By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
464,715 Members | 1,219 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 464,715 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Access 2007 user-level security not supported!

P: n/a
Why the heck was this dropped? All my dbs use ULS even the complex ones. It
aint perfect, it's too fiddly, but it works.

How will I be able to say "These users can run these reports and these users
can't." in Access 2007? Will I have to create my own tables
(tblSecurityGroups, tblSecurityUsers) and code the whole thing?

Thanks,

Paul
Jan 30 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
29 Replies

P: n/a
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in message
news:nI*********************@eclipse.net.uk...
Why the heck was this dropped? All my dbs use ULS even the complex ones. It
aint perfect, it's too fiddly, but it works.

How will I be able to say "These users can run these reports and these users
can't." in Access 2007? Will I have to create my own tables
(tblSecurityGroups, tblSecurityUsers) and code the whole thing?
If you stay with MDBs as opposed to the new Accdb file format then you can still
use security with 2007. I think the lawyers convinced MS that having something
called "User Level Security" that was easily broken was a potential liability.

If you need real security use a server database.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Jan 30 '07 #2

P: n/a
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in message
news:nI*********************@eclipse.net.uk...
Why the heck was this dropped? All my dbs use ULS even the complex ones.
It aint perfect, it's too fiddly, but it works.

How will I be able to say "These users can run these reports and these
users can't." in Access 2007? Will I have to create my own tables
(tblSecurityGroups, tblSecurityUsers) and code the whole thing?

Thanks,

Paul
As long as you don't upsize to the new 2007 format then you can still use
your ULS in A2007.

Keith.
www.keithwilby.com
Jan 30 '07 #3

P: n/a
>Why the heck was this dropped? All my dbs use ULS even the complex ones.
It
aint perfect, it's too fiddly, but it works.

How will I be able to say "These users can run these reports and these
users can't." in Access 2007? Will I have to create my own tables
(tblSecurityGroups, tblSecurityUsers) and code the whole thing?

If you stay with MDBs as opposed to the new Accdb file format then you can
still use security with 2007. I think the lawyers convinced MS that
having something called "User Level Security" that was easily broken was a
potential liability.

If you need real security use a server database.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Thanks Rick,

I don't use it for "real" security, I use it more as Access control, as I
suspect do most other developers. If I use the new file format, will I need
to hand code user access to database objects?

Paul
Jan 30 '07 #4

P: n/a

"Keith Wilby" <he**@there.comwrote in message
news:45**********@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in message
news:nI*********************@eclipse.net.uk...
>Why the heck was this dropped? All my dbs use ULS even the complex ones.
It aint perfect, it's too fiddly, but it works.

How will I be able to say "These users can run these reports and these
users can't." in Access 2007? Will I have to create my own tables
(tblSecurityGroups, tblSecurityUsers) and code the whole thing?

Thanks,

Paul

As long as you don't upsize to the new 2007 format then you can still use
your ULS in A2007.

Keith.
www.keithwilby.com
Thanks Keith,

The more I read about Access 2007, the more I believe Microsoft is fazing me
out. It doesn't want professional Access developers, it wants Access powers
users.

If I were to switch platforms (I only have Access experience) and still
wanted to be a "desktop" database developer (with maybe a leaning towards
learning server db development) what should I move to? FoxPro, Filemaker,
Oracle...etc..?

Paul
Jan 30 '07 #5

P: n/a
Paul H wrote:
I don't use it for "real" security, I use it more as Access control,
as I suspect do most other developers. If I use the new file format,
will I need to hand code user access to database objects?
Well, IMO ULS was WAY overkill for basic Access control. For that I would
roll your own. I use exclusively server back ends and set up security on
the server, but I also have a custom system in the front end for providing
user-friendly "Permission Denied" or "Read Only" messages as opposed to
giving the user ODBC errors from the server. That is a lot more flexible
than using ULS.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Jan 30 '07 #6

