Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com > wrote in
news:3+7skzGtM+ ODFwil@shrdlu.c om:
[color=blue]
> In message <d7jmj1h0i4g559 3lqjsi9kodeoi0g io2qu@4ax.com>,
> "(PeteCresswell )" <a@b.c.invalid. USA> writes
>[color=green]
>>This .Bat file is large, ugly, and quite intimidating. But it's
>>also been working for over 10 years with no problems and once
>>somebody understands what is
>>where, it's reasonably easy to clone for another app/LAN.[/color]
>
> It's worth noting that Microsoft is revising the command-line
> shell for the next version of Windows, the new version is
> currently in beta. If anyone make a lot of use of batch files, or
> has one that is business-critical, they might want to take a look
> at it. The new shell is quite different to the MS-DOS emulator in
> current versions of Windows.[/color]

Are you suggesting that MS will make this new command shall
incompatible with legacy command scripts and batch files? I find
that suggestion to be massively implausible, as it would go against
MS's entire history of maintaining backward compatibility at all
costs.

MS can't afford to break literally trillions of batch and command
scripts that are already in existence out there.

They've done an excellent job of keeping the NT command prompt
compatible with the DOS command shell. I can't see that MS would add
new functionality in a way that would break the old.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[(PeteCresswell)]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

Per Bernard Peek:[color=blue]
>It's worth noting that Microsoft is revising the command-line shell for
>the next version of Windows, the new version is currently in beta. If
>anyone make a lot of use of batch files, or has one that is
>business-critical, they might want to take a look at it. The new shell
>is quite different to the MS-DOS emulator in current versions of
>Windows.[/color]

Uh-Oh..... Thanks for the warning.
--
PeteCresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

Per David W. Fenton:[color=blue]
>A97 could survive multiple users opening the same MDB pretty well.[/color]

Even with 97, you've got the dilemma of printer conflicts. Suppose user A
changes a report to go to printer #1, but user B can only get to printer #2?
--
PeteCresswell

[Baz]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

"David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns96E09E3 5FA0B6dfentonbw aynetinvali@216 .196.97.142...
[color=blue]
> MS's entire history of maintaining backward compatibility at all
> costs.
>[/color]

Ha! Just ask the VB6 fraternity about that...

[Bernard Peek]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

In message <Xns96E09E35FA0 B6dfentonbwayne tinvali@216.196 .97.142>, David
W. Fenton <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> writes
[color=blue]
>Are you suggesting that MS will make this new command shall
>incompatible with legacy command scripts and batch files? I find
>that suggestion to be massively implausible, as it would go against
>MS's entire history of maintaining backward compatibility at all
>costs.
>
>MS can't afford to break literally trillions of batch and command
>scripts that are already in existence out there.[/color]

I'd expect them to aim for complete compatibility but I don't expect
100% success. If your batch files are business critical then you really
need to check compatibility for yourself.



--
Bernard Peek
London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author.

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

"Baz" <bazz@REMOVEbca p.THEeuro1net.C APScom> wrote in
news:dhirgt$27a $1@news.e7even. com:
[color=blue]
> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns96E09E3 5FA0B6dfentonbw aynetinvali@216 .196.97.142...
>[color=green]
>> MS's entire history of maintaining backward compatibility at all
>> costs.[/color]
>
> Ha! Just ask the VB6 fraternity about that...[/color]

They maintained backward compatibility. They abandoned forward
compatibility. That's very different.

It's similar to the move from Access Basic to VBA between Access 2
and Access 95. The new version of Access converted almost everything
perfectly, and even included a compatibility library to allow you to
run your code without converting completely. Even eliminating that
library offered up only a very small number of issues that needed to
be altered.

Microsoft *does* make major breaks in order to upgrade functionality
significantly.

But they always make that transition as easy as possible.

The move to VB.NET was, perhaps, not as easy as others, but that was
basically because VB no longer exists -- they replaced it with a
port of C# to a VB-like syntax. I understand why they did it, but I
don't think it was the right way to do it.

But an OS is *very* different from a development platform, and in OS
components, they are very, very good with maintaining backward
compatibility. I have a client running a dBase II app compiled in
1983, and it works just fine and dandy on his WinXP box.

