New Access Version?

[Neil Ginsberg]

Does anyone know if a new version of Access is due to come out anytime soon?

Thanks,

Neil

[Tom Wickerath]

Hi Neil,

I know the Microsoft team is hard at work on the next version, since I've had the privilege of
being on a small team of users that gets to preview new features and provide input. However, I
have not heard of any anticipated RTM (Release to Manufacturing) schedule yet.

Tom
_________________________________

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:B2****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...

Does anyone know if a new version of Access is due to come out anytime soon?

Thanks,

Neil

[Neil Ginsberg]

Thanks Tom. We're using A2000 now and are considering upgrading to A2003.
Any thoughts on that, as opposed to waiting for the next version?

Neil

"Tom Wickerath" <AO***********************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9p********************@comcast.com...

Hi Neil,

I know the Microsoft team is hard at work on the next version, since I've
had the privilege of
being on a small team of users that gets to preview new features and
provide input. However, I
have not heard of any anticipated RTM (Release to Manufacturing) schedule
yet.

Tom
_________________________________

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:B2****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...

Does anyone know if a new version of Access is due to come out anytime
soon?

Thanks,

Neil

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:46:49 GMT, "Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote:

Thanks Tom. We're using A2000 now and are considering upgrading to A2003.
Any thoughts on that, as opposed to waiting for the next version?

Neil

Access 2003 offers no compelling improvements over Access 2002(XP). If you
are using Access 2002, I would not bother upgrading right now unless you were
upgrading MS Office anyway.

[Neil Ginsberg]

I wrote we're using Access 2000, not 2002. I agree re. 2002/2003.

Neil
"Steve Jorgensen" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:u2********************************@4ax.com...

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:46:49 GMT, "Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com>
wrote:

Thanks Tom. We're using A2000 now and are considering upgrading to A2003.
Any thoughts on that, as opposed to waiting for the next version?

Neil

Access 2003 offers no compelling improvements over Access 2002(XP). If
you
are using Access 2002, I would not bother upgrading right now unless you
were
upgrading MS Office anyway.

[Mike Turco]

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:Dn***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...

I wrote we're using Access 2000, not 2002. I agree re. 2002/2003.

Neil,

I haven't seen anything new and great since A97. (A2 was 16 bit and A95 was
a piece of junk.) I keep upgrading because all my customers upgrade.

I think A97 was a real breakthrough in reliability. I'm not particularly
impressed with ADO, the ASP pages or any of this newer stuff. Unless you
have a specific reason to upgrade I would suggest that you stay with what
you have.

There have been some nice incremental improvements. For example, if you
change the name of a query, and you have a report based on that query, the
report will automatically updated to reflect the changed name. That's a nice
feature -- renaming objects used to be so difficult. (There are some
drawbacks too. The name game is best avoided.)
Mike

[Neil Ginsberg]

"Mike Turco" <mi*******@yahoo-no-spam-4-me.com> wrote in message
news:lw3Hd.8274$nt.1238@fed1read06...

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:Dn***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...

I wrote we're using Access 2000, not 2002. I agree re. 2002/2003.
Neil,

I haven't seen anything new and great since A97. (A2 was 16 bit and A95
was a piece of junk.) I keep upgrading because all my customers upgrade.

I agree re. A97.
I think A97 was a real breakthrough in reliability. I'm not particularly
impressed with ADO, the ASP pages or any of this newer stuff. Unless you
have a specific reason to upgrade I would suggest that you stay with what
you have.
One concern is that A2000 is now 5 years old, and MS won't support things
indefinitely. As new OS's come out, more and more the older software becomes
incompatible. We are looking to revamp our DB, so it seems a good time to
upgrade and do it in a newer version, even though, yeah, there's no real
compelling reason.

There have been some nice incremental improvements. For example, if you
change the name of a query, and you have a report based on that query, the
report will automatically updated to reflect the changed name.
I have another client who likes to fiddle around with the database, mostly
re. reports and some form formatting. He's notorious for renaming objects as
he thinks of a better name. Drives me crazy! For that reason alone, it would
be worth switching to A2003! :-)
That's a nice feature -- renaming objects used to be so difficult. (There
are some drawbacks too. The name game is best avoided.)
Name game?

