William Hindman
wdhindman at dejpolsystems.com
Mon Jun 29 08:28:48 CDT 2009
...I second that emotion. William -------------------------------------------------- From: "jwcolby" <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:19 AM To: "Access Developers discussion and problem solving" <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Poll on Access 2007 > Boy is THAT well said. > > And that is the problem, Access is being gussified to sell it to the > masses, not fixed to sell it to > business who use it. > > John W. Colby > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > > Max Wanadoo wrote: >> William: >> >> Thanks for that link. >> >> Everybody (most all, anyway) keep referring to new FEATURES. I am more >> interested in BENEFITS. Any sales person will tell you that to make a >> sale >> you have to show the customer/client what BENEFITS the new features will >> bring to his business. >> >> IMO, features are useful to make initial sales to those who only have a >> "general feel for what they want and *think* that the list of benefits >> will >> do the job". It is also useful for more experienced people who think >> that >> their business strategy will sit well with the new look/feel and will be >> moving their product onto the new platform. For the Business Client who >> is >> paying for a developed package and who probably never touches a computer >> apart from letters and emails, the database driven backend is completely >> immaterial. This type of client is only concerned with run-times, >> throughput and output. He does not want his staff to sit there "playing' >> with the features. He wants them to do what he is paying them to do. >> >> Unless BENEFITS are open, obvious and cost-effective they are meaningless >> to >> developers. They cannot be leveraged on their existing business model >> because they do not deliver anything that can be passed on to the client >> and >> for which the client is willing to pay. >> >> IMO >> >> Max >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of William >> Hindman >> Sent: 29 June 2009 10:01 >> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Poll on Access 2007 >> >> Shamil >> >> http://blogs.msdn.com/access/archive/tags/Access+14/default.aspx >> >> ...that's the Access 14 team manager's blog. >> >> William >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Shamil Salakhetdinov" <shamil at smsconsulting.spb.ru> >> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:41 AM >> To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'" >> <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Poll on Access 2007 >> >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> I have heard there are should be many new features in MS Access 2010 - >>> is >>> that information on "What's new in MS Access 2010" already available >>> somewhere? >>> >>> Don't take "attacks" on your opinion on MS Access 2007 pros&cons too >>> close >>> to yourself - such "attacks" is a usual way to discuss "hot" topics >>> here - >>> welcome to the club! :) >>> >>> As for MS listening or not to MS Access (VBA) developers: they are >>> listening >>> I think but they apply a strong "noise filter" on what they hear - and >>> that >>> filter does very probably filter out many things advanced MS Access >>> (VBA) >>> developers urge for but MS finds them to be irrelevant to their own >>> business... >>> >>> Microsoft do you hear me? :) >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> -- >>> Shamil >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >>> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Steve Schapel >>> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:28 AM >>> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >>> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Poll on Access 2007 >>> >>> Darryl, >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Darryl Collins" <Darryl.Collins at coles.com.au> >>> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:31 PM >>> >>>> ... I hope you are backing the right horse here Steve. >>> Thanks very much for your comments. As you know, we are rapidly >>> approaching >>> >>> the release of the next version. Access 2007 was always going to be an >>> interim measure, as a step moving towards new paradigms. I will have a >>> better idea whether I'm backing the right horse after we have built some >>> Access 2010 apps. >>> >>>> MS Access has been on the edge before and I think it is now again. >>> Ever since I first started using Access in 1994, there have been >>> vehement >>> claims in one quarter or another that Access is dead, Microsoft is >>> dropping >>> Access, X and Y are better than Access, etc. I don't know about "on the >>> edge", but really a turning point. What I think will happen is that >>> those >>> who abandon Access because of the new directions, will be replaced by >>> others >>> >>> who embrace it and move forward with it. >>> >>> If you're one of those who moves to other technologies, I understand the >>> reasons, and have no criticism, and I hope there is nothing I have said >>> to >>> imply otherwise. I wish you well with that. But for me, at this stage >>> it >>> looks like I will be sticking with Access for the long haul. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>> signature >>> database 4194 (20090628) __________ >>> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>> >>> http://www.esetnod32.ru >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >