Access 2000 has no benefits? (Note Michael Kaplan)
Michael Malach
I know the issue of access 2000 was discussed here the recent weeks
many times. Yet I think the question in the subject line was not
clear.
Points for thought:
1) Sql-7 for small number of users
2) New security model
3) Someone have posted that MS might give access 97 ODE for almost
free to one who bought A2k, for someone who upgrades from A95
that might be enjoing all the worlds, what is wrong with that?
Michael
Michael (michka) Kaplan
1) As I have repeatedly stated, a version of SQL Server with
no admin tools, few wizards, no books online reference, and
no ISQLW is hardly a good or effective way to learn to use
SQL Server. As a client put it to me, when learning to ride
a bike, you want the one with the training wheels... and
MSDE does not include any of the cool training wheels that
would help.
2) The new security model? How so? The only new thing is
that you no longer get module level security... your whole
VBE project has one password. Did I miss something here?
Thats a loss of features, not a gain. As for ADPs, you
cannot secure them at all, except by making an ADE file...
another "project level" choice. There is nothing new in the
model except feature cuts.
3) Not sure how this qualifies as anything. If you buy the
new version (which costs more than the old one at its peak,
let alone now) they throw in the old one if you ask? Sounds
like a bribe to me, if anything, not a reason to buy.
None of these strike me as reasons in favor of Access 2000.
Access 2000 has some good things about it, but there are
many issues, most especially ones that affect developers,
that are not so good. The article for Advisor is going to be
appearing in their Novemeber issue, which should be
available in October, and I think it is a very good
summation of what I think about Access 2000.... why it
should have neem an excellent release for developers, where
is fell short of that, and some (learned) speculation as to
why. Its not knowledge from heaven or anything like that....
it is just my opinions, based on working on and in Access
2000 for nearly two years, and in one of the largest VBA
projects in existence for most of that time (the Access
wizards).
--
MichKa
-------------------------------------
don't send questions by e-mail unless
you're paying for it. (TANSTAAFL!) :-)
random junk of dubious value and
replica error and problem fixing at:
http://www.trigeminal.com
Michael Malach <mica...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:37C51E...@netvision.net.il...
Michael Malach
>
> Are you asking me to respond? Ok.
Thank you for responding, yes, I thought your opinion here is
important.
>
> 1) As I have repeatedly stated, a version of SQL Server with
> no admin tools, few wizards, no books online reference, and
> no ISQLW is hardly a good or effective way to learn to use
> SQL Server. As a client put it to me, when learning to ride
> a bike, you want the one with the training wheels... and
> MSDE does not include any of the cool training wheels that
> would help.
A very good point. Probably MS wants poeple to get involved in
MSDE projects and eventualy get confused and buy the real SQL-7
and that is why they won't include it.
> 2) The new security model? How so? The only new thing is
> that you no longer get module level security... your whole
> VBE project has one password. Did I miss something here?
> Thats a loss of features, not a gain. As for ADPs, you
> cannot secure them at all, except by making an ADE file...
> another "project level" choice. There is nothing new in the
> model except feature cuts.
Uch
> Access 2000 has some good things about it
Can you add a few examples here, in short?
>but there are many issues, most especially ones that
> affect developers, that are not so good.
And maybe here?
Thank you again Michael,
Michael
Michael Malach
>
> Well, if I put my article up here, who is gonna buy the
> magazine? <s>
>
> It'll be in Advisor soon enough. In the meantime, I've
> posted a bunch here on specific issues.
>
Hi Michael,
Well, I thought this might be the case <s>, and I understand that well.
The reason I asked in the first place was that here in Israel MS
just now have released the A2k hebrew edition, and according to
their strategy, in a short time nobody is going to sell A97, so it's
now or never.
I probably will count on you, and I know your bottom line is -
prefer A97 on A2000. Yet, since I assume you see bigger projects
in front of your eyes than I and many others in this NG, I thought to
myself to try and make the picture clearer from the smaller project
developer point of view. Would that change your mind, or make it
even stronger (Like the 140MB setup set issue)?
Thank you,
Michael
Michael (michka) Kaplan
or even an Office power user, using the Office "director
level" definition of what they consider to be a
sophisticated user (I won't do the definition here, you can
probably derive it from context).
I do not currently believe it to be valid as a development
tool, due to many important limitations, for large or small
projects.
However, since conversion issues are not insurmountable, if
you have a mostly finished app that requires functionality
in 2000 (like replication and needing Jet 4.0), then there
are times that working in 97, converting, then tweaking the
last few issues is an acceptable compromise for wanting
features without wanting headaches.