P: n/a
Paul H wrote:
The more I read about Access 2007, the more I believe Microsoft is
fazing me out. It doesn't want professional Access developers, it
wants Access powers users.
Agree 100%. The campaign to kill Access as a serious development tool
started with Office 2000 and has advanced with each new release.
Developer's do not make MS money. Users do.
If I were to switch platforms (I only have Access experience) and
still wanted to be a "desktop" database developer (with maybe a
leaning towards learning server db development) what should I move
to? FoxPro, Filemaker, Oracle...etc..?
That would depend entirely on one question. Do you want the best, most
productive platform, or do you want a platform where your skills in that
platform are more marketable? Unfortunately, those two goals have been
exclusive for some time now.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Jan 30 '07 #7

P: n/a
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:19:26 -0000, "Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote:

If, as you write, you have several databases that use ULS, and if you
have the need to upgrade, invest some time in figuring out a common
solution. Perhaps an add-in.

-Tom.

>
>>Why the heck was this dropped? All my dbs use ULS even the complex ones.
It
aint perfect, it's too fiddly, but it works.

How will I be able to say "These users can run these reports and these
users can't." in Access 2007? Will I have to create my own tables
(tblSecurityGroups, tblSecurityUsers) and code the whole thing?

If you stay with MDBs as opposed to the new Accdb file format then you can
still use security with 2007. I think the lawyers convinced MS that
having something called "User Level Security" that was easily broken was a
potential liability.

If you need real security use a server database.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

Thanks Rick,

I don't use it for "real" security, I use it more as Access control, as I
suspect do most other developers. If I use the new file format, will I need
to hand code user access to database objects?

Paul
Jan 30 '07 #8

P: n/a
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:24:44 -0000, "Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote:

More power users: I say bring it on. I've heard the same complaint
with each version. Can you remember the last time a power user built a
decent app? I can't. Then the professionals come in to make it right.
The smart clients call us first.

-Tom.
<clip>
>
Thanks Keith,

The more I read about Access 2007, the more I believe Microsoft is fazing me
out. It doesn't want professional Access developers, it wants Access powers
users.

If I were to switch platforms (I only have Access experience) and still
wanted to be a "desktop" database developer (with maybe a leaning towards
learning server db development) what should I move to? FoxPro, Filemaker,
Oracle...etc..?

Paul
Jan 30 '07 #9

P: n/a
Yea,

I am looking at the situation now and thinking this could go one of two
ways:

1. Users become more savvy and build their own apps. For more complex apps
one of their "have-a-go" IT guys takes on Access development. My Access
development work dries up.

2. As above except I'm inundated with calls from people who now have
business critical data locked into a badly written app that needs rescuing!

I am cautiously optimistic that #2 will prevail. Microsoft has misjudged the
market before. They are trying to steer clients in a particular direction, I
hope they've got it wrong again and Access 2008 is the sexy RAD beast it
should be.

:o)

Paul
More power users: I say bring it on. I've heard the same complaint
with each version. Can you remember the last time a power user built a
decent app? I can't. Then the professionals come in to make it right.
The smart clients call us first.

-Tom.
<clip>
>>
Thanks Keith,

The more I read about Access 2007, the more I believe Microsoft is fazing
me
out. It doesn't want professional Access developers, it wants Access
powers
users.

If I were to switch platforms (I only have Access experience) and still
wanted to be a "desktop" database developer (with maybe a leaning towards
learning server db development) what should I move to? FoxPro, Filemaker,
Oracle...etc..?

Paul

Jan 30 '07 #10

P: n/a

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:uJ*******************@newssvr21.news.prodigy. net...
Paul H wrote:
>I don't use it for "real" security, I use it more as Access control,
as I suspect do most other developers. If I use the new file format,
will I need to hand code user access to database objects?

