WARNING: Access 2007 MVFs vs Relationships Diagram

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

Warning to Access Developers about ACE.

DON'T use multivalued fields (MVF) they are worse than LookUp fields and
SubDatasheets, in fact they (MVFs) are a logical progression in the dumbing
down that started with these abominations.

Having seen and evaluated Access 2007 for a few months now I think this is a
terrible product for developers. If you must use it use Jet 4 or SQL Server
2000 or IBM DB2* as the backend, depending upon your requirements.

However if you are lumbered with fixing a total snafu from a "power-user"
please bear in mind the failure of the Access team to depict the MVF
(laughingly referred to as "complex data") from the ACE database engine in
the Relationships Window as the underlying three table structure that it
really is.

They say this will (as opposed to may) be available in a "future" version of
Access (Access XIII).

Suraj Poozhiyil (Program Manager, Microsoft) has said that the main reasons
for the MVF and the lack of representation of the MVF in the Releationships
window are:

1. for compatibility with SharePoint. (not the most popular product in the
world, to say the least)
2. this release is focussed on power users rather than developers.
3. and they could not give a F--- about developers that insist on using
Jet/ACE (I made that one up, didn't I?)

For those who have not been around the block a couple of times you should
know that both Access 95 and Access 2000 the other two major upgrade
releases were very badly botched. After many SPs to both Access 2000 and Jet
4 they finally got something usable although Access 95 was never any good at
all.

This information is based on Access Beta 2 (Public), although I do not
believe anything has changed in this area in the later builds.

[Larry Linson]

"Craig Alexander Morrison" wrote

For those who have not been around
the block a couple of times you should
know that both Access 95 and Access
2000 the other two major upgrade
releases were very badly botched.

After many SPs to both Access 2000 and
Jet 4 they finally got something usable
although Access 95 was never any good
at all.

Yes, with all SPs applied to both Access 2000 and Jet, it turned out to be
usable. Access 2002 and 2003 are, also, with their respective SPs.

The very first Service Release of Access 95 was, many thought, the very best
release of Access, even to this day -- they called it Access 97 (and there
were two SRs for A97, one of which was released a second time as SR 2b).

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

The Marketing Department was mainly responsible for Access 95 being (RTM'd)
or as it was actually called Microsoft Access for Windows 95 on the July
1995 Beta Release.

The time between Access 95 and Access 97 was under 12 months (I think).

You are too generous Access 95 (RTM) was in fact a Beta Product.

Not that much has really changed and I agree that Access 97 is one of the
best releases although Access 2003 can stand alongside it if one needs/wants
to use the enhanced SQL support (ANSI-92ish) in Jet 4.

Any developers who do not have Access 2003 and the VSTO with ADE should get
it now as Access is dead (well Jet certainly is).

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited

Small Business Solutions Provider

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.notwrote in message
news:zo9Eg.7566$Z1.1087@trnddc03...

"Craig Alexander Morrison" wrote

For those who have not been around
the block a couple of times you should
know that both Access 95 and Access
2000 the other two major upgrade
releases were very badly botched.

After many SPs to both Access 2000 and
Jet 4 they finally got something usable
although Access 95 was never any good
at all.

Yes, with all SPs applied to both Access 2000 and Jet, it turned out to be
usable. Access 2002 and 2003 are, also, with their respective SPs.

The very first Service Release of Access 95 was, many thought, the very
best release of Access, even to this day -- they called it Access 97 (and
there were two SRs for A97, one of which was released a second time as SR
2b).

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

[polite person]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:26:35 +0100, "Craig Alexander Morrison" <ca*@microsoft.newsgroups.public.com>
wrote:

>The Marketing Department was mainly responsible for Access 95 being (RTM'd)
or as it was actually called Microsoft Access for Windows 95 on the July
1995 Beta Release.

The time between Access 95 and Access 97 was under 12 months (I think).

You are too generous Access 95 (RTM) was in fact a Beta Product.

Not that much has really changed and I agree that Access 97 is one of the
best releases although Access 2003 can stand alongside it if one needs/wants
to use the enhanced SQL support (ANSI-92ish) in Jet 4.

