By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,519 Members | 2,258 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,519 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

The Microsoft Access Product Group Wants Your Help!

P: n/a
(Repost, due to lack of submissions...)

The Microsoft Access Product Group (the people who build Microsoft
Access) want your help!

One of the main things we're working on for the near future is a
conversion tool to take Microsoft Access 97 databases (primarily, but
also Microsoft Access 2000 or 2002/XP databases) up to Microsoft
Office Access 2003. For us to do this, we need sample databases from
*you*, our customers, to ensure a quality tool.

If you're willing to paricipate in helping us build a quality
conversion tool, please send your Microsoft Access 97, 2000, or
2002/XP database to AC*****@MICROSOFT.COM. When you submit a database,
please keep in mind:

* You won't be receiving a copy of this database back.
* We will be using these databases for internal testing purposes
*only*.

They should be .mdb files, databases in wide use and production.

The data will be confidential, so if you want to include either dummy
data or real data, that's certainly fine.

It'd be nice if we had some secured databases, but understandable if
you aren't comfortable with that.

Again, these will remain confidential for internal testing purposes
*only*.

The email address to send the files to is: AC*****@MICROSOFT.COM

*** Please be sure to zip the database due to Outlook security. ***

----------------------------
Chuck's comment:
If you send in real data, please be sure to obfusicate it. Change
Names to strings of random letters, addresses to something silly
("anytown, USA" is probably going to have quite the population
explosion!), Phone Numbers, SSNs, Rates, Costs, etc. should also be
changed.
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
27 Replies


P: n/a
rkc

"Chuck Grimsby" <c.*******@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:5f*************************@posting.google.co m...
(Repost, due to lack of submissions...)


Because if you think about it, the request is f*cking ridiculous.
Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
Chuck Grimsby wrote:

<snipped>

I don't believe you!

Seriously, where's the URL? Microsoft don't post to public newsgroups such
as this or use intermediaries - makes no sense. The only secure way
Microsoft can communicate with users/developers is through their website.
And I'm sure they have plenty of experience in testing and developing
products, however much we might bleat about the end results. The point
being that beta testers etc are already in place.

I really have no idea what your post is trying to achieve but it remains
quite suspicious.
Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
It's legitimate.

Since Chuck posts the daily FAQ for this group, Rita Nikas, the Access MVP
lead, has sent him items to post several times in the past. I recall
specifically some of the posts around the 10th anniversary of Access earlier
this year. (Heck, it was me who sicced her on him in the first place!)

And if you check the microsoft.public.access.* groups, you'll see that she
posted these requests there herself. For example,
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...SFTNGP12.phx.g
bl

I can suggest to her that they put this on the web, but given the short-term
nature of the request (and the fact that it's a long weekend in Redmond), I
doubt they'll bother.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
"Deano" <ma************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L_*******************@wards.force9.net...
Chuck Grimsby wrote:

<snipped>

I don't believe you!

Seriously, where's the URL? Microsoft don't post to public newsgroups such as this or use intermediaries - makes no sense. The only secure way
Microsoft can communicate with users/developers is through their website.
And I'm sure they have plenty of experience in testing and developing
products, however much we might bleat about the end results. The point
being that beta testers etc are already in place.

I really have no idea what your post is trying to achieve but it remains
quite suspicious.

Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
Because if you think about it, the request is f*cking ridiculous.


Why? FWIW this is a legitimate request.

Tony

--
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
Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
rkc

"Tony Toews" <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:8m********************************@4ax.com...
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
Because if you think about it, the request is f*cking ridiculous.


Why? FWIW this is a legitimate request.


Because the largest, richest, most successful software company
on the planet is asking for something for nothing. Not just any
something, but working, wide use production applications.
Applications that likely took hundreds of hours to design,
develop, test and roll out. Applications that were paid for by
someone with hard earned cash. Applications that were sweated
over. Argued over. Applications that someone stayed up late on
weekends to polish. Applications that woke people up in the
middle of the night.

What do they offer in return?

Incentive to upgrade to Office 2003.

Bullshit.
Nov 12 '05 #6

P: n/a
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote in news:iS54b.21053
$7********@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

"Tony Toews" <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:8m********************************@4ax.com...
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Because if you think about it, the request is f*cking ridiculous.


Why? FWIW this is a legitimate request.


Because the largest, richest, most successful software company
on the planet is asking for something for nothing. Not just any
something, but working, wide use production applications.
Applications that likely took hundreds of hours to design,
develop, test and roll out. Applications that were paid for by
someone with hard earned cash. Applications that were sweated
over. Argued over. Applications that someone stayed up late on
weekends to polish. Applications that woke people up in the
middle of the night.

