accdb vs adp

Access 2000 - First version
Access 2002 - pivotTables, better UDF / SQL Server support, more
powerful table designer
Access 2003 - XML (because SQL Server is VERY powerful with XML, this
is important), OWC performance improvements
Access 2007 - SQL 2005, half dozen other features (form wizards, etc)
Access 2010 - SQL 2008 support


On Feb 24, 2:39*pm, "a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote:
look at the code dude

making your users wait an extra 5 seconds while you copy over lookup
tables, queries? what a joke dude

'the worst software ever written' because it's more efficient to keep
all your tables in one place- where they belong- a database server
that supports SMP, X64, etc

-Aaron

On Feb 23, 4:01*pm, "Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote:

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote:

your autofeupdater runs progressively slower the more queries you
have.

Rubbish.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages -http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files
* updated seehttp://www.autofeupdater.com/
Granite Fleet Managerhttp://www.granitefleet.com/

"Albert D. Kallal" wrote in
:

I would say that as a rule, I still prefer using sql server with
access, but the ease with which users can now use SharePoint and
now that SharePoint supports RI between tables, this means a good
number of "lesser" skilled access users will likely prefer
SharePoint over that of sql server.

For me, it means the end of Jet replication is in sight. The
addition of RI and triggers means that Sharepoint 2010 is sufficient
for maintaining data integrity (it was not before), and vastly
easier ot set up for sharing data between locations with
disconnected users.

I'm still supporting Jet replication as long as folks need it, but
if someone came to me with a new project contemplating using it, I'd
recommend holding off and using A2010 and Sharepoint 2010 instead.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote in

:

Stalking / Harrassment.. uh, what are you talking about?

Legally, it never happened.

And that's irrelevant to the real world. It *did* happen, and we all
know it, and we're not going to let you forget it as long as you
continue behaving like an idiot, posting garbage, as you are wont to
do.

Thanks for your concern though!

My concern is that you're back and are going to be making the
newsgroups less useful again. Please stalk someone again so you get
thrown in jail or put back on probation and end up, once again,
prohibited from post in the newsgroups.

That would be good for EVERYBODY.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote in

:

your autofeupdater runs progressively slower the more queries you
have.

You obviously don't know anything at all about how Tony's updater
works.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

I did try to explain it to you, but obviously your emotional problems are
getting in the way of your ability to comprehend. I guess the medicine
you're taking isn't working. That's a shame. Sorry, but there are people
here that really could use some solutions, and I have limited time, so I
will not bother continuing this discussion with you.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access
http://www.accessmvp.com


"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote in
message
...
Jet has no benefit, it causes slower performance and bigger table
scans.

Sprocs, Views, Functions are thousands of times more powerful.

SQL Server - out of the box- allows every user to have a different
copy of the same object if you want.

It's just completely false to claim that Jet has any benefit over SQL
Server.

-Aaron

On Feb 23, 8:21 pm, "Arvin Meyer [MVP]" wrote:
"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote
in
...
your autofeupdater runs progressively slower the more queries you
have.

keeping all your data and queries in one place- where they belong - on
a database server-- is a much more effective and efficient method.
======================
Let me explain database design to you, as you seem to be under the
impression that you actually know something. MVPs, including those in
SQL-Server, know that is a misapprehension on your part.

No matter where a query is run, it's speed is more determined by the
design
of the tables and relationships, and the query design, than what the
database engine is. For small tables (generally under 100,000 rows)
queries
are often faster using JET than SQL-Server, given the same equipment and
environment. Generally, the most powerful machine which is devoted to the
job, is the speed determiner. That's not always true, especially with
smaller datasets. As networks get even faster, that becomes even less
important.

SQL-Server is an important tool used by most Microsoft designers,
including
Access MVPs. There are many instances where JET is the better tool for the
job. If you regarded your clients (if you really had any) as much as we do
ours, you'd pay attention to your their best interest, instead your
prejudices and misconceptions.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP,
MVPhttp://www.datastrat.comhttp://www.mvps.org/accesshttp://www.accessmvp.com

Confusion still reigns.

I suppose your claim that introducing ADPs in Access 2000 can be construed
as a "new" feature for ADPs is valid. You get a point there, and it is
actually kind of clever;
ADPs are in themselves a "new feature". Quite clever indeed. A new feature
by virtue of being new.

