New, More Complete Access Overview

re: New, More Complete Access Overview

pillopny — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:21:25 GMT

hometown.aol.com/.../natuzzi-leather-chair.html

re: New, More Complete Access Overview

Britney Spears — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:34:01 GMT

www.farlopon.com/.../britney-spears-nude.html

re: New, More Complete Access Overview

Eisen Scherrer — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:34:40 GMT

Erik, Thank you for all the great info. Do you happen to know if the new OleDb drivers for access support distributed transactions using DTC? Thank you.

Eisen

re: New, More Complete Access Overview

Rick Kaye — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:30:32 GMT

Any news on the availability of a runtime and, if so, when?

re: New, More Complete Access Overview

Andrew Couch — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:14:03 GMT

When is someone at Microsoft going to wake up and realise how hacked of the developer community is with the direction the product is taking. Access has to a large extent ridden the wave and annihilated the competition because of the developers, that use the product. In this blog I have seen text referring to SOAP, Servers, and trivial enhancements and a host of other issues; a mixed bag indeed. But all the Developers are hacked Off. Hello is anyone out there at Microsoft!!! paying Attention! Access is not some sort of trivial in the corner tool, it is also a serious developer tool, which is used to build mission critical applications. I left the beta program, because I was so discouraged by all the justified negative comments by developers. A very sad day indeed. But this is a getting to be banging ones head of a brick wall.

re: New, More Complete Access Overview

Marie — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:58:24 GMT

Please show me are to do Manipulating data with queries

thanks

re: New, More Complete Access Overview

Marie — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:58:23 GMT

Please show me are to do Manipulating data with queries

thanks

re: New, More Complete Access Overview

Gus — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:31:29 GMT

Linked tables vs Projects: My current job is managing/developing/etc. a SQL database and an Access front end for that database. The database also has a .NET web front end. The Access front end is used for internal work by employees, the web front end is for customers. The database is far too complex, far too business-critical, etc., to implement as an Access database. It is split across multiple servers, etc. The main database has nearly 400 tables, almost 1,000 stored procedures, over 300 user-defined functions, and so on. There are several other databases that support functions in the primary OLTP database, including an OLAP database (soon to be moved to a separate server), several automation databases (on a seperate server) where large amounts of data-crunching would take too much CPU & RAM for the main OLTP database's performance, and it gets more complex from there. Obviously not something to be done in Access's native database engine, no matter what improvements over Jet are being implemented. Right now, the Access front end is a project built in Access 2003. As such, it has proven to be very reliable, very useful, and very easy to develop in. The main reason we're still using Access instead of a fully .NET solution is speed of development. I can usually build new features by myself in about half the time a team of 3 .NET developers can build similar features. The front end has grown from something very simple into something very complex, with a large number of modules, lots of VBA code, etc. It's a very useful application that takes a lot of very complex tasks and makes them very easy for the users. Between the SQL server and the Access application, we have CRM, ERP, BI and a ton of automation, all customized to our specific business needs, and all very flexible and easy to build on. So, my question is: What is the advantage of using Access 2007 and linked tables? This is stated to be advantageous, but without a clear description I can find of what the pros and cons of each solution might be. When Access 2007 comes out, I'll get it and the dev tools necessary to be able to distribute runtime versions of the application. But I would like to know, before I start upgrading, whether I should plan on a project with no native data storage, or a database with linked tables. If, for example, I could have local tables on the workstations that stored user preferences, some history data (like last 10 orders viewed, last 10 customers viewed), certain static data (like a list of US states), that would certainly be nice, since it could reduce network traffic somewhat when dealing with persistent data that was user-specific or functionally static, so long as that would not cause me to lose any functionality from the SQL server. If I do that, would the front end still have full access to the SQL server's stored procedures, user-defined functions, etc. Would it lose any functionality? Would it gain any?

re: New, More Complete Access Overview

Nick Hrones — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 06:11:09 GMT

I've been away from development for a few years now and just decided to take a look at the new product. What a shame ... looks like bloat and fancy bells-and-wistles and lots and lots of hourglasses. The unfortunate part is that the underlying technology still suffers from the same problems that have plagued Access from its beginning; Not reliable, not recommended for multiuser, not secure enough for 'Corporate Apps'.

re: New, More Complete Access Overview

Rickard — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:44:03 GMT

Harvey is right. We are all far to negative, but waiting for more than seven years makes you suspicious. Listening to the local MS people here in Scandinavia makes no diffence they still talk about Up-sizing, SQL Server, .NET, ADP etc etc. Erik seems kind of lonely. By email I asked my best contact here in MS Sweden about their plan to tell the market the good news - the answer is nada, he didn't reply. I guess he still is thinking of how to keep his trust to his current customers doing 180 degrees turnaround.

Erik understand our total surprise. I still remeber the first notes in your blog I read about your 'private copy of JET'. I had to read it three times before understanding what you were writing. The shift in focus to Office developers, making us legal again. But I had to check with MS Sweden that you existed, and they confirmed I could trust what is written here. I understand you have had and still have hard work convincing people inside MS about your ideas. But hang on you are our hero and please let us know how we could do a good job to help you tell the world about all the great stuff included in the new release of Access.

Rickard Olsson

Sweden