Any developers who do not have Access 2003 and the VSTO with ADE should get
it now as Access is dead (well Jet certainly is).

I have a soft spot for Access 95 as I got it free - everyone who attended the launch of Windows 95
in the UK got various free goodies including Office Professional 95. However Access 95 wasn't ready
in time so we got Access 2 and a coupon which we exchanged quite a long time later.

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

If you got it for free, then it was worth every penny (vbg).

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison

"polite person" <sn**@snippers.comwrote in message
news:uf********************************@4ax.com...

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:26:35 +0100, "Craig Alexander Morrison"
<ca*@microsoft.newsgroups.public.com>
wrote:

>>The Marketing Department was mainly responsible for Access 95 being
(RTM'd)
or as it was actually called Microsoft Access for Windows 95 on the July
1995 Beta Release.

The time between Access 95 and Access 97 was under 12 months (I think).

You are too generous Access 95 (RTM) was in fact a Beta Product.

Not that much has really changed and I agree that Access 97 is one of the
best releases although Access 2003 can stand alongside it if one
needs/wants
to use the enhanced SQL support (ANSI-92ish) in Jet 4.

Any developers who do not have Access 2003 and the VSTO with ADE should
get
it now as Access is dead (well Jet certainly is).

I have a soft spot for Access 95 as I got it free - everyone who attended
the launch of Windows 95
in the UK got various free goodies including Office Professional 95.
However Access 95 wasn't ready
in time so we got Access 2 and a coupon which we exchanged quite a long
time later.

[Larry Linson]

"Craig Alexander Morrison" wrote

If you got it for free, then it was worth
every penny (vbg).

And, as a bonus, he got the very best-ever 16-bit version of Access!

From some recent posts, it is clear that there are still more than a few
Access 2.0 databases in daily production use.

To fit the software needs of the users for whom I was doing a pro bono
project, I completed my last brand-new-from-scratch Access 2.0 application
in January 2001. It worked very nicely (and, it was a single-user
application, so security was not an issue).

Larry

[David W. Fenton]

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.notwrote in
news:lymEg.3917$Ji1.3212@trnddc05:

From some recent posts, it is clear that there are still more than
a few Access 2.0 databases in daily production use.

To fit the software needs of the users for whom I was doing a pro
bono project, I completed my last brand-new-from-scratch Access
2.0 application in January 2001. It worked very nicely (and, it
was a single-user application, so security was not an issue).

I think Access 2 apps still work extremely well and run blazingly
fast. But I find the development environment almost impossible to
use, as well as the old Access Basic syntax.

But judged on its own merits and not incomparison to its later
offspring, it still holds up quite well as a database development
tool.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Larry Linson]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote

I think Access 2 apps still work extremely well
and run blazingly fast. But I find the development
environment almost impossible to use, as well as
the old Access Basic syntax.

The time I was writing that pro bono application was not long after one of
my primary client assignments was maintaining and enhancing an Access 2.0
application, so the DE and Access Basic were still just "second nature" to
me. It's been a while since I did any Access 2.0 work, but I don't think it
would take me long to re-adapt, if the need should arise.

I was using Access 2.0 and Access 97, and (reluctantly and very
occasionally) Access 2000 (I could quote michka's "I'd rather slide down a
giant razor blade into a vat of iodine than . . ." but there were a few
"needs of the business" situations that mandated I work with it, even at
that stage of its life, before the SPs).

(As my current machine and any new purchases are not likely to have a
diskette drive, it would probably behoove me to copy my Access 2.0 install
diskettes and Service Release diskettes to a CD-R or a flash memory card
before I completely retire the obsolescent and largely-unused desktop
machine that is the only operable machine I have which has a diskette drive.
Again, just in case the need should arise, or if I just want to play around
with it.)

But judged on its own merits and not incomparison to its later
offspring, it still holds up quite well as a database development
tool.

I "got a lot of mileage" out of Access 2.0. Many clients weren't in a hurry
to upgrade their old machines to ones that would run Win 95 or 98, so stuck
with the old version longer than might be expected.

Larry