Is Access a Microsoft development?

Hi
Recent threads (eg future of access and its success) got me wondering
whether Access was an original MS development or whether it was
originally bought-in like SQL-server.

One reason I am suspicious is some of the original features (eg the
relationships window - many other systems still only join tables not
fields - try programming this yourself! - and how long it took MS to
understand how it could be printed.)

However I don't know of any similar product which existed before
Access 1, which was an MS product.

I never used Access1 though my first Access job was on an Access 2
program which still had bits of Access 1 syntax still in it. Though
the many additions are welcome, most of the changes to existing
features have been for the worse IMHO.
David

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

David Schofield wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hi
> Recent threads (eg future of access and its success) got me wondering
> whether Access was an original MS development or whether it was
> originally bought-in like SQL-server.
>
> One reason I am suspicious is some of the original features (eg the
> relationships window - many other systems still only join tables not
> fields - try programming this yourself! - and how long it took MS to
> understand how it could be printed.)
>
> However I don't know of any similar product which existed before
> Access 1, which was an MS product.
>
> I never used Access1 though my first Access job was on an Access 2
> program which still had bits of Access 1 syntax still in it. Though
> the many additions are welcome, most of the changes to existing
> features have been for the worse IMHO.
> David
>[/color]

Back in the very early 90's, when Windows 3.1 came out, the first
version of Access arrived. At that time, MS had 2 database products for
the desktop; FoxPro that they had purchased and Access that they had
developed for Windows.

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

Microsoft bought FoxPro, as their own desktop db product Access wasn't felt
to be ready for deployment.

Shortly after they bought FoxPro, Access1 came out rapidly followed by
Access1.1 and then of course the best 16 bit version Access2.

I looked at Access1 during a training course but there were some things
wrong with it (which have slipped my memory) which precluded it's use and I
ended up using dBase for the course.

32 bit Windows brought us (the much cursed) Access95 followed by IMO the
best 32bit version Access97. Access2000, AccessXP and Access2003 then
followed.


--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access


"David Schofield" <d.REMOVEschofield@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41eff3f7.426731227@localhost...[color=blue]
> Hi
> Recent threads (eg future of access and its success) got me wondering
> whether Access was an original MS development or whether it was
> originally bought-in like SQL-server.
>
> One reason I am suspicious is some of the original features (eg the
> relationships window - many other systems still only join tables not
> fields - try programming this yourself! - and how long it took MS to
> understand how it could be printed.)
>
> However I don't know of any similar product which existed before
> Access 1, which was an MS product.
>
> I never used Access1 though my first Access job was on an Access 2
> program which still had bits of Access 1 syntax still in it. Though
> the many additions are welcome, most of the changes to existing
> features have been for the worse IMHO.
> David
>[/color]

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:11 -0000, "Terry Kreft"
<terry.kreft@mps.co.uk> wrote:

(snip)[color=blue]
>
>32 bit Windows brought us (the much cursed) Access95 followed by IMO the
>best 32bit version Access97. Access2000, AccessXP and Access2003 then
>followed.
>--
>Terry Kreft
>MVP Microsoft Access
>[/color]
Thanks,

I remember Access 95, I got a free copy of Office Professional 95 by
attending the launch of Windows 95 (in the UK) and Access 95 wasn't
ready in time for that either, so we all got a voucher and got the CD
later.

Maybe the Access team was always a bit out of step, which may explain
why they seem to have been sucking on the back tit as far as office
was concerned - or maybe it was the other way round.

David

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

I'd agree (on the sucking part), it always has seemed to be Excel at the
forefront followed by (strangely IMO) Powerpoint then Word with Access
trailing in at the back.

The first couple of applications to get VBA were Excel (certainly) and I
believe Powerpoint; Word was stuck with Word basic and Access with Access
basic until the 32 bit versions.