I expect a new command prompt to be implemented more like that than
like VB.NET.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

"(PeteCresswell )" <a@b.c.invalid. USA> wrote in
news:qdbpj1d79c c1r407ef0uu5qu0 9em7068v5@4ax.c om:
[color=blue]
> Per David W. Fenton:[color=green]
>>A97 could survive multiple users opening the same MDB pretty well.[/color]
>
> Even with 97, you've got the dilemma of printer conflicts.
> Suppose user A changes a report to go to printer #1, but user B
> can only get to printer #2?[/color]

That's true.

I wouldn't know about those things, though, because I've never
deployed a single unsplit mult-user app in my whole Access
development career.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Rick Brandt]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

David W. Fenton wrote:[color=blue]
> "Baz" <bazz@REMOVEbca p.THEeuro1net.C APScom> wrote in
> news:dhirgt$27a $1@news.e7even. com:
>[color=green]
>> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96E09E3 5FA0B6dfentonbw aynetinvali@216 .196.97.142...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> MS's entire history of maintaining backward compatibility at all
>>> costs.[/color]
>>
>> Ha! Just ask the VB6 fraternity about that...[/color]
>
> They maintained backward compatibility. They abandoned forward
> compatibility. That's very different.
>
> It's similar to the move from Access Basic to VBA between Access 2
> and Access 95. The new version of Access converted almost everything
> perfectly, and even included a compatibility library to allow you to
> run your code without converting completely. Even eliminating that
> library offered up only a very small number of issues that needed to
> be altered.
>
> Microsoft *does* make major breaks in order to upgrade functionality
> significantly.
>
> But they always make that transition as easy as possible.
>
> The move to VB.NET was, perhaps, not as easy as others, but that was
> basically because VB no longer exists -- they replaced it with a
> port of C# to a VB-like syntax. I understand why they did it, but I
> don't think it was the right way to do it.
>
> But an OS is *very* different from a development platform, and in OS
> components, they are very, very good with maintaining backward
> compatibility. I have a client running a dBase II app compiled in
> 1983, and it works just fine and dandy on his WinXP box.
>
> I expect a new command prompt to be implemented more like that than
> like VB.NET.[/color]

There was a very good web article I read a few months ago that indicated
that MS has always had two warring "camps" internally. The "let's maintain
backward compatability at all costs" camp and the "screw backward
compatibility, let's make the OS better"camp. It was the claim of the
author that while camp1 has ruled the roost for all of MS' history that the
advent of SP2 for Windows XP was the first indication that the second camp
has "won the war" and that we should not expect the backward compatibility
efforts to the extent that we have in the past.

I'll have to see if I can find that url.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[(PeteCresswell)]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

Per David W. Fenton:[color=blue]
>I wouldn't know about those things, though, because I've never
>deployed a single unsplit mult-user app in my whole Access
>development career.[/color]

Ditto here.
--
PeteCresswell

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@ho tmail.com> wrote in
news:DGi%e.1601 $Y_5.540@newssv r11.news.prodig y.com:
[color=blue]
> There was a very good web article I read a few months ago that
> indicated that MS has always had two warring "camps" internally.
> The "let's maintain backward compatability at all costs" camp and
> the "screw backward compatibility, let's make the OS better"camp.
> It was the claim of the author that while camp1 has ruled the
> roost for all of MS' history that the advent of SP2 for Windows XP
> was the first indication that the second camp has "won the war"
> and that we should not expect the backward compatibility efforts
> to the extent that we have in the past.[/color]

I read the article and much discussion. I think it was Joel
Sposky's, or something he linked to. It pitted the Raymond Chen wing
(the backward compatibility camp) against what the author called the
MSDN crowd.

WinXP SP2 was a good decision. There are times when you have to
break certain kinds of backward compatibility, and that was a case
where there was good reason to do so because the old way was bad all
along.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the justifications for a new
command prompt is not for the purposes of getting safe scripting in
Windows for the first time. If that breaks a few things, that would
be great.

But the way they implemented Win16 in Win95 and NT shows that they
can create compatibility layers that work better than the original.

I'm not worried about this kind of thing.

