New Access Version?

Steve Jorgensen wrote in
:

Sorry - that's right. It happens if you edit the code in A2K3. I
have not seen that compiling in A2K2 before saving helps since I
always do that.

Well, there's compiling and then there's successful compiling. In my
experience, A2K and beyond are much more susceptible to failed 100%
compile without complaining about it.

And, of course, I always work with conditional compilation turned
off.

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

Jet's a big headach to MS.

Yes, because it's simply way too good at the tasks it performs and
makes it impossible for MS to force people to spend billions on
licenses for SQL Server.

Good one! :-)

Reminds me of when Fox Pro was vastly superior to any MS product and so MS
bought it so that they could effectively shelve it.

Neil

"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
28.78...
Steve Jorgensen wrote in
:

Sorry - that's right. It happens if you edit the code in A2K3. I
have not seen that compiling in A2K2 before saving helps since I
always do that.

Well, there's compiling and then there's successful compiling. In my
experience, A2K and beyond are much more susceptible to failed 100%
compile without complaining about it.

And, of course, I always work with conditional compilation turned
off.

"Conditional compilation"? You mean "background compilation"?

Neil


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

I base these statements on the obvious trend to move as much as possible to
run from with in the .NET framework.

We know that SQL Server will shortly become object orientated, how long will
it be before VBA and Jet are moved in that direction.

I hope it does because of the obvious advantages that would bring.

Jet's a headach, because it's become so popular and will not be an easy
thing to move forwards.

These are my thoughts.

Regards

H
"Tony Toews" wrote in message
...
"H" wrote:

It would mean the dropping of the MDB format, since IT'S A FRIGGING
JET DB.


The format would be ADP

Furthermore, Jet is not dead at all -- it's running
ActiveDirectory's data store, for instance (this is why from Win2K
on the Jet 4 DLLs are protected OS files).


I understood that SQL Server was used in Server 2003.

Jet will never be dropped unless Access completely drops all legacy
support. It may be dropped as the default DB engine, but that would
be stupid as well, since it would mean double workset (i.e., to open
an MDB you have to have Jet loaded).


The default format will be an ADP.

Jet will (one day) disappear.

Jet's a big headach to MS.

Let's hope that MS have a momentary lapse of reason and give us Jet.Net
(Here's hoping).

On what do you base these statements? How is Jet a big headache?

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

Sorry, Had not realised that an ADP file had so much problems


H

"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
28.78...
"H" wrote in
:

"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
28.78...
"H" wrote in
:

It's safe to say that Microsoft want to drop
support for jet and make MSDE the default database engine (we
know it can be installed silently and without user input).

That would be lunacy of the highest sort for them to do so.

It would mean the dropping of the MDB format, since IT'S A
FRIGGING JET DB.

The format would be ADP

That would mean I'd stop developing in Access, as ADPs are a
complete mess and unusable by anyone who wants to be productive,
rather than constantly working around the inadequacies of this
half-baked format that was itself created for a stupid reason (to
get a Jet-less connection to SQL Server).

In any event, yes, you're just repeating what I said.

But think about what that would mean: it would mean the complete
abandonment of Access's entire legacy (an MDB can't be converted to
an ADP), and it would replace a full-featured, easy-to-use format
with one that is lacking in features and hard to understand and use.

It ain't gonna happen.

Furthermore, Jet is not dead at all -- it's running
ActiveDirectory's data store, for instance (this is why from
Win2K on the Jet 4 DLLs are protected OS files).

I understood that SQL Server was used in Server 2003.

That I didn't know. Do you have a citation for that? I was unable to
Google anything about it.

It was in a book for Windows 2003 Server. I do not have the book with me at
present to reference.


Jet will never be dropped unless Access completely drops all
legacy support. It may be dropped as the default DB engine, but
that would be stupid as well, since it would mean double workset
(i.e., to open an MDB you have to have Jet loaded).

The default format will be an ADP.

That can't happen until ADPs are vastly improved in functionality,
reliability and usability.

Jet will (one day) disappear.

In my opinion, only when Access itself disappears.

Jet's a big headach to MS.

Yes, because it's simply way too good at the tasks it performs and
makes it impossible for MS to force people to spend billions on
licenses for SQL Server.

Let's hope that MS have a momentary lapse of reason and give us
Jet.Net (Here's hoping).

I don't think Jet will ever be enhanced.

I also don't think it will ever be dropped, except when Access
itself is no longer an actively developed product (or has morphed
into something wholly unrelated to its current incarnation).

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

Everyone seems to come down hard on ADPs. I converted our system to ADP/SQL
three years ago and my experience has been quite possitive. I think the
biggest issue is that you need to change your paradigm and think in a single
record mentality on forms. The system I originally developed in A97 and are
up to A2002 and it has continually grown in functionality and complexity.
It has will over 100 tables, 100 Stored procedures and probably that many
views.

The biggest change I made is that I DO NOT use the built in navigation. I
know at first thought this doesn't seem right, since that is one of the
benefits of working in Access. Instead, I use a stored procedure as the
record source for ALL of my main forms and use input parameters. This way,
only 1 record is returned by the server no matter what. This works very
well in house and has the benefit of 1) disabling the mouse wheel and 2)
give relatively good and usable performance over a WAN.