--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access


"David Schofield" <d.REMOVEschofield@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41f15969.518237596@localhost...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:11 -0000, "Terry Kreft"
> <terry.kreft@mps.co.uk> wrote:
>
> (snip)[color=green]
> >
> >32 bit Windows brought us (the much cursed) Access95 followed by IMO the
> >best 32bit version Access97. Access2000, AccessXP and Access2003 then
> >followed.
> >--
> >Terry Kreft
> >MVP Microsoft Access
> >[/color]
> Thanks,
>
> I remember Access 95, I got a free copy of Office Professional 95 by
> attending the launch of Windows 95 (in the UK) and Access 95 wasn't
> ready in time for that either, so we all got a voucher and got the CD
> later.
>
> Maybe the Access team was always a bit out of step, which may explain
> why they seem to have been sucking on the back tit as far as office
> was concerned - or maybe it was the other way round.
>
> David
>[/color]

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

"Terry Kreft" <terry.kreft@mps.co.uk> wrote in
news:MSadnYx96Zo2VWncSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk:
[color=blue]
> I'd agree (on the sucking part), it always has seemed to be Excel
> at the forefront followed by (strangely IMO) Powerpoint then Word
> with Access trailing in at the back.
>
> The first couple of applications to get VBA were Excel (certainly)
> and I believe Powerpoint; Word was stuck with Word basic and
> Access with Access basic until the 32 bit versions.[/color]

Access has by far the most complicated VBA version of any of the
Office programs, and is by far the most complex application. I never
thought the fact that Access was always the last to be released was
an indication of any kind of 2nd-class status, just the obvious
result of it being a completely different kind of application in
comparison to all the other Office apps, which are really quite
trivial in comparison (including Excel).

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

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:16:21 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dXXXfenton@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
<snip>[color=blue]
>Access has by far the most complicated VBA version of any of the
>Office programs, and is by far the most complex application. I never
>thought the fact that Access was always the last to be released was
>an indication of any kind of 2nd-class status, just the obvious
>result of it being a completely different kind of application in
>comparison to all the other Office apps, which are really quite
>trivial in comparison (including Excel).
>[/color]
Hi
Yes I agree, I just meant I would have liked MS to have given it more
reources, fed more from it into the other products IDEs as they
converged, messed about with it less in the directions which annoy me.
But who wouldn't?
David

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

David,
You may well be right, having thought about this I would put it down to
marketing forces, as this is normally what drives business.

Spreadsheets are probably the most used (and abused) pieces of software and
certainly in the period from '92 to '95 Microsoft needed to overcome Lotus
in the spreadsheet wars (this they largely did on the basis of features and
usability), because of this I can easily see why marketing would want the
most effort putting into Excel.

Powerpoint, well it probably is a widely used tool in industry but the
important thing, to my way of thinking, is that it's the tool that Microsoft
uses at presentations, conferences etc and so the more features they could
get in there the more impressive it would be.

Of course this is only IMO.

--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access


"David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns95E8CE4824D89dfentonbwaynetinvali@24.168.1 28.90...[color=blue]
> "Terry Kreft" <terry.kreft@mps.co.uk> wrote in
> news:MSadnYx96Zo2VWncSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk:
>[color=green]
> > I'd agree (on the sucking part), it always has seemed to be Excel
> > at the forefront followed by (strangely IMO) Powerpoint then Word
> > with Access trailing in at the back.
> >
> > The first couple of applications to get VBA were Excel (certainly)
> > and I believe Powerpoint; Word was stuck with Word basic and
> > Access with Access basic until the 32 bit versions.[/color]
>
> Access has by far the most complicated VBA version of any of the
> Office programs, and is by far the most complex application. I never
> thought the fact that Access was always the last to be released was
> an indication of any kind of 2nd-class status, just the obvious
> result of it being a completely different kind of application in
> comparison to all the other Office apps, which are really quite
> trivial in comparison (including Excel).
>
> --
> David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
> dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc[/color]

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

Terry Kreft wrote:
<snips>
[color=blue]
> Spreadsheets are probably the most used (and abused) pieces of software and
> certainly in the period from '92 to '95 Microsoft needed to overcome Lotus
> in the spreadsheet wars (this they largely did on the basis of features and
> usability), because of this I can easily see why marketing would want the
> most effort putting into Excel.[/color]

