), and provides the reason to do so, they clearly are looking at
developers to use VB.Net in lieu of VBA for certain tasks.

> > Would Microsoft push Visual Studio
> > at the expense of Access?
>
> They certainly would, if they thought it to their business or financial
> advantage. I suspect, though, that The Boys and Girls in Redmond are way
> too
> bright to think that doing so would not hack off the customers of the cash
> cow that provides a goodly chunk of their earnings and be to their
> financial
> DISadvantage.
>

My point was/is that Office can be installed without VBA support. In this
environment, Access is not usable. If companies started installing Office
without VBA, and using Visual Studio Tools to provide application support,
Access, as we know of it today, would loose support.

Microsoft is pushing .Net, to say the least. Given the fact that they were
willing to sacrifice VB, I would believe they would sacrifice Access sales
or even modify the product, to reach their objectives.

I also find it telling that to obtain the Access runtime, you also are
given Visual Studio Tools, including VB.Net.

My prediction is that future versions will continue to allow for Office to
be installed with or without VBA, and Access will run in both environments.
Without VBA, it will be an end-user reporting/data access tool.

You will be able to fully develop for Office, including Access, using .Net;
VB.net will be the preferred tool for office development.

> Note: none of the above is "inside" information nor information covered by
> a
> "non-disclosure agreement". It is just applying a little logic to the
> facts
> of the situation. And then taking a wild *** guess or two or three.
>

Ditto.

> And, a caveat: some of the many analyses I have performed in a long career
> in the compuer business have been 'way off the mark, so you shouldn't make
> any substantive plans based on my speculations.

Ditto.


>
> Larry Linson
> Microsoft Access MVP
>

Steven R. Zuch, CPA
Cogent Mangement Inc.

Ruben Baumann

unread,
May 10, 2005, 10:52:37 AM5/10/05
to
"Lyle Fairfield" <Look...@FFDBA.Com> wrote in message >
> I haven't done anything serious in Access for more than year now (or it
> seems that long). Access just does not seem to be the solution for any
> problem which I need to solve.
>

Just curious Lyle, what did you replace Access with? And, are you
maintaining any of your old apps still, or did you convert to whatever
you're using now? Are you using an SQL database backend with some other
frontend, or are you using dot net?

Thanks
Ruben

Lyle Fairfield

unread,
May 10, 2005, 11:28:06 AM5/10/05
to

I'm a little embarrassed to say that I have not discovered THE
replacement. (I tend to write script/code and not drag objects about on
the screen and set properties during development) I am doing web-type
things with

HTA
(These seem to have no credibility but can, IMO, be quite powerful)

ASP
(An archaic technology, but when Javascript is used as the scripting
language, quite powerful)

VisualJ#
I tried working with VisualJ# but have been discouraged by recent
articles which suggest that MS may abandon that technology and MS's own
statement that the Express edition is aimed at beginners and
non-professional developers.

Java
Is it suitable for db based applications? Will it have or be able to use
technologies which can connect it to dbs efficiently? If one goes Java,
does one leave the MS world altogether? I'm still struggling with these
questions.

Also with MS-SQL one can do almost all business-logic on the db server.
Does one want to? Probably not if it's intensive. But I think it would
be an unusual VBA procedure which could not be rewritten as an SQL UDF
or Sproc. I sometimes use MS-SQL UDFS to process data that has nothing
to do with the MS-SQL database; they are a function and can be used as
any other function.

I maintain my old apps but nothing ever goes wrong with them! ... not
really ... I do maintain Access apps but usually this is just "The IT
Department replaced my hard drive. Where's my application? or "My boss
wants the Totals to be pink".

--
--
Lyle

David W. Fenton

unread,
May 10, 2005, 12:39:24 PM5/10/05
to
Lyle Fairfield <Look...@FFDBA.Com> wrote in
news:Xns96526A9...@216.221.81.119:

> The idea that clerical-management personnel will create adequate
> Access applications seems to be brought into question by the very
> many posts here from intelligent, well-meaning, conscientious
> persons who have created their own solutions, and have come to the
> place where they cannot achieve what they want to achieve. Many
> times the reason is that their db design is inadequate, or their
> business logic is flawed, or their interface sacrifices
> effectiveness for glitz or that they use what may be uniquely
> Accessian ideas such as look-up-tables or that they try to emulate
> the world of paper.