What do they offer in return?

Incentive to upgrade to Office 2003.

Bullshit.


Don't you think that having your application "chosen" by MS for testing
would be an immense honour?

No?

hmmmm ...

Another "thing" we agree on then ... what is it now? two? ... three?

--
Lyle

Nov 12 '05 #7

P: n/a
What do they offer in return?

Incentive to upgrade to Office 2003.

Bullshit.


AGREED!
Nov 12 '05 #8

P: n/a
<Shrug> Ok. Believe it or not, I'll allow you to believe my post or
not as you see fit.

As for a URL, there isn't one. You can Email it to
AC*****@MICROSOFT.COM. Unless someone's figured out how to spoof
that, It's probably going to go there. I rather doubt they care where
it came *from* however... So feel free to create a HotMail, Yahoo, or
some other 'free' (throw-away) account to send from if you don't what
Microsoft to have *your* email address.

As for making sense, well... It makes sense to me. After *years* of
saying that Microsoft doesn't listen to the developers out in the
field who have to actually *use* the ____ they put out, here's a
chance for those developers out in the field to have at least a small
say. ("Figgin' upgrades!")

But as I said above, feel free to believe or dis-believe as you see
fit.

"Deano" <ma************@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<L_*******************@wards.force9.net>...
I don't believe you!
Seriously, where's the URL? Microsoft don't post to public newsgroups such
as this or use intermediaries - makes no sense. The only secure way
Microsoft can communicate with users/developers is through their website.
And I'm sure they have plenty of experience in testing and developing
products, however much we might bleat about the end results. The point
being that beta testers etc are already in place.
I really have no idea what your post is trying to achieve but it remains
quite suspicious.

Nov 12 '05 #9

P: n/a
Lyle Fairfield <ly******@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xn******************************@130.133.1.4 >...
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote in news:iS54b.21053
$7********@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

"Tony Toews" <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:8m********************************@4ax.com...
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>Because if you think about it, the request is f*cking ridiculous.

Why? FWIW this is a legitimate request.
Because the largest, richest, most successful software company
on the planet is asking for something for nothing. Not just any
something, but working, wide use production applications.
Applications that likely took hundreds of hours to design,
develop, test and roll out. Applications that were paid for by
someone with hard earned cash. Applications that were sweated
over. Argued over. Applications that someone stayed up late on
weekends to polish. Applications that woke people up in the
middle of the night.
What do they offer in return?
Incentive to upgrade to Office 2003.
Bullshit.

Don't you think that having your application "chosen" by MS for testing
would be an immense honour?
No?
hmmmm ...
Another "thing" we agree on then ... what is it now? two? ... three?


Honor? No. I'd like to see an upgrade path that *worked* however!
(But then again, it's more bill-able hours for us if the upgrades
don't work.... Hmmm....)
Nov 12 '05 #10

P: n/a
Douglas J. Steele wrote:
It's legitimate.

Since Chuck posts the daily FAQ for this group, Rita Nikas, the
Access MVP lead, has sent him items to post several times in the
past. I recall specifically some of the posts around the 10th
anniversary of Access earlier this year. (Heck, it was me who sicced
her on him in the first place!)

And if you check the microsoft.public.access.* groups, you'll see
that she posted these requests there herself. For example,
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...SFTNGP12.phx.g bl

I can suggest to her that they put this on the web, but given the
short-term nature of the request (and the fact that it's a long
weekend in Redmond), I doubt they'll bother.


Glad to hear that it is legitimate.
I still wonder why a webpage can't be posted up to reassure the wary and
encourage submissions.

Ultimately I agree with some of the other posts here - I can't see that much
benefit is there to be had from making a submission, there are simply too
many inefficiencies in the whole process. Maybe we should use the address
to whine about features that me might actually fine useful in the next
version of Access....
Nov 12 '05 #11

P: n/a
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news:<iS*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com>. ..
What do they offer in return?
Incentive to upgrade to Office 2003.
Bullshit.


Upgrade to Office 2003?!? Who said anything about that? Most of my
clients took one good look at Office 2K and Office XP, ran a
"cost/benefit analyis" and asked "Why?" Since I didn't have a good
answer for them, they stayed at Office 97. (Truth to be told, I
*still* don't have a good answer for the "why upgrade" answer. If
Office 2003 provides an answer, I'll be most amazed!)

A few clients do indeed follow that "mindless upgrade" path I've often
posted about in this newsgroup however, and it's those people who this
project will help.