Well, IMO ULS was WAY overkill for basic Access control. For that I would
roll your own. I use exclusively server back ends and set up security on
the server, but I also have a custom system in the front end for providing
user-friendly "Permission Denied" or "Read Only" messages as opposed to
giving the user ODBC errors from the server. That is a lot more flexible
than using ULS.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
I have only developed Access front-end back-end dbs. The only time I have
stepped out of Access for a back-end is linking to an Excel spreadsheet!
Access provides so much out of the box, so I am just a little stressed at
being faced with writing another "house" procedure to cover an adequate tool
that has been dispensed with.

......Now I've actually got my brain in to gear, my own solution might
actually be better than the ULS...

Table: tblUserAccess
Fields: UserGroup, DBObject, PermissionType

Private Sub Form_Open(Cancel As Integer)
If ProcGroupPermissions = "No Access" Then Cancel = True
End Sub

Holy crap!

:O)

Paul
Jan 30 '07 #11

P: n/a

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:7P*******************@newssvr21.news.prodigy. net...
Paul H wrote:
>The more I read about Access 2007, the more I believe Microsoft is
fazing me out. It doesn't want professional Access developers, it
wants Access powers users.

Agree 100%. The campaign to kill Access as a serious development tool
started with Office 2000 and has advanced with each new release.
Developer's do not make MS money. Users do.
>If I were to switch platforms (I only have Access experience) and
still wanted to be a "desktop" database developer (with maybe a
leaning towards learning server db development) what should I move
to? FoxPro, Filemaker, Oracle...etc..?

That would depend entirely on one question. Do you want the best, most
productive platform, or do you want a platform where your skills in that
platform are more marketable? Unfortunately, those two goals have been
exclusive for some time now.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
If I am being brutally honest, I would say I want to go with the platform
where the money is. A lot of my customers are small businesses who are
"desperate" for my help. There is a real job satisfaction in knowing that.
As a result they are happy to pay. I take enough pride in my work to be
confident that the client is getting the best solution for their budget. I
would like to retain these qualities if I move to another "Desktop" database
platform. Or should I hang on to Access 2007 and see how it pans out? Will
all those user written apps in fact be a positive thing for chaps like me
who can pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong?

I always get like this when MS release new versions...what with Vista as
well...I'm a nervous wreck at the moment!

Paul

P.S. And I'm moving house...aaaaarghhh.
Jan 30 '07 #12

P: n/a
"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote in
news:uJ*******************@newssvr21.news.prodigy. net:
Well, IMO ULS was WAY overkill for basic Access control. For that
I would roll your own. I use exclusively server back ends and set
up security on the server, but I also have a custom system in the
front end for providing user-friendly "Permission Denied" or "Read
Only" messages as opposed to giving the user ODBC errors from the
server. That is a lot more flexible than using ULS.
I would be happy to use NT Security groups and Active Directory
Organizational Units, but I've never found code for handling the
latter (I believe I had code for regular NT Security groups). The
whole OU thing really annoys me, as it's quite common to use OU's
for geographical separations that are distinct from user groups
(where you've got a lot of users with the same level of security,
just at different locations).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Jan 30 '07 #13

P: n/a
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in
news:S5******************************@eclipse.net. uk:
I have only developed Access front-end back-end dbs. The only time
I have stepped out of Access for a back-end is linking to an Excel
spreadsheet! Access provides so much out of the box, so I am just
a little stressed at being faced with writing another "house"
procedure to cover an adequate tool that has been dispensed with.
Er, why are you moving to the new database format?

What's the point?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Jan 30 '07 #14

P: n/a
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in
news:X9******************************@eclipse.net. uk:
If I am being brutally honest, I would say I want to go with the
platform where the money is. A lot of my customers are small
businesses who are "desperate" for my help. There is a real job
satisfaction in knowing that. As a result they are happy to pay. I
take enough pride in my work to be confident that the client is
getting the best solution for their budget. I would like to retain
these qualities if I move to another "Desktop" database platform.
Or should I hang on to Access 2007 and see how it pans out? Will
all those user written apps in fact be a positive thing for chaps
like me who can pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong?
When A2K dissatisfied many of us in this newsgroup, we embarked on
an attempt to see if we could come up with something on our own.
What we found out was that it would be incredibly difficult to build
something similar to Access with the same flexibility and ease of
use that also had the same incredible flexibility with data formats.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Jan 30 '07 #15