Yet, the thing that constantly amazes me is how many lame,
ill-designed and downright ugly user-designed apps turn out to be
completely satisfactory for years and years and years. I get many
calls from folks who need someone to come in to revise such apps for
one or more of the following reasons:

1. the original creator is no longer around and nobody else
understands it.

2. they now need some functionality added to the app and nobody
knows how to do it.

3. something has gone wrong and the data integrity is no longer
clearly being maintained.

But the thing that is remarkable is that not all of these apps were
designed by end users -- no small number of them were created by
people who style themselves as professional Access programmers.

Some of these "professional" apps have no code in them that was not
generated with a wizard.

Some are driven by macros.

And you know what?

They were GOOD ENOUGH for the client.

I think one of the tacit lessons in Steve's post about microwave UI
overdesign is that one need not strive for perfection -- often
making something that is just incrementally better than what it
replaces is going to be a real win.

And proper data schemas are not as important as a UI that allows the
user to control the data. Contact managers like ACT are a perfect
example of this. The schema is relatively flat, flatter than it
should be, because it is person-oriented. But ACT also provides
methods for regularizing company data so that you don't end up with
divergent data for people working for the same company. Yes, the UI
has workarounds for the oversimplification of the data schema, but
for the end user, the result is the same.

Now, for the programmer, it's a problem, as designing routines that
keep the non-normalized data segments regularized means a lot more
programming than would be required to maintain data integrity in a
properly normalized schema.

And ongoing maintenance is an obvious issue for any Access
application, yes. But that's one of the things the receptionist
Access programmers don't foresee, and one of the reasons why people
like me get hired to come in and revise what they've created.

The other end of the equation is that I've also seen Access apps
created by end users who were highly intelligent and experienced
with programming in other languages. I'm working on one right now
that has code in it that looks like I wrote it, right down to the
naming conventions and the indentation. And the person who created
it is a manager, not a programmer.

So, there are as many extremes from incompetence to excellence among
Access and users as there are among Access programmers, or any group
of people in general.

Access is only the tool, and if it's mis-used or used by someone who
doesn't know how to use it safely, the results can be a problem.

But I don't understand why one should blame Access for that. The
very features that make it possible to go so wrong are also the same
features that make it easy to get it right.

And, in my experience, the fundamental errors that most novices make
is in schema design, and that's a problem for any database, not an
Access-specific issue. I've seen some horrendous schemas in any
number of high-end databases.

But, Lyle, you just seem to revel in Access bashing.

I don't see the point of your continued involvement in this forum.

Trevor Best

unread,
May 10, 2005, 1:45:54 PM5/10/05
to

Actually, my dad had one of those :-) I could say that I'm not that old
to have had even a Mk IV but I didn't start driving 'til I was 25, on
two wheels before that. Despite their ugliness, I had 2 Serrias and
regret getting rid of the Crapi.

That reminds me, I must change my sig, that car's shagged out.

--
[Oo=w=oO]

Arno R

unread,
May 10, 2005, 1:47:59 PM5/10/05
to
"David W. Fenton" <dXXXf...@bway.net.invalid> schreef in bericht >

> But, Lyle, you just seem to revel in Access bashing.
>
> I don't see the point of your continued involvement in this forum.

I don't think Lyle will immediately run away, crying, but ...
I really don't see the point of you saying this.

I think that everybody is entitled to his/hers opinion, this also goes for you.

I know, Lyle is very committed to this forum.
So are you, so am I, so are a lot of other people here.
But we don't agree on everything.
There is no need to agree. There is a need to respect.

Arno R

David W. Fenton

unread,
May 10, 2005, 9:24:48 PM5/10/05
to
"Arno R" <arraNO...@tiscali.nl> wrote in
news:4280f3e3$0$1342$5fc...@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:

> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXf...@bway.net.invalid> schreef in bericht
> >
>
>> But, Lyle, you just seem to revel in Access bashing.
>>
>> I don't see the point of your continued involvement in this
>> forum.
>
> I don't think Lyle will immediately run away, crying, but ...
> I really don't see the point of you saying this.
>
> I think that everybody is entitled to his/hers opinion, this also
> goes for you.

Well, of course he's entitled to his opinions, but if he's not using
Access, what is he getting out of participating?