Let's say that "better support for UDFs and SQL Server" counts as a "new
feature" and give you that one as well, although I was REALLY hoping you'd
be able to identify an actual "feature",
and not just "better support" for existing functions.

Now we get to some interesting things. "Pivot Tables" were a new ADP
feature in 2003? I won't bet money on it, but I am pretty sure pivot table
support for ADPs was present in 2002.
Maybe you can pull a real citation from a recognized source indicating that
they didn't appear in ADP's until the 2003 version? This is not a big deal,
but the point of this exercise was to
demonstrate your lack of attention to detail, and your inability to be
accurate. On that point, you didn't do so good here, did you?

The last two claimed features are, shall we say, marginal at best. Saying
that "SQL 2005, half dozen other features", and "SQL 2008 support" are
"new features"
in ADP's is really a stretch, is it not? Unless I have been seriously
misled, support for SQL Server is kind of the whole POINT for ADPs! As a
matter of fact, and you may not recall this,
just over a year ago, you, yourself, actually submitted a comment in the
Access Team Blog in which you complained about the lack of full support for
SQL Server 2008 in Access 2007!

That's right, you criticized MS Access development team on this very point.
Your words in that post included the following:

"... How do you guys get away with this?
Do you not communicate between departments?
Do you not have _ANYONE_ that knows anything about SQL Server?
It's time to take ADP seriously--"

Hm, sounds like you were somewhat less than enthusiastic about the way MS
was decreasing its support for ADPs in the Access 2007 version, doesn't it?

If you Bing yourself, you might find the actual Blog post where you said
that. You might also find this statement from the Access Team,
"Access 2007 ADP's will run against SQL Server 2008 but do not support
designing server objects (tables, views, stored procedures, functions and
relationships)."

That, sir, is NOT what I think of as a "new feature". And judging from your
comments at the time, I think YOU didn't consider it that way either.

And, finally, rather than another unsubstantiated claim, wouldn't you have
been better served if you had submitted an actual list
of those "new features" for ADPs that first appeared in Access 2007? Just
one would be okay.

You see, the point is that you were called out on an unsubstantiated claim,
and you responded with yet another one. Sorry, that does NOT fly. You can do
better. If you want to be taken
seriously, you must do better.

In any event, I think the point has been made: you can't really offer any
substantial citations to support your claims, and those things you do offer
are largely marginal.
So, let's not waste any more time on this topic.


George



"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote in
message
...
new features in ADP for every
version for the past 5 versions." Past 5 versions of WHAT?


Access 2000 - First version
Access 2002 - better UDF / SQL Server support
Access 2003 - pivotTables
Access 2007 - SQL 2005, half dozen other features
Access 2010 - SQL 2008 support

There you are-- new ADP funcitonality in each of the past 5 versions


On Feb 23, 6:14 pm, "GP George" wrote:
Aaron,

Sometimes I actually feel sorry for you. It must be hard to make a fool
of
yourself over and over again, yet you do it, apparently compulsively. I
can't help but wonder why you feel compelled to make irresponsible
statements like this. And to what end? What do you think you gain by it?
It
just makes no sense.

But, for the sake of clarity and in the hope that we can extract some
semblance of logic from these assertion, I would like to give you a
chance
to explain and, if possible, provide citations for your claims.

So, let's clarify what you mean by this: "new features in ADP for every
version for the past 5 versions." Past 5 versions of WHAT? It's tempting
to
assume you MIGHT be referring to new ADP features in MS Access, but then,
you really didn't bother to make that clear. What, exactly, do you mean?
Are
you saying that there were new ADP features in Access 2010, 2007, 2003,
2002
and 2000? Or did you mean something else? Can you, will you, provide
citations describing some of those "New Features" for each of the past 5
versions? Doing so might go a long way towards removing the stigma of
irresponsibility and irrationality that hangs over all of your posts.

Actually, having watched your decent into ever more bitter and
disconnected
rambling vitriol over several years , I harbor no real expectation, or
even
hope, that you'll realize how self-destructive your posts have become.
Yet,
there is always hope, and I can't quite give up on you. Perhaps this will
be
the time when you finally get it. Is that possible?

