[AccessD] Future of Access?

I support that.

I have a friend who's company bought a bunch of scrapped IBM system 36s a
couple of years ago so they would have parts.

I have clients that still use DOS apps. (Their client's use them and they
have to support their client's too.)

I have client's that still use Cobol programs from the late 60s all bandaged
up however they need to be to just keep running.

I have a friend who still has to use a Wang system.

Last week I met with a potential client who wanted to add a separate UI to
their database for another department to use so they could keep the client
information in common DB. Good Idea, except the data was kept in an
undocumented encrypted file and the UI was a DOS program with no indication
of the source. (Beside the fact that their Pentium I based WinNT Server is
on its death bed.)

Monday I finally convinced a client to upgrade from a 486 with Win95.

Yesterday morning I worked on a PCs running Win95 (at a large international
company which recently laid off all of its maintenance staff)

Yesterday afternoon I reconfigured a PI 133 running Win95.

Right now I am headed to a client who is convinced that Win98 is far
superior than WinXP. He is convinced of this because his client management
software is DOS based and the company is having a difficult time (to say the
least) upgrading it for XP.

Yes, I do discuss the advantages of upgrading, migrating or whatever they
may need to do in their respective circumstances. But when times get a
little tight (Yes, times are tight around here, refer to my job list above),
these kind of people get even tighter. They won't budge. The only way
they'll follow MS upgrade advice is if Bill buys and support sit for them
;o)

Many people just don't react to technology the way we do. If The WinNT based
OS (and Access of some version) isn't still being used in this sector in 20
years I'll be shocked, and I'd guess 30.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Gustav Brock
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 1:59 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Future of Access?
>
>
> Hi Susan
>
> First, I wouldn't mind building that app in Access. Neither the amount
> of data nor the count of users is very large. Given Access and Windows
> (including Win3.11) have been here for 10 years, there's no reason to
> believe they will not be at hand for another 10 years - somehow. That
> leaves amble time for picking up the trend and in due time port the
> app to whatever arising technology. If you really must you can today
> easily find a computer running DOS and dBase III which indicates that
> with zero maintenance you could count on a system running for 15
> years. That may change but you could probably count on porting that
> app two or three times only and still have satisfied users.
>
> Second, I don't hate Microsoft. Access is an excellent product, so is
> Windows 2000. The bad thing about MS is that they are not listening to
> the customers but to their wallet; they are forcing "empty" upgrades
> at big money often directly against the expressed wishes by the
> customers. This means that every product - no matter which - could be
> ceased by MS with short notice. If they invented an revolutionary
> database engine they would not hesitate a second abandoning SQL Server
> 20xx telling you that you "just need to upgrade to your own advantage"
> at a cost of course. And they force or cheat you to sign in on their
> Passport servers for no good reason other than to get hold on you. This
> is the true nature of MS. I see it in every detail of their acting and
> behaviour and you can choose to live it - as I do with Access - or
> stay off, because you have no chance to change it. Or put it the other
> way: you cannot trust MS to evolve along a route that fits the
> customers' needs. That's why I use the word unpredictable.
>
> Therefor I gave the question a thought - is it possible to build an
> app that will last for 30 years? Basically I don't think so, or
> rather: I don't think it will be the optimum route to go.
> But think about it; every IT student today learns Java. Java runs on
> everything - from wristwatches to Macs to mainframes. If you have to,
> you can today run an old Fortran or Cobol program - and I'm convinced
> that Java will stay for longer than 30 years. You will, of course,
> have smarter tools at that time like vocal designers or tools
> controlled by eye movement or high level tools where you specify the
> input and output and some desing rules and everything in between is
> created automatically in a few seconds. A Jave Virtual Machine may
> evolve into a single chip you stick on where you need it.
>
> Regarding the database engine I think the relational model is so
> proven that it will last for more than 30 years. Someday we will have
> computers that fast that even massive amounts of flat data can be
> searched in split seconds, but still, a relational model may be faster
> returning the same results in milli- or microseconds. Given the sheer
> amount of Oracle engines running around the World I'm convinced that
> in 30 years you will have an Oracle 18 or some other thing where a
> nice and decent upgrade route is possible. If not, a DB2 or DB4 will
> be there ready to pick up the Oracle clients. Or vice versa.
>
> Now, combine the commitment from BOTH Oracle and IBM to Java and you
> have the answer.
>
> This is not to say that we all should switch to Java - personally I
> haven't programmed a single line in Java - and there are many
> languages out there well fitted for many special purposes and few
> projects have a 30 years life span.
>
> /gustav
>
>
> >> If you are thinking of keeping the same app and database engine alive
> >> for 30 years I would go for Java and Oracle or DB2. Microsoft is indeed
> >> unpredictable for a time span of this size.
>
> > ===========Gustav, this is a sincere question -- not meant to punch
> > anyone -- but what makes you think anyone will be anymore
> predictable than
> > MS? In 30 years, relational storage as we know it may be archaic
> > technology -- that's a long long time to fuss at MS for not
> producing what
> > it's producing now.
>
> > I know MS is everyone's favorite "we love to hate..." and I
> don't have a lot
> > of practical experience with anything other than MS, but if the
> news I read
> > is to be believed, I don't see that IMB or Oracle are any
> better ... they're
> > all just trying to keep up with the technology demands.
>
> > I don't know nothing about birthing babies... but data
> warehousing really
> > seems to be the trend, and if I had money, I'd lay a bet that
> in 30 years,
> > no one but desktop users and companies that refuse to change
> will be using
> > relational systems. That's just my bet, but ...
>
> > As to the actual question -- I don't think anyone's company
> should expect
> > them to know the trends of the future -- but building a model that's
> > flexible and easily adaptable to the business trends and growth
> would be, in
> > my mind, more efficient than producing a plan that points the future in
> > specific directions. As long as the relational database is
> sound, I see no
> > reason why it shouldn't upgrade to anything the technology future should
> > throw at us... so in that respect, I'm not sure the future "plan" is as
> > important as the soundness of the application right now.
>
> > Sorry... I'm not picking on you Gustav and you responded well,
> I just have
> > to disagree that any product is predictable in a 30 year time frame.
>
> > Susan  H.
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>