> I know, Lyle is very committed to this forum.
> So are you, so am I, so are a lot of other people here.
> But we don't agree on everything.
> There is no need to agree. There is a need to respect.

Lyle raises lots of interesting points.

He also expends a lot of energy trying to convince us that Access is
bad and that his way is The One True Way.

The former is most welcome.

I could do without the latter.

Larry Linson

unread,
May 10, 2005, 10:12:19 PM5/10/05
to
Steven...

The purpose of the current (and, so far, only) version of VSTO was to allow
installation of Office in the .NET environment (server or distributed side)
to use it with .NET, not to be used "as a replacement for VBA in a normal
desktop installation". If they'd intended it "as a replacement for VBA" in a
normal desktop installation, I'd expect VB.NET (aka B-Flat) and/or C# to be
included in Office itself.

That's not to say that you _could_ not possibly... <GRIN>

I also would absolutely not predict* just WHEN they might do something rash
along those lines. I would absolutely predict that if they did that anytime
soon, they'd sell far, far fewer copies of Office. But, in any case, rumor
has it that there are more companies still using their old Office 97 than
have installed all versions since... but, as has been said, the results of
surveys on the subject are so variable that it is, at best, difficult to
draw a solid conclusion.

* My crystal ball seems to be a little
on the cloudy side, these days.

Larry Linson

unread,
May 10, 2005, 10:12:20 PM5/10/05
to
"Lyle Fairfield" wrote

> The idea that clerical-management
> personnel will create adequate Access
> applications seems to be brought into
> question by the very many posts here

> from intelligent, well-meaning, conscien-


> tious persons who have created
> their own solutions, and have come to
> the place where they cannot achieve
> what they want to achieve.

Yet, there are always counter-examples. Some of the finest
Access-client-to-SQL-Server application work that I have seen in recent
years was done by a "hobbyist" -- a breast cancer oncology surgeon for whom
creating software to run her office turned out to be a necessity even though
it was not high on her list of things to enjoy. She explained that typical
medical office software just was not appropriate for what they did in that
office.

She clearly, and early-on, recognized the necessity of "doing it right", and
invested the time and effort to ensure that she did.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

P.S. You don't necessarily abandon "everything Microsoft" when you move to
Java, but you surely put yourself in a better position to work in
non-Microsoft environments.


Neil

unread,
May 11, 2005, 12:06:45 AM5/11/05
to
What did she do in her database that made it so great?

VRWC2

unread,
May 11, 2005, 12:19:54 PM5/11/05
to
On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:26:40 GMT, Lyle Fairfield <Look...@FFDBA.Com>
wrote:

>"The aim of those who try to control thought is always the same. They find
>one single explanation of the world, one system of thought and action that
>will (they believe) cover everything; and then they try to impose that on
>all thinking people."
>- Gilbert Highet

A CLASSIC piece of liberwocky. Moral clarity is anathema to all forms
of liberalism.

Lyle Fairfield

unread,
May 11, 2005, 9:33:17 PM5/11/05
to
VRWC2 <nos...@private.com> wrote in news:p3c4811obp190t6kechdn7sohlal5vqf7o@
4ax.com:

I think I have lots of moral clarity and I doubt very much that I am anathema
to liberalism.

It's immoral to invade a country and kill people because the leader of the
country is a bad guy;
It's immoral to bully and harrass the rest of the world so that you can stay
rich, or so that the rich of you can get richer;
It's immoral to imprison and abuse people in areas where they are beyond the
protection of your own law;
It's immoral to ignore the Kyoto Protocol and to pollute and poison the water
and air;
It's absurdly immoral (not to mention ludicrous) to lie about inventing
democracy and freedom;
And the aircraft carriers, the great intimidators, are the greatest
immorality, a manifestation of planned and determined international tyranny.

This is enough moral clarity I hope and we could move to other things.

--
Lyle

rkc

unread,
May 11, 2005, 10:35:59 PM5/11/05
to
Lyle Fairfield wrote:

> It's immoral to invade a country and kill people because the leader of the
> country is a bad guy;
> It's immoral to bully and harrass the rest of the world so that you can stay
> rich, or so that the rich of you can get richer;

<snip a-lot-o-blah, blah blah>

So what do you do?