P: n/a
On Jan 30, 10:15 am, "Paul H" <p...@nospam.comwrote:
Yea,

I am looking at the situation now and thinking this could go one of two
ways:

1. Users become more savvy and build their own apps. For more complex apps
one of their "have-a-go" IT guys takes on Access development. My Access
development work dries up.
You need to embrace competition. Microsoft will only embrace
competition by the throat :-). It's their most glaring fault and the
cause of most of their current troubles.

As far as the IT guy getting into Access goes, remember that learning
Access well takes time. Most Access developers educate their
customers enough that they can spot an amateur quite easily. Until a
few years ago, my main customer thought they could replace me with any
random programmer off the street if I left and get the same results.
Their sister company needed some custom accounting reports in Access
(The accounting company charged $125/hr plus travel expenses for the
consultant). They had to call me in to fix things after the reports
were discovered to be full of bugs and after they got tired of
shuttling the consultant back and forth. A Gold Certified Microsoft
Partner was called in to my main customer for a side job related to
ISO compliance (about $125+ / hr) because the customer's spreadsheet
ideas for Access were keeping me busy. Their experience with the ISO
job was better, but instead of using an Access backend for the Access
program, the developer installed Cold Fusion on the server for one of
the backend tables and set up a web interface to it. The customer's
reaction was that the entire application was simply not as smooth as
what I had done in Access for other similar tasks. Trust me when I
say that an amateur would have a lot of trouble getting an Access job
with them. The expense paid off anyway because it showed the ISO
people what the future plan is, but Cold Fusion won't be on the server
much longer in spite of how much I like Adobe. Note though, that I
was looking seriously at Adobe's XML based products before Microsoft
went in that direction based on a separate technology evaluation I did
a while ago. Plus, the SQL Server Express idea came out just as I was
looking at a possible future migration path to PostgreSQL for Access
backends. Timing, they say, is everything. IMO, Microsoft was able
to steer their ship through dangerous waters without mishap. After
those experiences my main customer became more deferential toward me.
>
2. As above except I'm inundated with calls from people who now have
business critical data locked into a badly written app that needs rescuing!
A badly written app that needs rescuing is a terrible situation for a
developer. In those kinds of apps the pseudo-developer took a wrong
step at step one and continued from there. The customer has spent
most of the money they budgeted for the project already so they'll be
tight. They'll have lost their trust in custom software development.
They'll have unreal expectations about the development cost of the
project. They'll think the bad design can be tweaked into shape.
Paradise will be lost for programmers as a result of A2K7 :-).
I am cautiously optimistic that #2 will prevail. Microsoft has misjudged the
market before. They are trying to steer clients in a particular direction, I
hope they've got it wrong again and Access 2008 is the sexy RAD beast it
should be.
In spite of it's departures from RAD I think Access 2007 will
eventually be considered RAD compared to the alternatives.

James A. Fortune
CD********@FortuneJames.com

Jan 30 '07 #16

P: n/a
In spite of it's departures from RAD I think Access 2007 will
eventually be considered RAD compared to the alternatives.

James A. Fortune
CD********@FortuneJames.com
I agree. And further, a2007 does have really nice features, and many of
those features where
driven by developers.

Some nice features are:

* A built in "drop down" calendar for data. (my goodness....about
time..don't you think!!!).

* PDF and XPF export (adobe complained...so, the pdf feature had to be
pulled out..but, there is a download to get this feature back). Again, a LOT
of people asked for pdf..and we now have it...