Thanks,

Neil


Mike

[White Bilky]

"Mike Turco" <mi*******@yahoo-no-spam-4-me.com> wrote:

For example, if you
change the name of a query, and you have a report based on that query,
the report will automatically updated to reflect the changed name.
That's a nice feature -- renaming objects used to be so difficult.

This in itself is problematic. Have a look at this:

<http://members.iinet.net.au/~allenbrowne/ser-48.html>

Regards,
Keith.
www.keithwilby.com

[Trevor Best]

Mike Turco wrote:

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:Dn***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...

I wrote we're using Access 2000, not 2002. I agree re. 2002/2003.

Neil,

I haven't seen anything new and great since A97. (A2 was 16 bit and A95 was
a piece of junk.) I keep upgrading because all my customers upgrade.

I think A97 was a real breakthrough in reliability. I'm not particularly
impressed with ADO, the ASP pages or any of this newer stuff. Unless you
have a specific reason to upgrade I would suggest that you stay with what
you have.

There have been some nice incremental improvements. For example, if you
change the name of a query, and you have a report based on that query, the
report will automatically updated to reflect the changed name. That's a nice
feature -- renaming objects used to be so difficult. (There are some
drawbacks too. The name game is best avoided.)

The dreaded Name Autocorrect feature, would be nice if it weren't so bug
ridden.

--
This sig left intentionally blank

[Tom Wickerath]

I'm currently using Access 2002, and have decided to skip the current version. In my case, the
cost of updating all of my add-ins (FMS Total Ultimate Suite and SpeedFerret) is significant, so
I need a better reason than just small incremental upgrades. If you go for either 2003 or the
version that follows, be prepared to deal with the new macro security warning message, or to just
set your security warning to low.

Access 2003 offers improved XML capabilities over the previous version, if you want to use XML.

From your later post:
"I have another client who likes to fiddle around with the database, mostly re. reports and some
form formatting. He's notorious for renaming objects as he thinks of a better name. Drives me
crazy! For that reason alone, it would be worth switching to A2003! :-)"

Actually, you've already got this MIS-feature in Access 2000. It is the so-called Name
Autocorrect. The person who followed this post provided an excellent link to Allen Browne's paper
on Name Autocorrect woes. Perhaps it would be easier if your work group established a set of
naming conventions that everyone would adhere to.

Tom
______________________________

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:J9****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
Thanks Tom. We're using A2000 now and are considering upgrading to A2003.
Any thoughts on that, as opposed to waiting for the next version?

Neil
______________________________

"Tom Wickerath" <AO***********************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9p********************@comcast.com...

Hi Neil,

I know the Microsoft team is hard at work on the next version, since I've
had the privilege of
being on a small team of users that gets to preview new features and
provide input. However, I
have not heard of any anticipated RTM (Release to Manufacturing) schedule
yet.

Tom
_________________________________

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:B2****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...

Does anyone know if a new version of Access is due to come out anytime
soon?

Thanks,

Neil

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:11:02 -0800, "Mike Turco"
<mi*******@yahoo-no-spam-4-me.com> wrote:

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:Dn***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...

I wrote we're using Access 2000, not 2002. I agree re. 2002/2003.

Neil,

I haven't seen anything new and great since A97. (A2 was 16 bit and A95 was
a piece of junk.) I keep upgrading because all my customers upgrade.

If you do a lot of VBA coding, there are some improvements that I now find it
hard to do without when working in A97. Custom events, custom enumerated
types, and CallByName, to name a few. Also, having the VBE in a separate
window, though initially annoying, shows its value the first time you debug
code behind a modal form.

[Bri]

H,

Please do NOT attach binaries to posts in non-binary newsgroups,
particularly 500+kb bmp files that could have been done as a 30kb jpg.

Thanks,

Bri

H wrote:

Just some thoughts

[Mike Turco]

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:AD*****************@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

"Mike Turco" <mi*******@yahoo-no-spam-4-me.com> wrote in message
news:lw3Hd.8274$nt.1238@fed1read06...