Surely it was marketing and not features that made the tres ugly and
inefficient Excel the industry standard. Excel could not have carried
Quattro Pro's skates into the arena in the early 90's (this is Canadian
for "not in the same league"). To this day, I cannot see Excel as truly
3D, while Quattro Pro has been 3D for at least ten years (perhaps
always?), that is it can refer to a cell relatively with the tuple
(a,b,c)... the intersection of row b and column c in plane a, a being
absolute or relative to the plane where the tuple exists.

Was Word ever as good as Word Perfect before Bill's mavens convinced
everyone to go Word, and he hid key OS functions from Word Perfect's
engineers?

Access ... I'm never sure if I love it or hate it ... it opened up the
GUI to me ... when I was totally P__ssed with Computer Associates who
bought out Clipper, terminated Aspen (native code Clipper initiative)
and decided to charge $2000 to sniff their GUI Windows manifestation of
Clipper ... can't even remember it's name ... something Objects, ... but
was Access worth it? ... there are many parts of Access that are
supremely BAD ... start with VBA.

Time for a cup of coffee ... Access looks better in the morning after
that ... sort of like the (blondes, evening, beer) tuple.

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

Lyle,
I'd agree wholeheartedly Quattro Pro (5 for Windows was the version I used)
was the best of the three, but I would put Excel above Lotus 123 and as
Lotus 123 was the beast I cut my IT teeth on that is hardly a partisan
choice.

Word - Wordperfect, hmm, I believe WordPerfect for DOS was the best word
processor I ever used, but they didn't seem to make the transition to the
Windows shell that well. For a Windows wordprocessor I would have to go
with Word.

I never used Clipper, I did unfortunately have to learn Approach which was a
pretty dreadful experience and thankfully I've forgotten it all now.

--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access


"Lyle Fairfield" <ffdba2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v_qJd.95$fw3.54495@read2.cgocable.net...[color=blue]
> Terry Kreft wrote:
> <snips>
>[color=green]
> > Spreadsheets are probably the most used (and abused) pieces of software[/color][/color]
and[color=blue][color=green]
> > certainly in the period from '92 to '95 Microsoft needed to overcome[/color][/color]
Lotus[color=blue][color=green]
> > in the spreadsheet wars (this they largely did on the basis of features[/color][/color]
and[color=blue][color=green]
> > usability), because of this I can easily see why marketing would want[/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green]
> > most effort putting into Excel.[/color]
>
> Surely it was marketing and not features that made the tres ugly and
> inefficient Excel the industry standard. Excel could not have carried
> Quattro Pro's skates into the arena in the early 90's (this is Canadian[/color]
<SNIP>[color=blue]
> Was Word ever as good as Word Perfect before Bill's mavens convinced
> everyone to go Word, and he hid key OS functions from Word Perfect's
> engineers?[/color]
<SNIP>[color=blue]
> GUI to me ... when I was totally P__ssed with Computer Associates who
> bought out Clipper, terminated Aspen (native code Clipper initiative)[/color]
<SNIP>

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

Terry Kreft wrote:
[color=blue]
> Word - Wordperfect, hmm, I believe WordPerfect for DOS was the best word
> processor I ever used, but they didn't seem to make the transition to the
> Windows shell that well. For a Windows wordprocessor I would have to go
> with Word.[/color]

Crumbs, WP 4.2 used to fit on ONE (count em, 1) low density 3.5" floppy.

It went to hell when it went to Windows. I guess the trauma of going
from the WP standard f3 for help to f1 made em nervous. And Corel, god
bless em for Corel Draw and Photopaint, but they massacred WP... I
started calling it "Corel CRASH" and finally gave up on my beloved WP
some time in 1999, I think...

--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

"Terry Kreft" <terry.kreft@mps.co.uk> wrote in
news:l9KdnWGdR4VUzmvcSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk:
[color=blue]
> I'd agree wholeheartedly Quattro Pro (5 for Windows was the
> version I used) was the best of the three[/color]

I wouldn't.