This applies to large and small projects, in my opinion.
Bottom line... Access of every version has a ceiling that
developers find themselves hitting. On a numeric scale, the
ceiling on Access 2 was 6 (out of 10). Access 95 was a 3.
Access 97 was an 8. And Access 2000 is a 4 or 5 (and that is
being generous).
Just my opinion, if you want an entirely different one, go
to www.microsoft.com and you will undoubtably find such. :-)
Or e-mail Don Mellon, he will tell you how wonderful Access
2000 is as a development platform.
--
MichKa
-------------------------------------
don't send questions by e-mail unless
you're paying for it. (TANSTAAFL!) :-)
random junk of dubious value and
replica error and problem fixing at:
http://www.trigeminal.com
Michael Malach <mica...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:37C654...@netvision.net.il...
Nikosey
curious why you say the 'ceiling' of Access 2000 is half that of Access 97.
I've made great efforts to ignore 2000 for as long as possible, but our
office is starting to clamour for its 'web connectivity' and it looks as if
I'll be forced into researching it in the near future.
I've found, for the type of data I manage, Access 97 bump it's head against
a ceiling of approximately 150,000 records. Is it even worse for Access
2000?
Regards.
PS: If this is a tired old question, just point me to a thread and I'll do
the legwork. Thanks.
Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote in message ...
Dev Ashish
Nikosey <gleasonc.mi...@home.net> wrote in message
news:efXx3.11616$Hu6....@news.rdc1.wa.home.com...
: I've made great efforts to ignore 2000 for as long as possible, but our
: office is starting to clamour for its 'web connectivity' and it looks as
if
: I'll be forced into researching it in the near future.
PMFJI, but under most circumstances, I would recommend going the ASP route
for such intranet/web apps. Even with all the weird ADO problems, the
technology already has a proven track record. If you've done VBA/DAO
programming, the learning curve is almost non-existant.
FWIW
-- Dev
Michael (michka) Kaplan
data engine. Its Access and its save model changes/bugs,
problems with big projects, problems with ADPs/DAPs,
limitations in ADO integration, and other problems, that
lower the ceiling.
I have nothing bad (and many things good) to say about Jet
4.0, however.
--
MichKa
-------------------------------------
don't send questions by e-mail unless
you're paying for it. (TANSTAAFL!) :-)
random junk of dubious value and
replica error and problem fixing at:
http://www.trigeminal.com
Nikosey <gleasonc.mi...@home.net> wrote in message
news:efXx3.11616$Hu6....@news.rdc1.wa.home.com...
> I imagine you've answered this question a thousand times
already, but I'm
> curious why you say the 'ceiling' of Access 2000 is half
that of Access 97.
> I've made great efforts to ignore 2000 for as long as
possible, but our
> office is starting to clamour for its 'web connectivity'
and it looks as if
> I'll be forced into researching it in the near future.
>
Michael (michka) Kaplan
desktop!
--
MichKa
-------------------------------------
don't send questions by e-mail unless
you're paying for it. (TANSTAAFL!) :-)
random junk of dubious value and
replica error and problem fixing at:
http://www.trigeminal.com
Dev Ashish <das...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7q9lqm$fl5$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Nikosey <gleasonc.mi...@home.net> wrote in message
> news:efXx3.11616$Hu6....@news.rdc1.wa.home.com...
> : I've made great efforts to ignore 2000 for as long as
possible, but our
> : office is starting to clamour for its 'web connectivity'
and it looks as
> if
> : I'll be forced into researching it in the near future.
>
>
Dev Ashish
personal MDAC hell, I don't think I'll be blindly installing any future
upgrades, new software, or SPs.
-- Dev
Michael (michka) Kaplan <forme...@nospam.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote in
message news:Oy97vcc8#GA.277@cpmsnbbsa03...
: Plus it does not require Office 2000 and IE5 on every
: >
: >
:
:
Michael Malach
>
> PMFJI, but under most circumstances, I would recommend going the ASP route
> for such intranet/web apps. Even with all the weird ADO problems, the
> technology already has a proven track record. If you've done VBA/DAO
> programming, the learning curve is almost non-existant.
>
> FWIW
>
> -- Dev
Hi Dev,
Wellcome in, but I didn't get how your message connected to the subject?
Am I wrong if I say that ADO IS possible when working against an
A97 db?
Michael
Dev Ashish
Michael Malach <mica...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
:
: Am I wrong if I say that ADO IS possible when working against an
: A97 db?