<options>
Run for office.
Learn to fly a jumbo jet.
Load a rental truck with cow shit.
Post a stupid tagline.
Re-new your prescription for medical marijuana.
</options>

Say, how 'bout them Brits re-electiing Tony Blair?
Must be smoking some shit in the Mother Country.

Message has been deleted

Tony Toews

unread,
May 11, 2005, 11:20:01 PM5/11/05
to
Lauren Wilson <nos...@private.com> wrote:

>Over the last few weeks I have spent quite a bit of time reviewing all
>the Access and .NET stuff I could find on Microsoft.com. It's seems
>harder and harder to find much of anything about Access as a primary
>development platform. I am getting the uneasy feeling that Microsoft
>is slowly phasing out Access.
>
>Am I incorrect about this? Does anyone have a link to a clear
>statement of intent from Microsoft on the role they have planned for
>Access and VBA in the future?

FYI: Magazine article: Meet the Access Team


http://msaccessadvisor.com/doc/16480

Selected quote:

"With that climate and emphasis on integration in mind, can you give us any ideas of
what we might be able to expect in version 12?

RUCKER: We can talk about the next version of Access only to the extent of what
Richard McAniff said at the Office Developer's Conference back in February, which is
to say there is one. There's a large team working on it, much larger than there has
been for quite a number a versions. For Richard, it's the release he's most excited
about since version 1, which he worked on way back then. There's a ton of things
going on. It's a little early to talk about what they are yet, but there will be a
new release and we're quite excited about that.

MILLER: I'll second Richard's thoughts. I've worked on every version of the product
since version 1, and this is, in my opinion, one of, if not the most, exciting
release we're working on now. One thing that will become apparent is although it's
hard to give developers, or users for that matter, every feature they've requested,
we're finally getting around to some key features for some people. I can't talk about
what those are, but there are some things people will be pretty happy with. The folks
we have under NDA who we've shown the product to so far have been pretty excited by
the things we've done, and that's been rewarding for us to see that we're investing
in the areas people care so much about. So, it's a question of how much we hit the
sweet spot at this point. Time will tell.

I think it's going to be a great, exciting release. There's going to be a lot of new
energy around the product."
--
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

VRWC2

unread,
May 12, 2005, 12:10:09 AM5/12/05
to
On Thu, 12 May 2005 01:33:17 GMT, Lyle Fairfield <Look...@FFDBA.Com>
wrote:

>VRWC2 <nos...@private.com> wrote in news:p3c4811obp190t6kechdn7sohlal5vqf7o@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:26:40 GMT, Lyle Fairfield <Look...@FFDBA.Com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"The aim of those who try to control thought is always the same. They find
>>>one single explanation of the world, one system of thought and action that
>>>will (they believe) cover everything; and then they try to impose that on
>>>all thinking people."
>>>- Gilbert Highet
>>
>> A CLASSIC piece of liberwocky. Moral clarity is anathema to all forms
>> of liberalism.
>
>I think I have lots of moral clarity and I doubt very much that I am anathema
>to liberalism.
>
>It's immoral to invade a country and kill people because the leader of the
>country is a bad guy;

Why? Was it immoral to invade Nazi Germany? What if we had done it
sooner -- and saved MILLIONS of people? Would it have been immoral to
invade Cambodia to stop Pol Pot from murdering more of his people than
he did (over 2 million). Should we not have invaded Rowanda a few
years ago to stop the slaughter? It was people who believe as you do
who contributed to a total lack of action by the only force on earth
that had any hope of stopping the genocide in Rowanda. But of course,
those people were all black -- so it does not matter. In short, in
your world of values, is there ANY war that is justified?

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that
nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he
is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own
personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being
free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than
himself." --John Stuart Mill


>It's immoral to bully and harrass the rest of the world so that you can stay
>rich, or so that the rich of you can get richer;

And exactly who is doing that? Be prepared to post verifiable proof
of your assertions.

>It's immoral to imprison and abuse people in areas where they are beyond the
>protection of your own law;

... Unless they are wartime captives who are clearly aiding the enemy.
It is simply amazing how many of us are ignorant of American history.