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:Dn***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...

I wrote we're using Access 2000, not 2002. I agree re. 2002/2003.
Neil,

I haven't seen anything new and great since A97. (A2 was 16 bit and A95
was a piece of junk.) I keep upgrading because all my customers upgrade.

I agree re. A97.

I think A97 was a real breakthrough in reliability. I'm not particularly
impressed with ADO, the ASP pages or any of this newer stuff. Unless you
have a specific reason to upgrade I would suggest that you stay with what
you have.

One concern is that A2000 is now 5 years old, and MS won't support things
indefinitely.

That's a really good point. I really like the backward compatibility of
Access, although its not quite perfect.
I have another client who ... [is] notorious for renaming objects as he
thinks of a better name. Drives me crazy! Name game?

Well, the re-name game :-)

Mike

[Neil Ginsberg]

> It's safe to say that Microsoft want to drop support for jet and make MSDE

the default database engine (we know it can be installed silently and
without user input).

Yes, that's their intention. But I can't imagine them dropping support for
Jet, with the huge number of Jet databases in use.

Neil

[Neil Ginsberg]

>> One concern is that A2000 is now 5 years old, and MS won't support things

indefinitely.

That's a really good point. I really like the backward compatibility of
Access, although its not quite perfect.

And added to that is that the upgrade to A2003 should be pretty
straightforward. The next version of Access, though, will most likely use
VBA.NET and would require significant changes to upgrade. Thus, upgrading
now, while A2003 is the current version (and available) may be the best
move. OTOH, seems that nothing new is coming out for a while anyway, so....

Neil

[Neil Ginsberg]

> If you do a lot of VBA coding, there are some improvements that I now find

it
hard to do without when working in A97. Custom events,
Custom events? Haven't seen that in A2000. What are they?
custom enumerated
types, and CallByName,
CallByName? Another new one.
to name a few. Also, having the VBE in a separate
window, though initially annoying, shows its value the first time you
debug
code behind a modal form.

Yeah, I know. For me, it's just the ability to use Alt+Tab (which I can do
without looking) to go to the code window, as opposed to Ctrl+F6 (which
requires much more work). Also, being able to have a certain form be the
current one, and a certain code module, and flip back and forth, instead of
having to scroll through all forms and code modules that are open (arggggh!
just the thought! :-) ).

Neil

[Neil Ginsberg]

> Actually, you've already got this MIS-feature in Access 2000. It is the

so-called Name
Autocorrect. The person who followed this post provided an excellent link
to Allen Browne's paper
on Name Autocorrect woes. Perhaps it would be easier if your work group
established a set of
naming conventions that everyone would adhere to.
Well, it's not a workgroup. It's just me and the guy I'm working for, who
likes to get his finger in the pie and rename things -- not just change the
prefixes or whatever, but give them entirely new names.

Neil

Tom
______________________________

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:J9****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
Thanks Tom. We're using A2000 now and are considering upgrading to A2003.
Any thoughts on that, as opposed to waiting for the next version?

Neil
______________________________

"Tom Wickerath" <AO***********************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9p********************@comcast.com...

Hi Neil,

I know the Microsoft team is hard at work on the next version, since I've
had the privilege of
being on a small team of users that gets to preview new features and
provide input. However, I
have not heard of any anticipated RTM (Release to Manufacturing) schedule
yet.

Tom
_________________________________

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:B2****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...

Does anyone know if a new version of Access is due to come out anytime
soon?

Thanks,

Neil

[Arvin Meyer]

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:B2****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...

Does anyone know if a new version of Access is due to come out anytime

soon?

I think you'll find that both Access 2002 and 2003 are significantly more
reliable, especially during development, than Access 2000. Access 2003 has
slightly better help files than 2002, both of which are better than 2000,
BUT not as good as Access 97. Access 2003 does not have an index on it's
help files, and by default wants to connect you to the Internet to get help.
A 2003 has solved the Name AutoCorrect bug and fixed some of the other
corruption bugs that plague A2000. I think either A2002 or A2003 is a
worthwhile upgrade. Access 12 (the next version) will have some nice
features, but won't be out for some time, so you may not want to wait.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access Downloads
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

[rkc]

Steve Jorgensen wrote:

and CallByName

Cool. Hadn't run accross this one before.