:
No, you're correct. ADO can certainly be used to manage data residing in
an Access97 database. There are issues when you try to use ADO _within_
Access 97, there were some informative posts in modulesdaovba newsgroup on
this topic recently.
-- Dev
Michael (michka) Kaplan
not his or mine), without having to upgrade to Access 2000,
where web integration carries a lot of baggage with it.
--
MichKa
-------------------------------------
don't send questions by e-mail unless
you're paying for it. (TANSTAAFL!) :-)
random junk of dubious value and
replica error and problem fixing at:
http://www.trigeminal.com
Michael Malach <mica...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:37C8DC...@netvision.net.il...
> Dev Ashish wrote:
> >
> > PMFJI, but under most circumstances, I would recommend
going the ASP route
> > for such intranet/web apps. Even with all the weird ADO
problems, the
> > technology already has a proven track record. If you've
done VBA/DAO
> > programming, the learning curve is almost non-existant.
> >
> > FWIW
> >
> > -- Dev
>
> Hi Dev,
>
> Wellcome in, but I didn't get how your message connected
to the subject?
>
> Am I wrong if I say that ADO IS possible when working
against an
> A97 db?
>
> Michael
Nikosey
product interconnectivity--requiring matching SPs and all. That's truly bad
(but useful) news. I guess it's about time I finally broke down and
started working on ASP :(
My question, however, was regarding the difference between Access 97 anf
Access 2000:
I've found Access97 to be perfectly capable of handing a dataset of
150,000-200,000 records. After that, it starts to get really slow.
Can anyone definitively tell me that Access 2000 is even worse? I ask
because the hubbub I've heard touts the ability of Access 2000 to
communicate with SQL server. I (hopefully) pulled from this the idea that
perhaps Access 2000 handled largish (150K record+) recordsets in a more
efficient manner (i.e., in order to 'talk' with SQL server, perhaps it
adopted a more efficient means of dealing with large recordsets). I realize
this is hopeful thinking, but hope sustains the spirit....
Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Regards.
PS: I tend to work with datasets than contain 20 fields of various types
(including 1-2 memo fields). Thanks.
Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote in message ...
>Plus it does not require Office 2000 and IE5 on every
>desktop!
>
>--
>MichKa
>
>-------------------------------------
>don't send questions by e-mail unless
>you're paying for it. (TANSTAAFL!) :-)
>
>random junk of dubious value and
>replica error and problem fixing at:
>http://www.trigeminal.com
>
>Dev Ashish <das...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7q9lqm$fl5$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> Nikosey <gleasonc.mi...@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:efXx3.11616$Hu6....@news.rdc1.wa.home.com...
>> : I've made great efforts to ignore 2000 for as long as
>possible, but our
>> : office is starting to clamour for its 'web connectivity'
>and it looks as
>> if
>> : I'll be forced into researching it in the near future.
>>
>>
Doug Hutcheson
I am not an A2000 man - I leave that to the likes of Michka.
However, I am perplexed by your statement that above about 150,000 records
you see a performance drop.
Performance depends on variables such as available memory, processor speed,
disk fragmentation and so forth, as well as the obvious questions of
database design and index construction.
Clearly, a defragmented, compact index can be addressed more quickly than an
unindexed field in a table of 150K records
Thus, I think your 150K record 'wall' is a misrepresentation. We have people
who post here talking of millions of records - admittedly, they presumably
they have hardware and software housekeeping down to a fine art - but they
don't complain of hitting a performance wall.
Just my $0.02
Cheers,
Doug
--
Dev Ashish's FAQ & Help site: http://www.mvps.org/access/
Michael (michka) Kaplan's site http://www.trigeminal.com
Microsoft support: http://support.microsoft.com/support
News archive: www.deja.com.
------------------------------------------
I heed advice, but ignore attacks, so don't bother to flame.
------------------------------------------
Nikosey wrote in message ...
Michael (michka) Kaplan
Jet uses for stress and perf testing, some of which contain
up to four million rows. It does make the 150k limit he is
seeing seem kinda unrealistic, huh? (when there are dbs over
25 times that size that do not have such problems).
--
MichKa
-------------------------------------
don't send questions by e-mail unless
you're paying for it. (TANSTAAFL!) :-)
random junk of dubious value and
replica error and problem fixing at:
http://www.trigeminal.com
Doug Hutcheson
<Doug.Hu...@dnr.qld.gov.au.no.ham.spam.thank.you.mam>
wrote in message news:7qd5fe$oc...@inet6.citec.com.au...