>It's immoral to ignore the Kyoto Protocol and to pollute and poison the water
>and air;

False -- especially since the Kyoto treaty is nothing more than a huge
attempt to shake down the world's single most productive economic
engine in all of human history -- a place, I might add, where more has
been done to protect and clean the environment that any place else on
earth; a place where the poorest of the poor live better than about
two-thirds of the rest of humanity; a place that exports FAR more
VOLUNTARY private charity that the rest of the world combined. You
really should consider doing a bit more research before you draw
bottom line conclusions about complex issues.

>It's absurdly immoral (not to mention ludicrous) to lie about inventing
>democracy and freedom;

And exactly who has done that (other than Democrats that is)? Given
the fact the USA does not now have and has NEVER had a "democracy" and
never intended to have one, to exactly whom do you refer?

>And the aircraft carriers, the great intimidators, are the greatest
>immorality, a manifestation of planned and determined international tyranny.

LOL!

>This is enough moral clarity I hope and we could move to other things.

On the contrary, this is the most perfect example of moral confusion I
have seen in a long time. Thanks for making my point.

Cheers!

Lauren Wilson

unread,
May 12, 2005, 12:15:29 AM5/12/05
to

And thus far, NO ONE has offered insight into doing this via HTTP! Is
it not possible to do that?


On Sun, 08 May 2005 00:04:19 -0500, Lauren Wilson <nos...@private.com>
wrote:

>
>Hello folks,
>
>Would love yo get all informed opinions and/or facts on the following:
>

Trevor Best

unread,
May 12, 2005, 3:03:29 AM5/12/05
to
rkc wrote:
> Say, how 'bout them Brits re-electiing Tony Blair?
> Must be smoking some shit in the Mother Country.

But he's the only one that smiles all the time, true he is actually the
Joker out of the original Batman movie.

--
[Oo=w=oO]

Larry Linson

unread,
May 12, 2005, 8:10:09 PM5/12/05
to
"Neil" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote

> What did she do in her database
> that made it so great?

In Mathematics, when a proof is concise, precise, and clear, it is called
"elegant". In my brief view of it, her Access client database fit all those
criteria.

It had a clean and intuitive user interface. The design was simple and
straightforward. It had "just enough code" to make it work and work
smoothly -- which it did. The actual code was structured and indented so
that it was easy to follow, and documented within the procedures with
comments. Data security was applied in SQL Server to protect the
confidential patient information. The naming convention was consistent (and
documented -- it was the widely-accepted Reddick naming convention, as
documented in all the editions of the Access Developer's Handbook). It was
"neater and cleaner" than much work I've seen done by professional
developers. In sum: it was "elegant" database work.

In the unlikely event that she should decide to give up surgery for
computer work, and in the unlikely event that I should be looking to hire a
database developer, hiring her would be an easy choice.

Larry Linson

unread,
May 12, 2005, 8:24:12 PM5/12/05
to
"Lyle Fairfield" wrote

> And the aircraft carriers, the great
> intimidators, are the greatest
> immorality, a manifestation of planned
> and determined international tyranny.

If I am clear in my understanding that you live mid-continent or near, I
would guess you won't be subject to a great deal of intimidation by aircraft
carriers. I'd bet they are no more intimidating today than Alexander's army
in its day, the Roman Legions in their day, Attila's Huns in their day or
Genghis Khan's Horde in its day. Perhaps, since they are not a prelude to
sacking, looting, and rape, they might be less so than some of that list.


Larry Linson

unread,
May 12, 2005, 8:31:32 PM5/12/05
to
"Lauren Wilson" wrote

> And thus far, NO ONE has offered
> insight into doing this via HTTP! Is
> it not possible to do that?

Please clarify: Doing _what_ via HTTP?

I don't think you are likely to see Access itself positioned as a website
development tool, though Data Access Pages do allow some web-based UI to
databases, within their limitations.

For appropriate requirements, on appropriate hardware, and in an appropriate
environment, a Jet MDB can be a very effective database for a website with a
number of ways to access that data from Front Page with the Data Interaction
Wizard, third-party products like Cold Fusion, classic ASP, any development
tool that can employ ODBC or OLEDB, all the way through very complex
websites created with VB.NET or C# or other dotnet languages. It's not, and
not likely to be, the database engine for the next Amazon.com, but it is a
lot more capable than many give it credit for being.

David W. Fenton

unread,
May 12, 2005, 8:43:38 PM5/12/05
to
"Larry Linson" <bou...@localhost.not> wrote in
news:BfSge.14398$nX1.1938@trnddc09:

> The naming convention was consistent (and
> documented -- it was the widely-accepted Reddick naming
> convention, as documented in all the editions of the Access
> Developer's Handbook).