You use this alot do ya?

[Tony Toews]

"H" <[e-mail]> wrote:

t's safe to say that Microsoft want to drop
support for jet and make MSDE the default database engine (we know it can be
installed silently and without user input). X

Want to drop support for jet? Possibly. But they never will. It's in way too many
systems now.

Make MSDE the default database engine? That's fine by me so long as it's about as
easy to use as Jet.

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

[Tony Toews]

Trevor Best <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote:

The dreaded Name Autocorrect feature, would be nice if it weren't so bug
ridden.

I've been using it the last few weeks in A2003 and it's been quite smooth for me. So
far anyhow. Quite nice too.

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

[Tony Toews]

"Arvin Meyer" <[e-mail]> wrote:

I think you'll find that both Access 2002 and 2003 are significantly more
reliable, especially during development, than Access 2000.

Agreed. I found that doing work in A2000 a form would corrupt about once a week or
so. A2003 hasn't had this problem at all.

Also I really like the smart tags Access pops up on the controls.

For example I added some &s to some unassociated labels. Access
promptly tells me they're unassociated and gives me an option to
associate the label to a control. Nice.

Or if you've renamed fields in the tables the controls based on the
old names are obviously incorrect. Now a little triangle appears in
the corner. Again nice.

Created my first report and I see a little flag in that little grey
box in the upper left hand corner of the report. I click on it and
see a "Common Report Error" "Report width is greater than page width"
with a bunch of options.

Very nice. I can see how this would help the newbie/itinerant Access
users.

I also see lots of flags for the label controls in the headers.

Someone spent some time on these little touches.

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

[David W. Fenton]

"Mike Turco" <mi*******@yahoo-no-spam-4-me.com> wrote in
news:lw3Hd.8274$nt.1238@fed1read06:

There have been some nice incremental improvements. For example,
if you change the name of a query, and you have a report based on
that query, the report will automatically updated to reflect the
changed name. That's a nice feature -- renaming objects used to be
so difficult. (There are some drawbacks too. The name game is best
avoided.)

That's one of the *worst* features of A2K and its successors, and
it's (Name AutoCorrect) the first thing any experienced developer
will turn off.

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

[David W. Fenton]

"H" <[e-mail]> wrote in news:cs**********@sparta.btinternet.com:

It's safe to say that Microsoft want to drop
support for jet and make MSDE the default database engine (we know
it can be installed silently and without user input).

That would be lunacy of the highest sort for them to do so.

It would mean the dropping of the MDB format, since IT'S A FRIGGING
JET DB.

Furthermore, Jet is not dead at all -- it's running
ActiveDirectory's data store, for instance (this is why from Win2K
on the Jet 4 DLLs are protected OS files).

Jet will never be dropped unless Access completely drops all legacy
support. It may be dropped as the default DB engine, but that would
be stupid as well, since it would mean double workset (i.e., to open
an MDB you have to have Jet loaded).

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

[David W. Fenton]

Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:83********************************@4ax.com:

"H" <[e-mail]> wrote:

t's safe to say that Microsoft want to drop
support for jet and make MSDE the default database engine (we know
it can be installed silently and without user input). X
Want to drop support for jet? Possibly. But they never will.
It's in way too many systems now.

Can't without dropping the MDB format entirely.

Would you use Access if you had to use ADPs exclusively?
Make MSDE the default database engine? That's fine by me so long
as it's about as easy to use as Jet.

There are terrible problems with conflicts between multiple
applications installing the MSDE, since a lot of commercial
applications use MSDE as their data store. I've run into with
conflicts between Veritas Backup and Blackberry Server.

It's a new form of DLL hell, and something that I really don't think
any of us need.

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

[John Vinson]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:59:35 GMT, "Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com>
wrote:

Actually, you've already got this MIS-feature in Access 2000. It is the
so-called Name
Autocorrect. The person who followed this post provided an excellent link
to Allen Browne's paper
on Name Autocorrect woes. Perhaps it would be easier if your work group
established a set of
naming conventions that everyone would adhere to.