* Control Auto-Resize and Anchoring

* Support for new image types, Binding image control to UNC path.
Wow!!!....about time. This means that we can store images in a
database...and it don't bloat. But, further, the fact that we can bind the
image control to a path name means we can even use this in a continues form.
(that means I can have a country name...and display the flag beside
that...and do this without code). What this means is that now ms-access can
be FAR better used for applications in which you want to display catalogs,
or have multiple images show on one continues form. Well done!!!, and a HUGE
feature IMHO. Finally, many of the weak image issues are addressed here.

* Transparent buttons, Transparency on tab backgrounds -- again...often
asked for....

* Rich Text - again...about time.....

* Scroll wheel in VBA!! - not a huge feature...but, we complained for
years...now we have it!

* very cool new ribbon interface - make your software look new!!

* design forms, or reports in "view" mode. This is much for power users as
compared to developers..but, for report layout..kind of nice...

* tabbed interface for each form launched.

There is many other features I am leaving out, but one big one is:

** DEVELOPER TOOLS and runtime WILL NOW BE FREE!!!...

So, if they are going to provide the developer tools, package wizard and
runtime for free..that is hardy a view that says developers don't matter
anymore...is it??? I rather impressed with most of the new features. The
ONLY big loss here is ULS, and in my case, it will be simple matter to roll
my own....

I am actually quite excited by this new release.
--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
Feb 1 '07 #17

P: n/a
Albert D. Kallal wrote:
I agree. And further, a2007 does have really nice features, and many of
those features where
driven by developers.
Good god, what's wrong with you Albert? You're supposed to bitch and
complain about new releases!!!!

In all seriousness, has anyone done any major conversions of
applications from 2003 to 2007?
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Be Careful, Big Bird!" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
Feb 1 '07 #18

P: n/a

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in
news:S5******************************@eclipse.net. uk:
>I have only developed Access front-end back-end dbs. The only time
I have stepped out of Access for a back-end is linking to an Excel
spreadsheet! Access provides so much out of the box, so I am just
a little stressed at being faced with writing another "house"
procedure to cover an adequate tool that has been dispensed with.

Er, why are you moving to the new database format?

What's the point?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Pier pressure? ;o)

It's good question and one I hadn't really though about, I just assumed it
was "correct" to develop Access dbs in the most up to date format. But now
it appears that the new format is restrictive.

Paul
Feb 1 '07 #19

P: n/a

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in
news:S5******************************@eclipse.net. uk:
>I have only developed Access front-end back-end dbs. The only time
I have stepped out of Access for a back-end is linking to an Excel
spreadsheet! Access provides so much out of the box, so I am just
a little stressed at being faced with writing another "house"
procedure to cover an adequate tool that has been dispensed with.

Er, why are you moving to the new database format?

What's the point?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Pier pressure? ;o)

It's good question and one I hadn't really though about, I just assumed it
was "correct" to develop Access dbs in the most up to date format. But now
it appears that the new format is restrictive.

Paul

Feb 1 '07 #20

P: n/a

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@127.0.0.1 ...
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in
news:X9******************************@eclipse.net. uk:
>If I am being brutally honest, I would say I want to go with the
platform where the money is. A lot of my customers are small
businesses who are "desperate" for my help. There is a real job
satisfaction in knowing that. As a result they are happy to pay. I
take enough pride in my work to be confident that the client is
getting the best solution for their budget. I would like to retain
these qualities if I move to another "Desktop" database platform.
Or should I hang on to Access 2007 and see how it pans out? Will
all those user written apps in fact be a positive thing for chaps
like me who can pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong?

When A2K dissatisfied many of us in this newsgroup, we embarked on
an attempt to see if we could come up with something on our own.
What we found out was that it would be incredibly difficult to build
something similar to Access with the same flexibility and ease of
use that also had the same incredible flexibility with data formats.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Don't get me wrong, I love Access. As I mentioned in another part of this
thread, I get very jumpy every time MS releases an update of a package that
I am comfortable with. Overall, Access 2007 appears to have no improvements
for developers, so my gripe is partly down to having to buy Access 2007 even
though, as a tool, it is marginally worse that the one I am using (2003).