You know any clients like that? You know the type... Clients that
always have to be on the "latest and greatest version", regardless of
all other factors? "Because it's the newest, it has to be the best,
right?" And anything you have to say is tossed out the window?
Nov 12 '05 #12

P: n/a
Chuck Grimsby wrote:
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<iS*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com>. ..
What do they offer in return?
Incentive to upgrade to Office 2003.
Bullshit.


Upgrade to Office 2003?!? Who said anything about that? Most of my
clients took one good look at Office 2K and Office XP, ran a
"cost/benefit analyis" and asked "Why?" Since I didn't have a good
answer for them, they stayed at Office 97. (Truth to be told, I
*still* don't have a good answer for the "why upgrade" answer. If
Office 2003 provides an answer, I'll be most amazed!)

A few clients do indeed follow that "mindless upgrade" path I've often
posted about in this newsgroup however, and it's those people who this
project will help.

You know any clients like that? You know the type... Clients that
always have to be on the "latest and greatest version", regardless of
all other factors? "Because it's the newest, it has to be the best,
right?" And anything you have to say is tossed out the window?


Maybe the trick is to reassure them that they aren't being 'left behind'.
That's part of the fault reasoning that clients apply to information
technology.
Nov 12 '05 #13

P: n/a
rkc

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly******@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xn******************************@130.133.1.4. ..
Don't you think that having your application "chosen" by MS for testing
would be an immense honour?

No?

hmmmm ...

Another "thing" we agree on then ... what is it now? two? ... three?


Depends.

We counting in Canadian?
Nov 12 '05 #14

P: n/a
I suppose one might say the same thing about helping others here in
the newsgroups, thus relieving the pressure on the vendor's product
support, but many of us, including you and Lyle, do it on a regular
basis.

As for me, I received a lot of help from a lot of people over the
years, and all most of them asked was that I do the same for someone
else when I was able.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I think it
worthwhile to offer databases illustrating how the product is used in
the "real world", not just in the DB development shop in Redmond, if
it may help to create a better product for me to use in the future.

"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news:<iS*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com>. ..
"Tony Toews" <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:8m********************************@4ax.com...
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
Because if you think about it, the request is f*cking ridiculous.


Why? FWIW this is a legitimate request.


Because the largest, richest, most successful software company
on the planet is asking for something for nothing. Not just any
something, but working, wide use production applications.
Applications that likely took hundreds of hours to design,
develop, test and roll out. Applications that were paid for by
someone with hard earned cash. Applications that were sweated
over. Argued over. Applications that someone stayed up late on
weekends to polish. Applications that woke people up in the
middle of the night.

What do they offer in return?

Incentive to upgrade to Office 2003.

Bullshit.

Nov 12 '05 #15

P: n/a

"Chuck Grimsby" <c.*******@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:5f**************************@posting.google.c om...
<snip>
Now, personally, I've no idea if Access 2003 uses .Net or not. I sure
hope not! I haven't read *anything* about Access 2003, nor have I
heard anything about it. But if the conversion to Access 2003 is as
bad as VB6 to .Net, we can all hang it up now and save ourselves (and
our clients) the grief. On the other hand, if a few samples from
those of us who are out in the "trenches" helps.... (Something I'm
not aware of them asking anyone for when they wrote the VB6 to .Net
conversion "tool".)


Based on MS web-site, Access 2003 still uses VBA. However, the developer's
runtime is packaged with the "Microsoft Visual Studio Tools for the
Microsoft Office System", which includes VB.Net (standard edition) and the
ability to use VB.Net to write code behind Excel and Word.

So even though Office 2003 still has VBA, the new packaging of the
developer's tools appears to be hinting of things to come. As an aside, all
of the serious business application developers that I know, including myself
(but only when time permits), are learning .Net.

Steven R. Zuch, CPA
Principal
Cogent Management Inc.


Nov 12 '05 #16

P: n/a
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote in news:Qac4b.30657
$l********@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly******@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xn******************************@130.133.1.4. ..
Don't you think that having your application "chosen" by MS for testing
would be an immense honour?

No?

hmmmm ...

Another "thing" we agree on then ... what is it now? two? ... three?


Depends.

We counting in Canadian?


Canadians do not count. I think George will confirm that.

--
Lyle

Nov 12 '05 #17

P: n/a
la**********@ntpcug.org (Larry Linson) wrote in
news:fc**************************@posting.google.c om:
many of us, including you and Lyle, do it on a regular basis.


I try to do it twice on Saturdays.