In regard to that, this recent article from Joel Spolsky:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html

For the discussion specific to naming conventions, search for the
header "I’m Hungary".

Lyle Fairfield

unread,
May 12, 2005, 10:09:35 PM5/12/05
to
Larry Linson wrote:
> "Lyle Fairfield" wrote
>
> > And the aircraft carriers, the great
> > intimidators, are the greatest
> > immorality, a manifestation of planned
> > and determined international tyranny.
>
> If I am clear in my understanding that you live mid-continent or near, I
> would guess you won't be subject to a great deal of intimidation by aircraft
> carriers.

When I was twelve my Mother took me across the river to Ogdensburg, New
York. There we noticed some young men driving about in something I
termed a "hot rod"; it was decorated in large yellow letters reading,
"We don't want to go to Korea; all we want is a little Peace". Maybe it
was spelled "Piece". I can't remember the spelling, but I can remember
the phrase. It's a very sad phrase, possibly the only "manly" way those
youths could protest their possible mandatory involvement in a war.

On our way back across the river, the old Joseph Dubrule was buzzed by
two F86s. It seemed to be a favourite game of US pilots to see how low
they could fly over the river. These were land-based planes; there were
no aircraft carriers.

But I was scared anyway. And I think the men in the hot rod were too.

> I'd bet they are no more intimidating today than Alexander's army
> in its day, the Roman Legions in their day, Attila's Huns in their day or
> Genghis Khan's Horde in its day.

Yes; do you think that's intimidating enough?

> Perhaps, since they are not a prelude to
> sacking, looting, and rape, they might be less so than some of that list.

No rape unless you think getting hit by one of those seeing-eye
rocket/bombs is the equivalent; something the same but with a much
bigger weapon?

--
--
Lyle

paulwillia...@removespamcop.net

unread,
May 13, 2005, 12:45:10 AM5/13/05
to
On Sun, 08 May 2005 00:04:19 -0500, Lauren Wilson <nos...@private.com>
wrote:

>
>Hello folks,
>
>Would love yo get all informed opinions and/or facts on the following:
>
>Over the last few weeks I have spent quite a bit of time reviewing all
>the Access and .NET stuff I could find on Microsoft.com. It's seems
>harder and harder to find much of anything about Access as a primary
>development platform. I am getting the uneasy feeling that Microsoft
>is slowly phasing out Access.
>
>Am I incorrect about this? Does anyone have a link to a clear
>statement of intent from Microsoft on the role they have planned for
>Access and VBA in the future?

Not that I know of, but MS started phasing out FoxPro five versions
ago (about 10 years ago?)!


-pw

use paulwilliamson at spamcop dot net for e-mail

Mike MacSween

unread,
May 13, 2005, 3:35:55 AM5/13/05
to
"VRWC2" <nos...@private.com> wrote in message
news:72k58196ndis5kih3...@4ax.com...

> years ago to stop the slaughter? It was people who believe as you do
> who contributed to a total lack of action by the only force on earth
> that had any hope of stopping the genocide in Rowanda.

I'd forgotten about that. The USA was poised to intervene with massive
military strength, but were prevented from doing so by protests from
bleeding heart liberals.

My memory is hazy now, perhaps you could provide some references to
Presidential, Senate and Congressional documents just to remind us.

Mike


Steven Zuch

unread,
May 13, 2005, 11:00:41 AM5/13/05
to
So true ... The so called phase out of FoxPro is a joke. They just released
a new version with extensive work done on its report writer. It really is a
nice data centric developer's tool, with a lighting fast local database
engine, OOP programming language, excellent connectivity to SQL Server. It
also can be used in certain middleware application.

They are not going to make it .Net, even though they are trying to get
Foxpro users to work with .Net.

The current version will be supported for 10 more years, given the 10 year
life cycle with development tools.

Regarding Access, Access/VBA will have a long support life. The issue is
that as VB.Net becomes the corporate standard for implementing applications
built on the Office platform, corporations may stop installing VBA with
Office. In this situation, Access/VBA will not work. Microsoft may release
an Access without VBA (e.g. more of an end-user tool), which can be
automated with VB.Net.