Cheers,

Paul
Feb 1 '07 #21

P: n/a
<Snip>
>
There is many other features I am leaving out, but one big one is:

** DEVELOPER TOOLS and runtime WILL NOW BE FREE!!!...

So, if they are going to provide the developer tools, package wizard and
runtime for free..that is hardy a view that says developers don't matter
anymore...is it??? I rather impressed with most of the new features. The
ONLY big loss here is ULS, and in my case, it will be simple matter to
roll my own....

I am actually quite excited by this new release.
--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
>>>>>>Handbrake skids into the carpark at comp.databases.ms-access!!!!!!
FREE developer tools!!!!??

When? How? Why? Where?

Gimmee, gimmee.

I am days away from shelling out 650 to get the run-time for Access 2003.
Tell me more, PLEASE!

Paul
Feb 1 '07 #22

P: n/a
"Albert D. Kallal" <Pl*******************@msn.comwrote in
news:IWhwh.844202$R63.195386@pd7urf1no:
* PDF and XPF export (adobe complained...so, the pdf feature had
to be pulled out..but, there is a download to get this feature
back). Again, a LOT of people asked for pdf..and we now have it...
But you can provide that functionality in other ways and have it be
independent of Access upgrades and downloads and the like. As long
as you're going to have to download something, I don't see how MS's
approach is going to be superior to any other, such as installing
PDF995 or use Stephen Lebans's code.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Feb 1 '07 #23

P: n/a
Tim Marshall <TI****@PurplePandaChasers.Moertheriumwrote in
news:ep*********@coranto.ucs.mun.ca:
In all seriousness, has anyone done any major conversions of
applications from 2003 to 2007?
I have no intention to do so, but one of the major bugs for me and
my clients would be the fact that running in A2K7 a replicated app
that uses the DAO Synchronize method will fail. MS acknowledges it
and admits it was a regression from the last Beta. They are talking
about a hotfix for it. Until that's out, you'd have to use JRO,
which is bloody stupid, since if you're using DAO, it's probably
because you rightly concluded that JRO was a bad choice.

My bet is that there are lots of other things like this that haven't
emerged yet.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Feb 1 '07 #24

P: n/a
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in
news:tI*********************@eclipse.net.uk:
>
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...
>"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in
news:S5******************************@eclipse.net .uk:
>>I have only developed Access front-end back-end dbs. The only
time I have stepped out of Access for a back-end is linking to
an Excel spreadsheet! Access provides so much out of the box, so
I am just a little stressed at being faced with writing another
"house" procedure to cover an adequate tool that has been
dispensed with.

Er, why are you moving to the new database format?

What's the point?

Pier pressure? ;o)
Been sittin' on a dock of the bay?
It's good question and one I hadn't really though about, I just
assumed it was "correct" to develop Access dbs in the most up to
date format. But now it appears that the new format is
restrictive.
Experience should teach us to be quite skeptical of MS's "latest and
greates" campaigns, what with the utter abandonment of ADO as
preferred data interface layer for Access, and the coming
abandonment of ADPs. Some of us recognized both as misguided in
motivation and implementation, and didn't drink the Kool Aid. Others
trusted MS to get right eventually. Now, 8 years later, MS is in the
process of abandoning both.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Feb 1 '07 #25

P: n/a
"Paul H" <pa**@nospam.comwrote in
news:D5******************************@eclipse.net. uk:
As I mentioned in another part of this
thread, I get very jumpy every time MS releases an update of a
package that I am comfortable with. Overall, Access 2007 appears
to have no improvements for developers, so my gripe is partly down
to having to buy Access 2007 even though, as a tool, it is
marginally worse that the one I am using (2003).
Er, what makes you think you have to buy it? I'm certianly not going
to do so, except after a year or two of patches and experience on
the part of other developers.

Everybody said "oh, get A2K so you can learn how to use ADO!" I
didn't do that and have never had to write any ADO code, and well,
at this point, I'll never have to if I don't choose to do so.

