[AccessD] New Software releases Was: ADP vs Access mdb/SQL

"A new platform would probably have the entire Office Suite (and some)
completely built into it's 'accessories'." Drew

...like there's a chance in hell of that happening ...the Office Suite makes
one heck of a lot more money for MS than all of it's OS products put
together ...no way it will ever be accessorized :)))))

"I know that I'll probably get yelled at about this paragraph, but you have
to admit, that is a BIG advantage." Drew

...no I don't ...I make a good bit of money off of MS product "upgrades"
...besides which, if I made VB my primary development environment, I'd have
to triple my client's costs just to account for the increased development
time it requires :)))))

William Hindman
What's the five-day forecast for Baghdad? Three days.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Drew Wutka" <DWUTKA at marlow.com>
To: <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:44 AM
Subject: [AccessD] New Software releases Was: ADP vs Access mdb/SQL


> Arthur, I feel your pain! <grin>
>
> A lot of what you talked about is EXACTLY why I am still using 97 for a
> majority of my work.  If A2k would have been a more solid release, then I
> may have moved up a notch, but with as poorly as it performed when first
> released, I was concreted in my opinion to stick with 97.
>
> There are several problems/reasons with Microsoft's 'version' strategy.
>
> Each new release has little advantage over the previous release.
> Why?  Simple, they don't want to reinvent the wheel, and to truly increase
a
> products capability, most of the time you need to start from scratch, so
> that you don't have the same obstacles you had when designing the early
> version.  You can build from the ground up, keeping in mind what you are
> trying 'avoid' or improve.
>
> A lot of what IS changed in a new release is the look and feel.
> That is something that is relatively easy to accomplish.  Take an old
crappy
> car, give it a new paint job (and take out any dents), and you have
probably
> seriously increased it's resale value.  Have you really increased it's
value
> though? Not by much.  You have just made it shiner and prettier.
> Unfortunately, most of the computer/software buying world is put in
complete
> rapture by shiny / pretty packages.  (There's no other reason for Mac's
> popularity! <evilgrin>).
>
> Microsoft DOES NOT have the Access developer in mind when they make
> a new release.  Why?  Simple, WE AREN'T THEIR MARKET SHARE!  Who buys more
> copies of Access, developers or end users?  End Users of course.  Thus,
does
> Microsoft want to cater Access to the developer, or to the end user?  If
> they had half a brain, they would ignore their accountants/marketing
folks,
> and cater to the developers, because the developers are what REALLY make
the
> end users buy Access.  But they don't, they make Access 'simpler' and
> 'easier' for the end user.  There is a problem with that though.  If they
> truly made Access 'smart', so that anyone could do what we all do for a
> living, then they would have a really great product.  Unfortunately, that
is
> not going to happen for quite some time, because it would be virtually
> impossible to handle ALL of the scenarios we are put to the test on.
>
> Another problem with truly improving a product is the platform the
> product is designed for.  I heard that Office 11 will not run on Windows
95
> (or maybe it was 9x).  That is actually a step in the right direction
(sort
> of).  The NT architecture has serious advantages over the 9x machines,
> however, if you have to design software to be backwards compatible, to a
> 'lesser' system, then you aren't going to get much of an increase in
> performance, if you get any at all!
>
> A new platform type is probably going to hit in a few years.  Let's
> take the 'major' Microsoft OSes.  DOS, Windows 95 (though it's really DOS
> 7.0...we'll call it an OS for now...), Windows 2000.  Now, for
simplicities
> sake, let's look at the processor speed that these run well on.  It's
> roughly a factor of 10.  10 mhz, 100 mhz, and 1000 mhz.  I know that's not
> when they were released, but at those speeds, the associated OS ran just
> fine on them.  Going by that, the next real jump will be when we have 10
> gigahertz processors available.  If you look at what is currently
available
> technology wise, it's possible to even predict some of the innate
> capabilities of a new platform.  Windows 2000 can already index your file
> system, which immensely increases file searches.  A truly new platform may
> be able to index down to the actual data level, increasing ALL searches
> (both files and db).  You also have speech to text and a limited 'plain
> language' SQL available.  With the resources that will be available at 10
> gigahertz (remember, HD speed and space will increase, RAM will increase,
> etc.), it would be possible to truly have an intelligent machine that you
> could just talk too.  ('Wish Mom a Merry Christmas'...turns into an
instant
> email with Christmas greetings sent to your mother.  To do that now, with
> Speech to Text, you would have to 'talk' your computer through it.).
>
> When a new platform comes out, THAT's when there will be a truly new
> Access, if it is still a separate package.  Not that MS would
intentionally
> destroy Access, but look at XP.  You have a built in firewall (if you can
> call it that! <grin>), and also built in Zip technology.  A new platform
> would probably have the entire Office Suite (and some) completely built
into
> it's 'accessories'.
>
> Oh well, enough predicting.....
>
> There is one thing that is going to really 'protect' the developers
> world.  Access is not a stand alone package, by that I mean that you don't
> have to have Access to use it, and you also don't have to use it ONLY
within
> Access.  Access is a great database system.  To protect an application
from
> getting caught in the MS product update loop, just don't make FE's in
> Access.  Access FE's are susceptible to Office upgrades.  Sure, if the
> upgrade is perfect, then there's no issue, but can that be guaranteed?
> However, a Web or VB interface to an Access database is not going to be
> affected one bit, by an Office upgrade.  If you have a 97 BE, with a VB
FE,
> and you go install Office 2002, or Office 11, you don't have to worry
about
> your VB/Access project one bit!  I know that I'll probably get yelled at
> about this paragraph, but you have to admit, that is a BIG advantage.
> Access is extremely capable of making very impressive GUI's to it's data,
> but it's fatal flaw is the MS product update cycle.
>
> Drew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Fuller [mailto:artful at rogers.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:16 PM
> To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
> Subject: RE: [AccessD] ADP vs Access mdb/SQL
>
>
> F**K the NDA. You listers want an ostensible insider's take? Not that I'm
> close to the bone, just that I have a beta and few high friends in low
> places.
>
> <snip>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>