[AccessD] Basic Question (Probably) that I just don't know

Jim Dettman jimdettman at verizon.net
Sat Sep 24 09:23:46 CDT 2016


David,

 Not sure if you consider A2010 "good" or not, but A2010 was the last
version that had support for ADP's, replication, .DBF's, and JET 3.x.
Here's the list of everything that was dropped starting with A2013:

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Discontinued-features-and-modified-
functionality-in-Access-2013-BC006FC3-5B48-499E-8C7D-9A2DFEF68E2F

 and FWIW, A2010 is pretty solid on the desktop side as long as you moving
forward.  Most of the issues with it were related to folks using 2010 and
then trying to drop back to 2007.

Jim.
-----Original Message-----
From: AccessD [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of
David McAfee
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 03:18 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Basic Question (Probably) that I just don't know

Jim, I think you meant to say:
 A2010 was the last good version of Access.

Actually:
 A2003 was the last good version of Access.  ;)

I miss ADPs.


On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Jim Dettman <jimdettman at verizon.net>
wrote:

> <<
> 1. Does Access still support replication?
> >>
>
>  Starting with A2013, no.  A2010 was the last "full feature" version of
> Access.  Replication was dropped along with ADP's.
>
> <<
> 2. Why would a seasoned developer would choose an MDB or ACCDB back end
> when so many actual database servers for free (SQL Express, MySQL,
MariaDB,
> PostGreSQL, SQLite... the list goes on),
> >>
>
>  A seasoned developer probably would not.
>
>  Only thing I could think of is if someone wanted to take advantage of
> something in ACE which is not in any other DB (say the attachment data
> type), which is being driven by a customer requirement.
>
>  The other reasons might be data type incompatibility (i.e. the fun you
can
> have with floating point and bit fields), and last but not least, just
ease
> of use.   Even today, there is still a niche (now very small though) where
> a
> ACE DB BE might make sense.  Someone with no real IT staff, small
> databases,
> and small number of users.
>
>  But more often that not, some other BE is the way to go as you say.
>
> <<
> One last thought: the port from an Access BE to a genuine server DB
> facilitates the move to web/mobile apps, and that is a rapidly-increasing,
> even dominant market segment. So Access developers have to be planning an
> Exit Strategy, since it is quite clear that MS has little or no interest
in
> providing one.
> >>
>
>  I can't say much on that front other than to say pay attention to what is
> being asked for on Access user voice:
>
> https://access.uservoice.com
>
>
>  You'll find that what most are looking for is improvements in the desktop
> and I think Microsoft is listening to that.  While some people are looking
> for a web product, most seem to want enhancements in the desktop product.
>
>  Web apps are certainly gaining ground, in many businesses it's still a
> more
> traditional approach to applications for back office work.
>
> Jim.
>
>
>
> --
> 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