This is one case where conservatism is admirable, seems to me.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Feb 1 '07 #26

P: n/a
FREE developer tools!!!!??
>
When? How? Why? Where?

Gimmee, gimmee.

I am days away from shelling out 650 to get the run-time for Access 2003.
Tell me more, PLEASE!
Yes, they will be free for a2007. The runtime, and package wizard tools to
build and
deploy an application for a2007 will be a free download..

You will no longer have to purchase the developer edition of ms-access.

Competitive upgrades for ms-access 2003 hover around $109.
The suggest price for access 2007 upgrade price is also going
to be $109 dollars (at least that is what is says on their web
site). So, it very reasonable priced. If you don't have
a prevous version, then the full suggested retaail
price of ms-access is $229.

Note that access 97 was dropped as a qualifying upgrade, but
do keep one of those zillions of office 2000 disks laying around,
and you can get access 2007 for $109, and that will include
the devleoper tools. Note that the runtime, and developer
tools are not yet relasted for a2007..but, they will be a
future free download.

So, competivate upgrade can be used if you have access 2000-2003, and
you can get it for $109 then....

So,
when access starts including the developers tools...not a bad deal
at all for $109.....

So, it looks like the developer tools/additions will be free. That don't
help you for a2003..but, for a2007...kind of nice....

Right from the horses mouth (microsoft's access leader):
http://blog.msdn.com/clintcovington
--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
Feb 1 '07 #27

P: n/a
On 30 ene, 14:33, "Rick Brandt" <rickbran...@hotmail.comwrote:
Paul H wrote:
The more I read about Access 2007, the more I believe Microsoft is
fazing me out. It doesn't want professional Access developers, it
wants Access powers users.

Agree 100%. The campaign to kill Access as a serious development tool
started with Office 2000 and has advanced with each new release.
Developer's do not make MS money. Users do.
If I were to switch platforms (I only have Access experience) and
still wanted to be a "desktop" database developer (with maybe a
leaning towards learning server db development) what should I move
to? FoxPro, Filemaker, Oracle...etc..?

That would depend entirely on one question. Do you want the best, most
productive platform, or do you want a platform where your skills in that
platform are more marketable? Unfortunately, those two goals have been
exclusive for some time now.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Hi,

Has anyone tried a software development tool called "Velneo"?

I work with Access for 6 years and right now I am just initiating on
this new tool and, to me, it is far superior than Access and much more
powerful. It is also cheaper than Access.

Does anyone has any opinion about?

Thanks.

A.Mazo

Feb 2 '07 #28

P: n/a

Thanks for the info Albert.

Paul
Feb 5 '07 #29

P: n/a
On Feb 1, 5:55 pm, "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkal...@msn.com>
wrote:
Note that access 97 was dropped as a qualifying upgrade, but
do keep one of those zillions of office 2000 disks laying around,
and you can get access 2007 for $109, and that will include
the devleoper tools. Note that the runtime, and developer
tools are not yet relasted for a2007..but, they will be a
future free download.
That won't be a problem for me. A2K was still buggy enough that the
company bought A2K licenses in order to run A97. My problem is that
there's only one A97 install disk left. The last time I tried to
download an important file from Microsoft, it detected that there was
an installation of A97 on a server matching mine and wouldn't allow me
to download it. The company is almost back to 100% license compliance
but not close enough yet to invite close scrutiny. I'm watching the
experiences of others with A2K7 closely to decide whether or not to
get the company to shell out about $30,000 for them and their sister
company to upgrade. I think I avoided using a runtime solution in the
company because I wanted people to use the database themselves for
their own data. Perhaps that was like Knuth thinking that everyone
would compile their own TeX format files instead of using what he
wrote. I am particularly interested in how A2K7 performs on 64-bit
machines.

James A. Fortune
CD********@FortuneJames.com

Feb 6 '07 #30

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.