Of course, this is all speculation.

Steven R. Zuch, CPA
Cogent Management Inc.


<paulwillia...@removespamcop.net> wrote in message
news:23c881900ksb1hs0m...@4ax.com...

Tony Toews

unread,
May 14, 2005, 3:44:54 PM5/14/05
to
"David W. Fenton" <dXXXf...@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

>In regard to that, this recent article from Joel Spolsky:
>
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
>
>For the discussion specific to naming conventions, search for the
>header "I’m Hungary".

Excellent article. Thanks for posting the link. I sure wish he'dve put that on it's
own page though.

I've long since discarded Systems Hungarian for my table and field names. Actually
I don't think I ever used them as they made no sense.

Tony's Table and Field Naming Conventions
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/tablefieldnaming.htm

Tony

David W. Fenton

unread,
May 14, 2005, 6:56:19 PM5/14/05
to
Tony Toews <tto...@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:g4lc81hgcl4sbsp68...@4ax.com:

> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXf...@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In regard to that, this recent article from Joel Spolsky:
>>
>> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
>>
>>For the discussion specific to naming conventions, search for the
>>header "I’m Hungary".
>
> Excellent article. Thanks for posting the link. I sure wish
> he'dve put that on it's own page though.
>
> I've long since discarded Systems Hungarian for my table and field
> names. Actually I don't think I ever used them as they made no
> sense.
>
> Tony's Table and Field Naming Conventions
> http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/tablefieldnaming.htm

I don't use any naming conventions for tables or fields, other than
that my tables all begin with "tbl" (so as to distinguish them from
queries) for data tables in the main back end database, and "tmp"
for those in the temporary db local to the user workstation. I never
saw any point in having naming conventions for fields.

VRWC2

unread,
May 14, 2005, 9:35:53 PM5/14/05
to

I can but it would take time to dig them up from my backups. Time is
the most precious commodity in the universe. I've changed computers
twice since then. It's pretty easy to find the stuff though. Just
type "Rowanda" into Google and start reading.


VRWC2

unread,
May 14, 2005, 9:49:01 PM5/14/05
to
On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:09:35 -0400, Lyle Fairfield <lyle...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

You're just riddled with fear aren't you. Good thing we don't depend
on folks like you to keep us free. It MIGHT not be a good thing that
we have other folks who face their fear on principle so that fearful
ones like you have a chance to be free and spread your fear to others.

Lyle Fairfield

unread,
May 14, 2005, 9:43:47 PM5/14/05
to
VRWC2 wrote:

> It's pretty easy to find the stuff though. Just
> type "Rowanda" into Google and start reading.

You can find the weapons of mass destruction in the same place, I suppose?

--
--
Lyle

Lyle Fairfield

unread,
May 14, 2005, 10:18:28 PM5/14/05
to
VRWC2 wrote:

> You're just riddled with fear aren't you. Good thing we don't depend
> on folks like you to keep us free. It MIGHT not be a good thing that
> we have other folks who face their fear on principle so that fearful
> ones like you have a chance to be free and spread your fear to others.

I am brave enough to post over my own name.

--
--
Lyle Fairfield

Mike MacSween

unread,
May 15, 2005, 3:38:37 AM5/15/05
to
"VRWC2" <nos...@private.com> wrote in message
news:fn9d81hddkgg6jjka...@4ax.com...

> I can but it would take time to dig them up from my backups. Time is
> the most precious commodity in the universe. I've changed computers
> twice since then. It's pretty easy to find the stuff though. Just
> type "Rowanda" into Google and start reading.

By the way, it's called Rwanda.

And you're talking rubbish, and you know you are.


VRWC2

unread,
May 15, 2005, 6:09:22 PM5/15/05
to

Sorry for the misspelled word. However, "rubbish"? Any defense for
that assertion?

VRWC2

unread,
May 15, 2005, 6:10:47 PM5/15/05
to
On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:18:28 -0400, Lyle Fairfield <lyle...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>VRWC2 wrote:

And for that, and everything else you have, you can thank a soldier.