Anyway, I personally like the ADP format and hope that it is at least
maintained and enhanced.

Just my $.10 -- inflation you know
Jim


"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
28.78...
"H" wrote in
:

"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
28.78...
"H" wrote in
:

It's safe to say that Microsoft want to drop
support for jet and make MSDE the default database engine (we
know it can be installed silently and without user input).

That would be lunacy of the highest sort for them to do so.

It would mean the dropping of the MDB format, since IT'S A
FRIGGING JET DB.

The format would be ADP

That would mean I'd stop developing in Access, as ADPs are a
complete mess and unusable by anyone who wants to be productive,
rather than constantly working around the inadequacies of this
half-baked format that was itself created for a stupid reason (to
get a Jet-less connection to SQL Server).

In any event, yes, you're just repeating what I said.

But think about what that would mean: it would mean the complete
abandonment of Access's entire legacy (an MDB can't be converted to
an ADP), and it would replace a full-featured, easy-to-use format
with one that is lacking in features and hard to understand and use.

It ain't gonna happen.

Furthermore, Jet is not dead at all -- it's running
ActiveDirectory's data store, for instance (this is why from
Win2K on the Jet 4 DLLs are protected OS files).

I understood that SQL Server was used in Server 2003.

That I didn't know. Do you have a citation for that? I was unable to
Google anything about it.

Jet will never be dropped unless Access completely drops all
legacy support. It may be dropped as the default DB engine, but
that would be stupid as well, since it would mean double workset
(i.e., to open an MDB you have to have Jet loaded).

The default format will be an ADP.

That can't happen until ADPs are vastly improved in functionality,
reliability and usability.

Jet will (one day) disappear.

In my opinion, only when Access itself disappears.

Jet's a big headach to MS.

Yes, because it's simply way too good at the tasks it performs and
makes it impossible for MS to force people to spend billions on
licenses for SQL Server.

Let's hope that MS have a momentary lapse of reason and give us
Jet.Net (Here's hoping).

I don't think Jet will ever be enhanced.

I also don't think it will ever be dropped, except when Access
itself is no longer an actively developed product (or has morphed
into something wholly unrelated to its current incarnation).

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

"H" wrote:

I base these statements on the obvious trend to move as much as possible to
run from with in the .NET framework.

Not obvious to me. If an app works fine in Access why should it be moved to .Net.
It's still not as productive an environment as Access. Now if you had 5,000 users
on the Internet accessing the app then I can see why a .Net app would be better.

We know that SQL Server will shortly become object orientated, how long will
it be before VBA and Jet are moved in that direction.

I hope it does because of the obvious advantages that would bring.

What obvious advantages does object orientation bring? How do we know that SQL
Server will become OO?

Jet's a headach, because it's become so popular and will not be an easy
thing to move forwards.

shrug Then MS should make the migration to SQL Server easier.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

"David W. Fenton" wrote:

Make MSDE the default database engine? That's fine by me so long
as it's about as easy to use as Jet.

There are terrible problems with conflicts between multiple
applications installing the MSDE, since a lot of commercial
applications use MSDE as their data store. I've run into with
conflicts between Veritas Backup and Blackberry Server.

It's a new form of DLL hell, and something that I really don't think
any of us need.

What about the Named Instances? I thought each such had it's own set of DLLs and
SPs? But I don't know much about those as I've never used them in production.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

Tony Toews wrote in
:

"David W. Fenton" wrote:

Make MSDE the default database engine? That's fine by me so
long as it's about as easy to use as Jet.

There are terrible problems with conflicts between multiple
applications installing the MSDE, since a lot of commercial
applications use MSDE as their data store. I've run into with
conflicts between Veritas Backup and Blackberry Server.

It's a new form of DLL hell, and something that I really don't
think any of us need.

What about the Named Instances? I thought each such had it's own
set of DLLs and SPs? But I don't know much about those as I've
never used them in production.

It has more to do with installers being stupid than with
capabilities of MSDE itself.

That is, just like DLL hell.

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

Why a backup program requires you to install MSDE is baffling. Our
consultants installed the program on our file server, and I realized
that now I have another service running on the box. Even if I had a
seperate SQL Server box, I would still need this running. A simple
link-list file would have been fine to keep tract of the file backup.

Steven

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:01:01 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:

Tony Toews wrote in
:

"David W. Fenton" wrote:

Make MSDE the default database engine? That's fine by me so
long as it's about as easy to use as Jet.

There are terrible problems with conflicts between multiple
applications installing the MSDE, since a lot of commercial
applications use MSDE as their data store. I've run into with
conflicts between Veritas Backup and Blackberry Server.

It's a new form of DLL hell, and something that I really don't
think any of us need.

What about the Named Instances? I thought each such had it's own
set of DLLs and SPs? But I don't know much about those as I've
never used them in production.

It has more to do with installers being stupid than with
capabilities of MSDE itself.

That is, just like DLL hell.

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