I was a big Quattro Pro fan *before* using Excel, but once I used
Excel, I never looked back.

Why?

Because Quattro Pro, well into its Windows incarnations, continued
to carry over stupid non-Windows conventions copied from Lotus 123.
Printing was particularly obtuse, because it worked like DOS
printing, instead of like a Windows program.

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

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

When I was working for the Access team, I remember working with Dave
Anderson (in the words of Andrew Miller, Dave did not work on Quatro Pro, he
*was* Quatro Pro).....

Very cool guy, and a great dev. He was still around when I left Access but I
think he is elsewhere now. But he is still around (most recently at Joel
Spolsky's Geek Dinner in Bellevue, WA).


--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
Globalization Infrastructure, Fonts, and Tools
Microsoft Windows International Division

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.



"David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns95E9C950C6713dfentonbwaynetinvali@24.168.1 28.74...[color=blue]
> "Terry Kreft" <terry.kreft@mps.co.uk> wrote in
> news:l9KdnWGdR4VUzmvcSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk:
>[color=green]
> > I'd agree wholeheartedly Quattro Pro (5 for Windows was the
> > version I used) was the best of the three[/color]
>
> I wouldn't.
>
> I was a big Quattro Pro fan *before* using Excel, but once I used
> Excel, I never looked back.
>
> Why?
>
> Because Quattro Pro, well into its Windows incarnations, continued
> to carry over stupid non-Windows conventions copied from Lotus 123.
> Printing was particularly obtuse, because it worked like DOS
> printing, instead of like a Windows program.
>
> --
> David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
> dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc[/color]

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

Which is why UI design is so important, it affects the perception of a piece
of softwares worth.

--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access


"David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns95E9C950C6713dfentonbwaynetinvali@24.168.1 28.74...[color=blue]
> "Terry Kreft" <terry.kreft@mps.co.uk> wrote in
> news:l9KdnWGdR4VUzmvcSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk:
>[color=green]
> > I'd agree wholeheartedly Quattro Pro (5 for Windows was the
> > version I used) was the best of the three[/color]
>
> I wouldn't.
>
> I was a big Quattro Pro fan *before* using Excel, but once I used
> Excel, I never looked back.
>
> Why?
>
> Because Quattro Pro, well into its Windows incarnations, continued
> to carry over stupid non-Windows conventions copied from Lotus 123.
> Printing was particularly obtuse, because it worked like DOS
> printing, instead of like a Windows program.
>
> --
> David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
> dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc[/color]

re: Is Access a Microsoft development?

"Terry Kreft" <terry.kreft@mps.co.uk> wrote in
news:I4adnQuTiPqh-GrcSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk:
[color=blue]
> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns95E9C950C6713dfentonbwaynetinvali@24.168.1 28.74...[color=green]
>> "Terry Kreft" <terry.kreft@mps.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:l9KdnWGdR4VUzmvcSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > I'd agree wholeheartedly Quattro Pro (5 for Windows was the
>> > version I used) was the best of the three[/color]
>>
>> I wouldn't.
>>
>> I was a big Quattro Pro fan *before* using Excel, but once I used
>> Excel, I never looked back.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because Quattro Pro, well into its Windows incarnations,
>> continued to carry over stupid non-Windows conventions copied
>> from Lotus 123. Printing was particularly obtuse, because it
>> worked like DOS printing, instead of like a Windows program.[/color]
>
> Which is why UI design is so important, it affects the perception
> of a piece of softwares worth.[/color]

Well, it made the software much harder to use.

I loved the DOS versions of QPro, which ran with all sorts of
features (such as proportional fonts and 3D linked spreadsheets) in
640K RAM, features that Lotus 123 provided only with extended memory
(or was that expanded memory? Man, I don't even remember that stuff
any more!).

But once I tried out Excel, it was just no contest. The printing
wasn't the only issue, either. The UI overall was just easier to
use.

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