Well, it's not a workgroup. It's just me and the guy I'm working for, who
likes to get his finger in the pie and rename things -- not just change the
prefixes or whatever, but give them entirely new names.

You need either Visual SourceSafe... or a baseball bat!

John W. Vinson[MVP]

[Steven Benn]

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78...

"H" <[e-mail]> wrote in news:cs**********@sparta.btinternet.com:

It's safe to say that Microsoft want to drop
support for jet and make MSDE the default database engine (we know
it can be installed silently and without user input).

That would be lunacy of the highest sort for them to do so.

It would mean the dropping of the MDB format, since IT'S A FRIGGING
JET DB.

Furthermore, Jet is not dead at all -- it's running
ActiveDirectory's data store, for instance (this is why from Win2K
on the Jet 4 DLLs are protected OS files).

Jet will never be dropped unless Access completely drops all legacy
support. It may be dropped as the default DB engine, but that would
be stupid as well, since it would mean double workset (i.e., to open
an MDB you have to have Jet loaded).

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

Jet may not be dead but do you believe that any improvements will be made to
security? Currently, anyone can break the security and I don't imagine MS
are scurrying around in a desperate rush to fix this.

[Neil Ginsberg]

Well, over time he's mellowed out, as he's seen the amount of work I've had
to do to keep up with his changes. But he's just one of these compulsive
"changers".

"John Vinson" <jvinson@STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com> wrote in message
news:j7********************************@4ax.com...

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:59:35 GMT, "Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com>
wrote:

Actually, you've already got this MIS-feature in Access 2000. It is the
so-called Name
Autocorrect. The person who followed this post provided an excellent
link
to Allen Browne's paper
on Name Autocorrect woes. Perhaps it would be easier if your work group
established a set of
naming conventions that everyone would adhere to.

Well, it's not a workgroup. It's just me and the guy I'm working for, who
likes to get his finger in the pie and rename things -- not just change
the
prefixes or whatever, but give them entirely new names.

You need either Visual SourceSafe... or a baseball bat!

John W. Vinson[MVP]

[Neil Ginsberg]

Thanks for the input.

"Arvin Meyer" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:%2********************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl.. .

"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:B2****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...

Does anyone know if a new version of Access is due to come out anytime

soon?

I think you'll find that both Access 2002 and 2003 are significantly more
reliable, especially during development, than Access 2000. Access 2003 has
slightly better help files than 2002, both of which are better than 2000,
BUT not as good as Access 97. Access 2003 does not have an index on it's
help files, and by default wants to connect you to the Internet to get
help.
A 2003 has solved the Name AutoCorrect bug and fixed some of the other
corruption bugs that plague A2000. I think either A2002 or A2003 is a
worthwhile upgrade. Access 12 (the next version) will have some nice
features, but won't be out for some time, so you may not want to wait.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access Downloads
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

[(Pete Cresswell)]

Per Neil Ginsberg:

Well, over time he's mellowed out, as he's seen the amount of work I've had
to do to keep up with his changes. But he's just one of these compulsive
"changers".

Are you getting paid by the hour? If so, maybe just chalk it up to Job
Security...
--
PeteCresswell

[Douglas J. Steele]

"Steven Benn" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:cs**********@sparta.btinternet.com...

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78...

"H" <[e-mail]> wrote in news:cs**********@sparta.btinternet.com:

It's safe to say that Microsoft want to drop
support for jet and make MSDE the default database engine (we know
it can be installed silently and without user input).

That would be lunacy of the highest sort for them to do so.

It would mean the dropping of the MDB format, since IT'S A FRIGGING
JET DB.

Furthermore, Jet is not dead at all -- it's running
ActiveDirectory's data store, for instance (this is why from Win2K
on the Jet 4 DLLs are protected OS files).

Jet will never be dropped unless Access completely drops all legacy
support. It may be dropped as the default DB engine, but that would
be stupid as well, since it would mean double workset (i.e., to open
an MDB you have to have Jet loaded).

