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

[Bill Benson]

RE: " using 2010 and
then trying to drop back to 2007."

Who in their right mind does that??!

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Jim Dettman <jimdettman at verizon.net>
wrote:

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