--
Lyle

Nov 12 '05 #18

P: n/a
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:38:56 +0100 in comp.databases.ms-access,
"Deano" <ma************@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ultimately I agree with some of the other posts here - I can't see that much
benefit is there to be had from making a submission, there are simply too
many inefficiencies in the whole process. Maybe we should use the address
to whine about features that me might actually fine useful in the next
version of Access....

ms****@microsoft.com :-)

I've sent plenty, dunno if any get taken on.

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.

(replace sithlord with trevor for email)
Nov 12 '05 #19

P: n/a
On 30 Aug 2003 17:31:21 -0700 in comp.databases.ms-access,
c.*******@worldnet.att.net (Chuck Grimsby) wrote:
<Shrug> Ok. Believe it or not, I'll allow you to believe my post or
not as you see fit.

As for a URL, there isn't one. You can Email it to
AC*****@MICROSOFT.COM. Unless someone's figured out how to spoof
that, It's probably going to go there. I rather doubt they care where
it came *from* however... So feel free to create a HotMail, Yahoo, or
some other 'free' (throw-away) account to send from if you don't what
Microsoft to have *your* email address.

As for making sense, well... It makes sense to me. After *years* of
saying that Microsoft doesn't listen to the developers out in the
field who have to actually *use* the ____ they put out, here's a
chance for those developers out in the field to have at least a small
say. ("Figgin' upgrades!")


Makes sense to me, can we send our old failures there and see if they
can get them working? :-)

Seriously though, is this open to applications that use SQL Server as
a back-end?

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.

(replace sithlord with trevor for email)
Nov 12 '05 #20

P: n/a
"Chuck Grimsby" <c.*******@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
Upgrade to Office 2003?!? Who said anything about that? Most of my
clients took one good look at Office 2K and Office XP, ran a
"cost/benefit analyis" and asked "Why?" Since I didn't have a good
answer for them, they stayed at Office 97. (Truth to be told, I
*still* don't have a good answer for the "why upgrade" answer. If
Office 2003 provides an answer, I'll be most amazed!)


Before I started working for Microsoft full time, I had a lot of clients who
needed either the replication enhancements or the expanded international
functionality implicit in Unicode support.

Now that I am working for Microsoft, one the most important features I own
in the Windows code base is collation support (the sorting/sortkey rules
used in the CompareString/LCMapstring APIs and in the CompareInfo object in
the .NET framework). Since these APIs have to cover all of Unicode, the data
cannot be stored in a non-Unicode app like Access 97. I prefer to use Access
as I need an easy way to query the data to find out how certain characters
or blocks of characters are weighed, and due to my original background I am
morally opposed to using an Excel spreadsheet as a database. That database I
have is hardly a small thing -- as it includes a lot of the source info for
collation information. It is currently 1.2gb (another good reason to be
using Jet 4.0 since the roof was raised for file size? <grin>).

Now note that I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying, just
pointing out two scenarios that were true for some of my customers and one
which is true that has a lot to do with my job today.
--
MichKa [MS]

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

Nov 12 '05 #21

P: n/a
FWIW, I think you may be looking at this the wrong way.

Microsoft is not looking to reverse engineer and sell the databases they are
sent. This is a team develops, builds, and tests Access the product, not a
team that builds Access apps for anything. They are looking for as many real
world apps as they can find, for testing purposes.

I am no longer on the Access team (for all intensive purposes an "outsider"
for the purposes of this request), but when I was I was somewhat envious of
the apps that became permanent members of the test suites in Access, so that
a failure to convert them equated to a build of Access being considered
"broken" for the simple reason that it did not convert properly. Its a
pretty awesome position as it means that your app working becomes an
important factor to the team believing that *Access* works.
--
MichKa [MS]

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

"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iS*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

"Tony Toews" <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:8m********************************@4ax.com...
"rkc" <rk*@yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
Because if you think about it, the request is f*cking ridiculous.


Why? FWIW this is a legitimate request.


Because the largest, richest, most successful software company
on the planet is asking for something for nothing. Not just any
something, but working, wide use production applications.
Applications that likely took hundreds of hours to design,
develop, test and roll out. Applications that were paid for by
someone with hard earned cash. Applications that were sweated
over. Argued over. Applications that someone stayed up late on
weekends to polish. Applications that woke people up in the
middle of the night.

What do they offer in return?

Incentive to upgrade to Office 2003.

Bullshit.

Nov 12 '05 #22

P: n/a
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:13:14 -0700, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]"
<mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote:

That answers my question re the purpose of the request. Apparently the
conversion team considers its job done when the app converts and
compiles.
Is it the responsibility of another group to determine that the app
works? We all have had compiling applications that didn't work.

Seems to me if MSFT would make their beta (alpha?) version available
for us to convert, compile, and test, we would kill two birds with one
stone.

-Tom.

FWIW, I think you may be looking at this the wrong way.

Microsoft is not looking to reverse engineer and sell the databases they are
sent. This is a team develops, builds, and tests Access the product, not a
team that builds Access apps for anything. They are looking for as many real
world apps as they can find, for testing purposes.

I am no longer on the Access team (for all intensive purposes an "outsider"
for the purposes of this request), but when I was I was somewhat envious of
the apps that became permanent members of the test suites in Access, so that
a failure to convert them equated to a build of Access being considered
"broken" for the simple reason that it did not convert properly. Its a
pretty awesome position as it means that your app working becomes an
important factor to the team believing that *Access* works.


Nov 12 '05 #23

P: n/a
I honestly do not know the purpose, I am merely speculating.
--
MichKa [MS]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spam.cox.net> wrote in message
news:2f********************************@4ax.com...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:13:14 -0700, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]"
<mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote:

That answers my question re the purpose of the request. Apparently the
conversion team considers its job done when the app converts and
compiles.
Is it the responsibility of another group to determine that the app
works? We all have had compiling applications that didn't work.

Seems to me if MSFT would make their beta (alpha?) version available
for us to convert, compile, and test, we would kill two birds with one
stone.

-Tom.

FWIW, I think you may be looking at this the wrong way.

Microsoft is not looking to reverse engineer and sell the databases they aresent. This is a team develops, builds, and tests Access the product, not ateam that builds Access apps for anything. They are looking for as many realworld apps as they can find, for testing purposes.

I am no longer on the Access team (for all intensive purposes an "outsider"for the purposes of this request), but when I was I was somewhat envious ofthe apps that became permanent members of the test suites in Access, so thata failure to convert them equated to a build of Access being considered
"broken" for the simple reason that it did not convert properly. Its a
pretty awesome position as it means that your app working becomes an
important factor to the team believing that *Access* works.

Nov 12 '05 #24

P: n/a

"Deano" <ma************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L_*******************@wards.force9.net...
Chuck Grimsby wrote:

<snipped>

I don't believe you!

Seriously, where's the URL?


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=OT...phx.gbl&rnum=1

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=OT...phx.gbl&rnum=2

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=OT...phx.gbl&rnum=3

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=OT...phx.gbl&rnum=4

http://news.com.com/2102-1082_3-5065298.html

'nuff Said ????

H..
-------------
25 or 6 to 4
---
Outgoing mail has been scanned for Viri and is deemed to be Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01-Sep-2003

Nov 12 '05 #25

P: n/a
Trevor Best <bouncer@localhost> wrote in message news:<bm********************************@4ax.com>. ..
On 30 Aug 2003 17:31:21 -0700 in comp.databases.ms-access,
c.*******@worldnet.att.net (Chuck Grimsby) wrote:
<Shrug> Ok. Believe it or not, I'll allow you to believe my post or
not as you see fit.

As for a URL, there isn't one. You can Email it to
AC*****@MICROSOFT.COM. Unless someone's figured out how to spoof
that, It's probably going to go there. I rather doubt they care where
it came *from* however... So feel free to create a HotMail, Yahoo, or
some other 'free' (throw-away) account to send from if you don't what
Microsoft to have *your* email address.

As for making sense, well... It makes sense to me. After *years* of
saying that Microsoft doesn't listen to the developers out in the
field who have to actually *use* the ____ they put out, here's a
chance for those developers out in the field to have at least a small
say. ("Figgin' upgrades!")


Makes sense to me, can we send our old failures there and see if they
can get them working? :-)

Seriously though, is this open to applications that use SQL Server as
a back-end?


Sorry for the long wait for a reply, but I took the weekend off. I
had to ask about this, and the answer is Yes. They are primarily
looking for the MDB itself, they really don't care about the data.
Nov 12 '05 #26

P: n/a
> The Microsoft Access Product Group (the people who build Microsoft
Access) want your help!


I wonder if MSFT is a bit short of cash. Is this the reason they are asking
for people to do their work for them?
Is this the reason they cannot afford the time to acknowledge or thank
people who took the time to prepare material and send it to them? Perhaps
they have been inundated with contributions and are unable to cope with the
deluge. Who knows? I suppose we will soon be seeing postings asking for
financial contributions for the ailing software giant.

tsss!

Nigel Lawrance
Nov 12 '05 #27

P: n/a
"Nigel Lawrance" <na*@exeter37.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:bj4jj7$lcj$1
@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
I wonder if MSFT is a bit short of cash.


Gee, do you think we should take up a collection?

--
Lyle

Nov 12 '05 #28

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.