[AccessD] Next Version of Access 12 Musings on what might ha ppen (RANT)

DWUTKA at marlow.com DWUTKA at marlow.com
Thu Feb 12 11:53:39 CST 2004


LOL!!!!!!

I completely forget that share.exe came out with 3.11.  And copy2pc sure
does bring back memories!  Just out of curiousity, do you have a gl-viewer?
<grin>

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Erwin Craps -
IT Helps
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:40 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Next Version of Access 12 Musings on what might
ha ppen (RANT)


Huummm....
In big lines you are right here my big changes list...

DOS 1.x > wow, I can copy files and floppies with this thing... But for
copying floppies you rather use copy2pc. You could even copy unix and
tbos and other os disks, even copy protected ones...

DOS 2.x > introduction of expanded memory (LIM/EMS)?

Dos 3.11 > WOW, share.exe is introduced, now we can access files
simulteanioulsy. Support of expanded (LIM/EMS) AND extended memory
(XMS). Yes the 1024 frontier finaly broken WOW.

DOS 4.21 > huumm, nothing new? Or was support of bigger disks
introduced? Yes something changed with FDISK.EXE. Aha 

DOS 5 > yipie, I can use UMB memory, I can put my keyb.com be back in my
autoexec and type in AZERTY when using an big memory consuming app.

DOS 6 > sniff, not much new, aha I can defrag my disk

W 3.x, THANK GOD, finaly, one printer driver for ALL applications....
(I use to sell printers in those days)

W95 > wow, some kind of multitasking thanks to 32 bit, I'm no longer
falling asleep when switching tasks.

W98 > O MY GOD, USB interface, finaly get rid of those RS-232
connections for which I never seem to have the right cable.

WNT4 > O MY GOD, I havent pressed RESET for 30 days now and this
multitasking is so fast!!!

W2K > FINALY, USB Support in a real OS (NT) and don't have to reboot
each time I make an OS change.

WXP > Oh no, I have to review my morning schedule. It boots so fast I
can no longer make cofee and drink two cups before I'm able to work.

And no, I did not forget about OS2 Lan manager 1.X, 2.0, NT 3.51 Windows
Me, Banyan Vines, SCO unix, Thoroughbread OS, Corvus PC-LAN, Netware,
PC-MOS, and ohter PC OS's.

PS: "My god" can be any god of your choice (for me thats my wife and
son).

Erwin


 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:49 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Next Version of Access 12 Musings on what might
ha ppen (RANT)

<snip>

>We work in a dynamic industry that is constantly changing. Some of us 
>seem to refuse to adapt or accept change and others look to the future.

>Cheers,
>Andrew

<Snip>

I actually agree with you, with a few exceptions.  I was just getting
'techie' with the DOS/Win 9x thing, I understand what the actual comment
was about.

However, the DOS example is actually a prime example of where I AGREE
with the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' issue.

Take DOS 6.22.  Nice OS.  Reliable, quick to boot, etc.  Now, why should
a company (take these agruments from a business perspective), implement
Windows 3.1, over DOS?  Windows 3.1 didn't provide multi-tasking
capability.
It actually didn't provide any real functionality that DOS didn't
already provide.  Yes, it provided a GUI interface, but that was about
it.  

Now, Windows 95 comes out.  What advantages did Windows 95 have over DOS
6.22.  Lots.  First, multi-tasking.  Sure, not true, because that
requires multiple processors, but it could run multiple tasks on the
same machine, without having to do them one at a time.  Windows 95
provided plug and play capabilities.  Instead of having your DOS based
software ask what type of video card you had, or what type of sound
card, etc, you could now write software that allowed Windows to handle
the drivers, and you could let the API's do the walking.

Then came Windows 98.  What advantages.....quite frankly, the only one
worth mentioning was the upgrade from FAT 16, to FAT 32.  But, later
versions of
95 also had FAT 32.

Then came Windows NT.  All of the advantages of Windows 95, but on a
MUCH more secure, and far more reliable platform.  

Then Windows ME.  Almost a step down from 98.  No real advantages.

Then Windows 2k.  Provided a lot of flexibility that NT 4.0 didn't have.
Got pretty close to merging Windows 98 looks/feel/ease of use, with the
rock solid NT platform.

Windows XP.  More glitz and glitter on Windows 2000.  No real
performance increases, major 'new items' were more inline with personal
use, versus corporate use (firewall, etc.).

So, over all, Starting from DOS, we could have the following chain:

DOS 6.22 (or earlier)-->Starting
Win 3.1 --> No
Windows 95 --> Yes
Windows 98 --> No
Windows NT 4.0 -->Yes
Windows ME --> HECK No
Windows 2k --> Yes
Windows XP --> No

That is 3 understandable upgrades, out of 7 available. (I think I am
missing NT 3.51, but I'm not sure where that came out, nor do I have any
experience in it....but I am mentioning it.).  So, if a company followed
that path, of
3 end user upgrades, are they going with a 'don't fix what ain't broken'
attitude?  Or are they simply not jumping on the upgrade bandwagon,
every time something gets put out the door from Redmond?

I believe in the same philosophy with Office products, and programming
languages.  However, I must admit that I am pretty new to the Access/VB
world (in relative terms).  I started with Access 97, in July of 1999,
and I started playing with VB, in December of 1999.  Since then, Access
2k has come out.  Initially, it was a buggy upgrade, but even with the
bugs fixed, the ONLY, and I mean ONLY reason I will use 2k over 97, on a
project (not influenced by customer requirements), is when I need to use
raiseevents.
Can't do it in Access 97.  Then Access XP (2002) came out.  Again, no
REAL improvement on what they built for 97.  Haven't seen Access 2003.

As for other Office compononents, FrontPage went through vast
improvements from 98, to 2k, to 2002 (haven't seen 2003).  The scripting
editor that comes with it is wonderful in 2002.

Office in general gets better with each version, in creating HTML files
to represent the original file formats.

However, with every office upgrade, would it be cost effective for a
company to upgrade, on each one?  Doubtful.  It's not a matter of if it
ain't broke, it's a matter of what's actually new, and improved, versus
what is just a little more fluff, and slightly better capabilities.

Does that make sense?

Drew








_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com


More information about the AccessD mailing list