George

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote
in
...

neglect of ADP?

that never happened, kid!

there have been new features in ADP for every version for the past 5
versions.

there have been new features in SQL Server for every release for the
past 5 versions.

-Aaron

On Feb 23, 10:53 am, "Tony Toews [MVP]"
wrote:
"David W. Fenton" wrote:

But all of this will change 2-3 years from now, with the release of
Access 15, which apparently is going to address the neglect of ADPs
in the last two releases. That isn't enough to convince me that it's
wise to trash an MDB app and replace it with an ADP even then, but
it's worth keeping in mind (i.e., the investment in moving to ADP
could pay off 2 or 3 years down the road; on the other hand, the
Access 15 ADPs could be sufficiently different to make current ADPs
problematic).

I hadn't heard this. Any URLs?

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages -http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files
updated seehttp://www.autofeupdater.com/
Granite Fleet Managerhttp://www.granitefleet.com/

Good grief, Aaron, this is not good news for you, man. You are not even
consistent between two posts made minutes apart!

In this one you actually contradict your previous assertion that Pivot
tables were new in 2003. Okay, better late than never.

And I see that you are now listing "form wizards" for ADPs as a new feature
in Access 2007. Do you REALLY want to make that claim?
Maybe you should back off on that one before someone posts the actual
citation showing it to be false.

Again, I assume you would like to be taken seriously, but that is
increasingly difficult to do. It might be smarter of you to just find
another way to release your angst.
Posting in the PNG's seems not to be a good strategy for you. There are, for
example, classes in Yoga and meditation where you might learn to release
some of that stress in a healthier way.
It's just a thought. Best of luck with it in any event.


George

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote in
message
...
Access 2000 - First version
Access 2002 - pivotTables, better UDF / SQL Server support, more
powerful table designer
Access 2003 - XML (because SQL Server is VERY powerful with XML, this
is important), OWC performance improvements
Access 2007 - SQL 2005, half dozen other features (form wizards, etc)
Access 2010 - SQL 2008 support

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote in

m:

Access 2000 - First version
Access 2002 - better UDF / SQL Server support
Access 2003 - pivotTables
Access 2007 - SQL 2005, half dozen other features

Name 3 of them.

Access 2010 - SQL 2008 support

That's not an ADP feature at all. It constitutes no change to the
way ADPs work, just integration with the current version of SQL
Server. And, of course, the next version of SQL Server will negate
it (not that it even matters that much.

You neglect to mention in the first three versions of ADPs how many
things were broken, and then fixed, and then reverted. Steve
Jorgensen tried really hard to use ADPs, but as a moving target, and
with flaws with no real workarounds, he gave up. If somebody as
smart as Steve can't make them work, I *know* that *you* can't.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"GP George" wrote in
:

You can do
better.

George, the sad thing is that Aaron *can't* do better.

There is simply no there there.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

have you seen the form wizards in Access 2007?

is it not a new feature?

what are you talking about dude!??!!??!!!

you chastise me for describing the features in every version of
Access.. but the fact of the matter is that you're just ****ed off
because the facts contradict some of the BS that the MVPs claim.





On Feb 24, 10:36*pm, "GP George" wrote:
Good grief, Aaron, this is not good news for you, man. You are not even
consistent between two posts made minutes apart!

In this one you actually contradict your previous assertion that Pivot
tables were new in 2003. Okay, better late than never.

And I see that you are now listing "form wizards" for ADPs *as a new feature
in Access 2007. Do you REALLY want to make that claim?
Maybe you should back off on that one before someone posts the actual
citation showing it to be false.

Again, I assume you would like to be taken seriously, but that is
increasingly difficult to do. *It might be smarter of you to just find
another way to release your angst.
Posting in the PNG's seems not to be a good strategy for you. There are, for
example, classes in Yoga and meditation where you might learn to release
some of that stress in a healthier way.
It's just a thought. Best of luck with it in any event.

George

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote in
...

Access 2000 - First version
Access 2002 - pivotTables, better UDF / SQL Server support, more
powerful table designer
Access 2003 - XML (because SQL Server is VERY powerful with XML, this
is important), OWC performance improvements
Access 2007 - SQL 2005, half dozen other features (form wizards, etc)
Access 2010 - SQL 2008 support