Jet may not be dead but do you believe that any improvements will be made
to security? Currently, anyone can break the security and I don't imagine
MS are scurrying around in a desperate rush to fix this.

As far as I can tell, no file-based application can be made totally secure.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)

[Neil Ginsberg]

Yeah, I get paid for it. But it's damn frustrating. You want to see a final
product eventually. But between continually renaming objects or redoing how
forms work, it's a perpetual development cycle.

"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:e7********************************@4ax.com...

Per Neil Ginsberg:

Well, over time he's mellowed out, as he's seen the amount of work I've
had
to do to keep up with his changes. But he's just one of these compulsive
"changers".

Are you getting paid by the hour? If so, maybe just chalk it up to Job
Security...
--
PeteCresswell

[tina]

lol....when management has "control over" the developer, a database is never
finished - until it's dropped altogether for something else... <g>
"Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:FQ******************@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...

Yeah, I get paid for it. But it's damn frustrating. You want to see a final product eventually. But between continually renaming objects or redoing how forms work, it's a perpetual development cycle.

"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:e7********************************@4ax.com...

Per Neil Ginsberg:

Well, over time he's mellowed out, as he's seen the amount of work I've
had
to do to keep up with his changes. But he's just one of these compulsive
"changers".

Are you getting paid by the hour? If so, maybe just chalk it up to Job
Security...
--
PeteCresswell

[Tom van Stiphout]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:16:14 GMT, Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net>
wrote:

Today we had a corruption in an A2003 database after Copy/Pasting a
form object. It's still not perfect, but I too like A2003 quite a bit
better than A2000, especially the SQL Server support.
-Tom.
<clip>

Agreed. I found that doing work in A2000 a form would corrupt about once a week or
so. A2003 hasn't had this problem at all.

<clip>

[Neil Ginsberg]

SQL Server support is different than in A2000?

"Tom van Stiphout" <no*************@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kv********************************@4ax.com...

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:16:14 GMT, Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net>
wrote:

Today we had a corruption in an A2003 database after Copy/Pasting a
form object. It's still not perfect, but I too like A2003 quite a bit
better than A2000, especially the SQL Server support.
-Tom.
<clip>

Agreed. I found that doing work in A2000 a form would corrupt about once
a week or
so. A2003 hasn't had this problem at all.

<clip>

Neil Ginsberg wrote:

SQL Server support is different than in A2000?

Probably the fact that most people would be using SQL2000 which was
released after Access2000 and so wasn't properly supported?

Br@dley

[Arvin Meyer]

"Steve Jorgensen" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:de********************************@4ax.com...

Just one warning, though. Open a database with VBA code in A2003, then open it again in XP, and it's corrupted for sure. If you go to A2K3, be sure to do all users at once!

I wouldn't say "for sure" This corruption is actually quite rare. It is
alleviated by compiling 2002 databases before saving, or not using both to
develop. I have never seen this corruption except during development.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access downloads:
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

[Brendan Reynolds]

A number of new features in ASP .NET 2.0, such as the Membership Service,
use the Jet data provider by default (though they are capable of using other
providers). See
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...w/default.aspx

I hardly think Microsoft would be doing that if they expected Jet to go away
any time in the foreseeable future.

--
Brendan Reynolds (MVP)
http://brenreyn.blogspot.com

The spammers and script-kiddies have succeeded in making it impossible for
me to use a real e-mail address in public newsgroups. E-mail replies to
this post will be deleted without being read. Any e-mail claiming to be
from brenreyn at indigo dot ie that is not digitally signed by me with a
GlobalSign digital certificate is a forgery and should be deleted without
being read. Follow-up questions should in general be posted to the
newsgroup, but if you have a good reason to send me e-mail, you'll find
a useable e-mail address at the URL above.
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78...

"H" <[e-mail]> wrote in news:cs**********@sparta.btinternet.com:

It's safe to say that Microsoft want to drop
support for jet and make MSDE the default database engine (we know
it can be installed silently and without user input).

That would be lunacy of the highest sort for them to do so.

It would mean the dropping of the MDB format, since IT'S A FRIGGING
JET DB.

Furthermore, Jet is not dead at all -- it's running
ActiveDirectory's data store, for instance (this is why from Win2K
on the Jet 4 DLLs are protected OS files).

Jet will never be dropped unless Access completely drops all legacy
support. It may be dropped as the default DB engine, but that would
be stupid as well, since it would mean double workset (i.e., to open
an MDB you have to have Jet loaded).

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

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:21:23 GMT, "Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com> wrote:

So they're not really events, per se, but routines within a class module
that are called, right?

They're definitions of methods a containing object can implement that the
contained object can invoke without having an explicit reference to the
container or knowing what object that is.

[Steve Jorgensen]

Sorry - that's right. It happens if you edit the code in A2K3. I have not
seen that compiling in A2K2 before saving helps since I always do that.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:04:35 -0500, "Arvin Meyer" <[e-mail]> wrote:

"Steve Jorgensen" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:de********************************@4ax.com.. .

Just one warning, though. Open a database with VBA code in A2003, then

open

it again in XP, and it's corrupted for sure. If you go to A2K3, be sure

to do

all users at once!

I wouldn't say "for sure" This corruption is actually quite rare. It is
alleviated by compiling 2002 databases before saving, or not using both to
develop. I have never seen this corruption except during development.

[Tim Marshall]

Neil Ginsberg wrote:

I haven't seen anything new and great since A97. (A2 was 16 bit and A95
was a piece of junk.) I keep upgrading because all my customers upgrade.

I agree re. A97.

I would have loved to stay with A97, but especially since XP, we've had
horrific and in some cases, completely unsolveable, problems related to
broken references with A97 apps on XP platforms. I think largely
because Office 2003 sans Access is also installed.

A2003 seems not too bad, though the help sucks very badly and it has
behaved a bit flakey from time to time relative to A97. Senobject, for
example doesn't want to work with Netscape mail. I never used A2000 or
2002. ADO, not being native to Jet, caused me some vexing problems when
updating tables on a separate pop up form and the going back and trying
to requery a subform - the changes would either not sho or take 5 to 10
minutes to suddenly appear with all sorts of combinations and
permutations of the use of requery. And although I was looking forward
to DSNless connections to my Oracle via ADO, I gave up on this as the
very little bit of research I did made it seem very picky.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

[Neil Ginsberg]

Thanks for the input.

"Tim Marshall" <TI****@antarctic.flowerpots> wrote in message
news:cs*********@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...

Neil Ginsberg wrote:

I haven't seen anything new and great since A97. (A2 was 16 bit and A95
was a piece of junk.) I keep upgrading because all my customers upgrade.

I agree re. A97.

I would have loved to stay with A97, but especially since XP, we've had
horrific and in some cases, completely unsolveable, problems related to
broken references with A97 apps on XP platforms. I think largely because
Office 2003 sans Access is also installed.

A2003 seems not too bad, though the help sucks very badly and it has
behaved a bit flakey from time to time relative to A97. Senobject, for
example doesn't want to work with Netscape mail. I never used A2000 or
2002. ADO, not being native to Jet, caused me some vexing problems when
updating tables on a separate pop up form and the going back and trying to
requery a subform - the changes would either not sho or take 5 to 10
minutes to suddenly appear with all sorts of combinations and permutations
of the use of requery. And although I was looking forward to DSNless
connections to my Oracle via ADO, I gave up on this as the very little bit
of research I did made it seem very picky.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

[Neil Ginsberg]

Right. My point being that they're called by the containing object, not
automatically triggered by an event, as the name might indicate.

"Steve Jorgensen" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:69********************************@4ax.com...

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:21:23 GMT, "Neil Ginsberg" <nr*@nrgconsult.com>
wrote:

So they're not really events, per se, but routines within a class module
that are called, right?

They're definitions of methods a containing object can implement that the
contained object can invoke without having an explicit reference to the
container or knowing what object that is.

[Stephen K. Young]

"Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn at indigo dot ie> wrote in message
news:OX**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

A number of new features in ASP .NET 2.0, such as the Membership Service,
use the Jet data provider by default (though they are capable of using other providers). See
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...w/default.aspx
I hardly think Microsoft would be doing that if they expected Jet to go away any time in the foreseeable future.

