By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,495 Members | 1,209 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,495 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Has anyone ever wished for a fixed version of Access rather than a new and improved version?

P: n/a
MLH
Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003 - Retail
I've seen the above product advertised for $380.
Are there enough developers world wide to make
microsoft the following offer...

If they would make a product that works, I would
gladly pay $1000 (US) for it. I don't mean that as
an insult. I'm talking about fixes for bugs that come
out. Most of the user population may not need all
bugs fixed, but we as developers do. If a coalition
existed consisting of 1000, 10000, 100000 people
who were willing to pay $1000 for a working version
of the product, would microsoft then be willing to
fix their products. I don't mean Access is a bad
product. I like it. I would like it better if it worked.
A new Corvette is better if the A.C. works, right?
I would like a corvette even if the A.C. didn't work.
But if I paid for it, I would expect it to work and if
it did not I would expect the dealer or mfr to fix it.

I don't think $1000 is unreasonable for a product
as good as Access. Really, I don't. The only reason
I've purchased upgrades is because I thought they
would work. As it turned out, they don't. I was perfectly
happy with Access 2.0. But it didn't work either. A97
doesn't work. But I'm happy with it, nonetheless. I would
be happier if it worked, but am willing to drive it while broken
since I like it so much. I would be MUCH more likely to
pay $380 for a fixed version of A97 than for any subsequent
release that has come out since then.

Am I alone here?
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
9 Replies


P: n/a
MLH
An afterthought...
I would be willing to pay for fixes. The same way I pay for
Add-Ins that I want, I would be happy to pay for periodic
fixes to A97 or whatever version. When they fix something,
they post it to a site for purchase and download. Or, I would
be willing to pay a monthly fee to receive regular fixes. But
the key would be for MicroSoft to process developer input on
fixes needed. They would need to be attentive to fixing all of
them, making sure that - everyday - the product was closer to
perfect than the day before. Do this, rather than create new
releases with new bugs to bring in new revenue. Any product
would be fixed and working at any point in time, or shortly
thereafter when found not to be so. M'Soft would not have
to suffer any reduction in revenues. Everybody would be happy.
They would have money and we would have something that works.

I like the idea of signing up for a subscription - kinda like
subscribing to Playboy or Hustler, I can stop at anytime and
just look at (read) the old issues or keep paying and get the
new ones as they're released.
Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
MLH wrote:
An afterthought...
I would be willing to pay for fixes.


Pleeeeeeeeeease become one of my clients.

--
[OO=00=OO]
Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
rkc
MLH wrote:
An afterthought...
I would be willing to pay for fixes. The same way I pay for
Add-Ins that I want, I would be happy to pay for periodic
fixes to A97 or whatever version.


You need a vacation. Real bad.
Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a
If an application did nothing it would
a) be perfect
b) and never need upgrading.

And it's cost would be minimal.

hmmmmmm ... if MS can market that dog, "Excel", maybe I've got
something here.

Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
MLH <CR**@NorthState.net> wrote in
news:r4********************************@4ax.com:
I was perfectly
happy with Access 2.0. But it didn't work either. A97
doesn't work.


A97 works beautifully. You just haven't gotten over your Access 2
habits yet.

The problems you are having with your dialog form and Activate
events are a result of the architecture you've chosen that uses
global variables that need to be initialized. *That* is the source
of the problem.

There are better ways to pass information between forms.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a

"MLH" <CR**@NorthState.net> wrote in message
news:r4********************************@4ax.com...
Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003 - Retail
I've seen the above product advertised for $380.
Are there enough developers world wide to make
microsoft the following offer...

If they would make a product that works, I would
gladly pay $1000 (US) for it. I don't mean that as
an insult. I'm talking about fixes for bugs that come
out. Most of the user population may not need all
bugs fixed, but we as developers do. If a coalition
existed consisting of 1000, 10000, 100000 people
who were willing to pay $1000 for a working version
of the product, would microsoft then be willing to
fix their products. I don't mean Access is a bad
product. I like it. I would like it better if it worked.
A new Corvette is better if the A.C. works, right?
I would like a corvette even if the A.C. didn't work.
But if I paid for it, I would expect it to work and if
it did not I would expect the dealer or mfr to fix it.

I don't think $1000 is unreasonable for a product
as good as Access. Really, I don't. The only reason
I've purchased upgrades is because I thought they
would work. As it turned out, they don't. I was perfectly
happy with Access 2.0. But it didn't work either. A97
doesn't work. But I'm happy with it, nonetheless. I would
be happier if it worked, but am willing to drive it while broken
since I like it so much. I would be MUCH more likely to
pay $380 for a fixed version of A97 than for any subsequent
release that has come out since then.

Am I alone here?

Not at all. That's why I only use Access 97 and have warned anybody who
would listen never to upgrade! I wish I could use Access 2.0 because I
could understand that, but my customers are all running 32-bit machines now,
so I had to go to something newer, like Access 97. I find coding it a
little too complicated for me, so I pretty much use only macros.

Nov 13 '05 #7

P: n/a
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:21:55 -0600, "Larry Linson"
<no****@nospam.net> wrote:

<clip>
Posted via TeraNews, a known anonymizer. Perhaps our resident troll
hasn't taken his medication again...

-Tom.

Nov 13 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:36:47 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

True: you can't please everyone, especially not those who use the tool
in ways it was not designed to be used. Your bugfix is not my bugfix.

I'm sure Access has bugs that everyone (including MSFT) can agree on,
but there also are MANY situations where reasonable people can
disagree. On whether it's a bug, and on how it should be fixed.

Still, there is that list that belongs in the Hall of Shame that I
have proposed, bugs that most developers would find embarrasing, but
that for whatever reason MSFT just never seems to find enough reason
to fix.

-Tom.
MLH <CR**@NorthState.net> wrote in
news:r4********************************@4ax.com :
I was perfectly
happy with Access 2.0. But it didn't work either. A97
doesn't work.


A97 works beautifully. You just haven't gotten over your Access 2
habits yet.

The problems you are having with your dialog form and Activate
events are a result of the architecture you've chosen that uses
global variables that need to be initialized. *That* is the source
of the problem.

There are better ways to pass information between forms.


Nov 13 '05 #9

P: n/a
"Larry Linson" <no****@nospam.net> wrote in
news:1122081724.bf2888b76d18d5fc6d6487d198c16130@t eranews:
Not at all. That's why I only use Access 97 and have warned
anybody who would listen never to upgrade! I wish I could use
Access 2.0 because I could understand that, but my customers are
all running 32-bit machines now, so I had to go to something
newer, like Access 97. I find coding it a little too complicated
for me, so I pretty much use only macros.


The post above is a forgery, and not from Larry.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #10

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.