Sequoia via AccessMonster.com

unread,
May 17, 2005, 2:39:43 PM5/17/05
to
As a (mostly) non-programmer (the last time I did semi-serious coding was
using PerfectScript in WP8.0, mostly self-taught, lots of trial & even more
error), I use Access for what I believe is the reason the vast majority of
non-programmers use it:

... Because it is there ... Access (or as I usally call, M$ *&^%$#ing Exce$
$) comes "free" with Office Professional, which is standard issue on many
corporate owned computers these days. Since it is the only actaul Database
program on many computers, and companies are often unwilling to spend $$ on
a more user-friendly product (I was rather fond of dBaseIV), when the
bloated M$ Excel spreadsheet that someone passes on to you becomes
completly unweildy, you fumble around with the tools that are available to
you ...

even if it often feels like trying to use an entire machine shop to drill a
simple hole 'cuz you don't have a cordless drill available.

I do appreciate the fact that folks "hang out" at forums such as this and
give of their time and expertise to help us rank (and oft-times unwilling)
amateurs try to get Exce$$ do what we need it to do.

Thanks for listening.

- Sequoia

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

Mike MacSween

unread,
May 18, 2005, 8:53:42 AM5/18/05
to
"VRWC2" <nos...@private.com> wrote in message
news:p0if81l8ls3ug6bg9...@4ax.com...

The things you say and the way you say them.

Tim Marshall

unread,
May 18, 2005, 9:15:29 AM5/18/05
to
VRWC2 wrote:

>>I am brave enough to post over my own name.
>
> And for that, and everything else you have, you can thank a soldier.

This former soldier would thank you very much to take this off-topic
trash elsewhere. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Access
development, thank you very much.
--
Tim Marshall
The Royal Canadian Dragoons

Tim Marshall

unread,
May 18, 2005, 9:12:58 AM5/18/05
to
Sequoia via AccessMonster.com wrote:

> Since it is the only actaul Database
> program on many computers, and companies are often unwilling to spend $$ on
> a more user-friendly product (I was rather fond of dBaseIV), when the
> bloated M$ Excel spreadsheet that someone passes on to you becomes
> completly unweildy, you fumble around with the tools that are available to
> you ...

As a former dot prompt dBIII+ and dBIV developer, I can assure you
Access 2.0 was a much, much better product. The fact that you are
confusing functionality of a database product with a spreadsheet does
indeed point to your self-description as a non-programmer.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

Sequoia via AccessMonster.com

unread,
May 18, 2005, 3:21:09 PM5/18/05
to
It is not that I confuse the (best or ideal) functionality of a spreadsheet
vs. a database. It is just that many projects start out as a simple list
easily (if not competently) maintained in a spreadsheet, and then grow to
require something more capable, and then, as I said, Access is "there",
right on the same computer with Excel and many of us non-programmers have
to just dive in and try to make it work.

Doesn't mean we enjoy it any more than we enjoy repeatedly slamming our
heads into a rough-textured concrete block wall, but we have to use the
tools available.

Peace,

Lauren Wilson

unread,
May 18, 2005, 7:02:24 PM5/18/05
to
On Tue, 17 May 2005 18:39:43 GMT, "Sequoia via AccessMonster.com"
<fo...@AccessMonster.com> wrote:

>As a (mostly) non-programmer (the last time I did semi-serious coding was
>using PerfectScript in WP8.0, mostly self-taught, lots of trial & even more
>error), I use Access for what I believe is the reason the vast majority of
>non-programmers use it:
>
>... Because it is there ... Access (or as I usally call, M$ *&^%$#ing Exce$
>$) comes "free" with Office Professional, which is standard issue on many
>corporate owned computers these days. Since it is the only actaul Database
>program on many computers, and companies are often unwilling to spend $$ on
>a more user-friendly product (I was rather fond of dBaseIV), when the
>bloated M$ Excel spreadsheet that someone passes on to you becomes
>completly unweildy, you fumble around with the tools that are available to
>you ...

It's pretty hard to get more "user friendly" than Access unless you
are a rank amateur doing only flat file database forms. There are
many major corporations in the world using Access based apps to
generate millions of dollars in revenue. I know of two in my area
alone. Access is where it is because it is one of the best on earth
-- as is Microsoft.


>even if it often feels like trying to use an entire machine shop to drill a
>simple hole 'cuz you don't have a cordless drill available.

Then you're using a nuclear bomb to kill a flee. Get the proper tools
for simple stuff.

Lauren Wilson

unread,
May 18, 2005, 7:04:14 PM5/18/05
to