--
Brendan Reynolds (MVP)
http://brenreyn.blogspot.com

I noticed this interesting Microsoft quote that indicates DAO will NOT be
available in 64-bit Windows (targeted for 2006?):

"Data Access Objects (DAO): DAO provides access to JET (Access) databases.
This API can be used from Microsoft Visual Basic®, Microsoft Visual C++®,
and scripting languages. It was included with Microsoft Office 2000 and
Office XP. DAO 3.6 is the final version of this technology. It will not be
available on the 64-bit Windows operating system."

This is taken from the bottom of Microsoft's "Data Access Technologies Road
Map" at:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/defau...dacroadmap.asp

- Steve

[Darryl Kerkeslager]

"Tim Marshall" <TI****@antarctic.flowerpots> wrote
ADO, not being native to Jet, caused me some vexing problems when

updating tables on a separate pop up form and the going back and trying
to requery a subform - the changes would either not sho or take 5 to 10
minutes to suddenly appear with all sorts of combinations and
permutations of the use of requery. And although I was looking forward
to DSNless connections to my Oracle via ADO, I gave up on this as the
very little bit of research I did made it seem very picky.

I wish I could duplicate the problems you had, Tim. I know their are ways
and ways of doing things. DAO has such a large user base that the pitfalls
are well known. I had some issues when I first learned ADO, but have been
using it daily for the past year, and ADO has never caused me any problems
(OTOH, my own stupidity has caused me several :)).
Darryl Kerkeslager

[Tony Toews]

"H" <[e-mail]> wrote:

It would mean the dropping of the MDB format, since IT'S A FRIGGING
JET DB.

The format would be ADP

Furthermore, Jet is not dead at all -- it's running
ActiveDirectory's data store, for instance (this is why from Win2K
on the Jet 4 DLLs are protected OS files).

I understood that SQL Server was used in Server 2003.

Jet will never be dropped unless Access completely drops all legacy
support. It may be dropped as the default DB engine, but that would
be stupid as well, since it would mean double workset (i.e., to open
an MDB you have to have Jet loaded).

The default format will be an ADP.

Jet will (one day) disappear.

Jet's a big headach to MS.

Let's hope that MS have a momentary lapse of reason and give us Jet.Net
(Here's hoping).

On what do you base these statements? How is Jet a big headache?

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

[Tony Toews]

Steve Jorgensen <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote:

Just one warning, though. Open a database with VBA code in A2003, then open
it again in XP, and it's corrupted for sure. If you go to A2K3, be sure to do
all users at once!

Interesting

However I'm using A2003. The users will be getting an A2000 MDE.

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

[Tony Toews]

Steve Jorgensen <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote:

Just one warning, though. Open a database with VBA code in A2003, then open
it again in XP, and it's corrupted for sure. If you go to A2K3, be sure to do
all users at once!

Or is this the problem when you open an A2003 MDE in A2002? Although I doubt it as
you are a newsgroup regular and, I'm sure, are familiar with this.

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

[rkc]

Neil Ginsberg wrote:

Right. My point being that they're called by the containing object, not
automatically triggered by an event, as the name might indicate.

They are events published by an object that another object can
subscribe to. Exactly like a Form subscribing to a command button's
click event.

[David W. Fenton]

"Douglas J. Steele" <NOSPAM_djsteele@NOSPAM_canada.com> wrote in
news:em**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:

"Steven Benn" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:cs**********@sparta.btinternet.com...

Jet may not be dead but do you believe that any improvements will
be made to security? Currently, anyone can break the security
and I don't imagine MS are scurrying around in a desperate rush
to fix this.

As far as I can tell, no file-based application can be made
totally secure.

I would agree, and say that no, I don't think there will be any
changes to Jet security.

The only thing that would be nice would be if they could figure out
a way to hook it into NTFS security so that Windows users and groups
would replace the Jet security users and groups.

But I suspect that would require a major rewrite of Jet overall, not
just of the security subsystem, which is surely hooked into just
about every aspect of Jet's internal operations (if it weren't, it
wouldn't be security!).

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