Of course, I'm still using Win2K (I hate WinXP; though I also adore
Win2K3 Server), and don't know that I'll be picking up Longhorn or
urging my clients to do so for quite a long time.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

"(PeteCresswell )" <a@b.c.invalid. USA> wrote in
news:eksrj1523h 0iocfdl1aju2u36 3i2d5hp9s@4ax.c om:
[color=blue]
> Per David W. Fenton:[color=green]
>>I wouldn't know about those things, though, because I've never
>>deployed a single unsplit mult-user app in my whole Access
>>development career.[/color]
>
> Ditto here.[/color]

Aren't we geniuses? :)

I know for a fact that for my first multi-user app, developed in
Access 2, I browsed the help files to figure out how to do it, and
that was enough to point me in the direction of splitting the
application, with data on the server and front end of each
workstation. That was back in the days of 10BaseT networking,
though, so perhaps the issue of pulling the front end across the LAN
loomed enough larger than it does with 100BaseT that it kept me
pointed me in the rational direction.

I have never quite understood how so many people miss this one.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[grlgeek]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

"Jeffrey P via AccessMonster.c om" <u12062@uwe> wrote in message
news:54f7c3eb21 c90@uwe...[color=blue]
> Our IT guys are on a vendetta against MS Access (and Lotus Notes but[/color]
they've[color=blue]
> won that fight). What I can't understand is, what's the problem? Why[/color]
does[color=blue]
> IT hate MS Access so much.[/color]

Speaking from the IT "guy" standpoint - although technically, I"m an IT
"girl" (looks down shirt and pants - yup - girl parts here)... I'm also an
Access lover and proponent. Hell - I use it and its wonderful ODBC
connections into the various SQL db's we've got (including backdoor access
to the accounting db, as well as several others) in order to create my own
custom reports and databases in Access.

You will not find me getting rid of access any time soon. Oh, but then
again - I'm also a novice spagetti code DB programmer too, and have written
several of our corporate db's that are used by the masses in our employment.

In short - you've found one IT manager (aka IT Girl) who does not hate MS
Access (nor do I hate M$ anythingelse).

Hey - it pays my bills rather nicely, although, these days its not quite
keeping up with the gas bill.

[Rick Brandt]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

Rick Brandt wrote:[color=blue]
> There was a very good web article I read a few months ago that
> indicated that MS has always had two warring "camps" internally. The
> "let's maintain backward compatability at all costs" camp and the
> "screw backward compatibility, let's make the OS better"camp. It was
> the claim of the author that while camp1 has ruled the roost for all
> of MS' history that the advent of SP2 for Windows XP was the first
> indication that the second camp has "won the war" and that we should
> not expect the backward compatibility efforts to the extent that we
> have in the past.
>
> I'll have to see if I can find that url.[/color]

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

[rkc]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?

grlgeek wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hey - it pays my bills rather nicely, although, these days its not quite
> keeping up with the gas bill.[/color]

Trade the suv in for a Chevy Cobalt.

[Baz]

Re: Why do IT guys hate MS Access?


"David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns96E1B2A 21579Fdfentonbw aynetinvali@216 .196.97.142...[color=blue]
> "Baz" <bazz@REMOVEbca p.THEeuro1net.C APScom> wrote in
> news:dhirgt$27a $1@news.e7even. com:
>[color=green]
> > "David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:Xns96E09E3 5FA0B6dfentonbw aynetinvali@216 .196.97.142...
> >[color=darkred]
> >> MS's entire history of maintaining backward compatibility at all
> >> costs.[/color]
> >
> > Ha! Just ask the VB6 fraternity about that...[/color]
>
> They maintained backward compatibility. They abandoned forward
> compatibility. That's very different.
>[/color]

Huh? You are obviously using a different definition of backward
compatibility to me. If VB.Net were backward-compatible with VB6, then it
would run VB6 applications (or at least convert them near-seamlessly, as in
your Access example). It cannot and it doesn't.

However, it isn't that the VB6 fraternity wants VB.Net to be
backward-compatible with VB6 (that would be a pretty futile demand). No,
what they want is for Visual Studio.Net to be backward-compatible with VB6,
in the sense that it should contain both VB.Net and VB6, just as it contains
both C# and VC++. As things stand, there is a vast installed base of
applications that cannot be maintained, enhanced or re-used by means of any
current, supported product, and migration (not conversion!) to VB.Net is an
expensive option that people feel Microsoft should not be forcing them into.

Of course, there is a huge forward-compatibility issue as well vis-a-vis VB6
and Windows which, as the VB6 fraternity sees it, would also be solved by
incorporating VB6 in VS.Net, thereby signalling a commitment to the future
support of VB6.