Are there any plans to get rid of Microsoft Access after 2009?

[Stonewall]

I have a Access 2003 database I am getting ready to convert to Access 2007.
It will require alot of effort. Before I pay a third party to convert it I
want to make sure there will be an Access version after 2009. Does anyone
know of any plans to kill Access after the next version? Should I wait until
the 2009 edition is released and use it to do the conversion? MS Access has
always suited my client base well since my average client has less than 6
users, the database never gets over 100MB, and most of my clients are novice
users not interested in a complex and expensive sql server solution. If I
moved away from Access what would I use?

Any advice is welcome.

Stonewall

 

[Stonewall]

Thank you for your response. It is very helpful.

On clients who have office 2007 installed on their computers, I am running
into problems using the unconverted 2003 database. First, the 2003 edition
has macros that don't work correctly anymore in 2007. Second, all the
security warnings when they open the database are annoying. If they have
office 2007 but don't have the version with MS ACCESS, the only way I can get
rid of them is by having them make manual registry modifications. I don't
really need the new features but another issue is when my clients see the
database is in 2003 they think it's obsolete.

My third party programmer told me all my macros need to get converted to VB
to run my 2003 app in 2007 and I have quite a few. Is this true? He's also
the one telling me MS Access is equialent to a chevette and SQL is equivalent
to a cadillac! I think he just wants to make some money! I'm staying with
ACCESS.

Thanks.

 

[Jeff Conrad [MSFT]]

in message:

Does anyone know of any plans to kill Access after the next version?

No one can give you any accurate, 100% guaranteed answer to that question because you're talking
about several years in the future.

However, if it helps ease your mind, any plans like that would mean I would be out of a job. That
would be news to me.


--
Jeff Conrad - Access Junkie - MVP Alumni
SDET - XAS Services - Microsoft Corporation

Co-author - Microsoft Office Access 2007 Inside Out
Presenter - Microsoft Access 2007 Essentials
http://www.accessmvp.com/JConrad/accessjunkie.html
Access 2007 Info: http://www.AccessJunkie.com

 

[Rick Brandt]

Thank you for your response. It is very helpful.

On clients who have office 2007 installed on their computers, I am
running into problems using the unconverted 2003 database. First,
the 2003 edition has macros that don't work correctly anymore in
2007.

Post specifics and someone can probably tell you how to fix them.

Second, all the security warnings when they open the database
are annoying. If they have office 2007 but don't have the version
with MS ACCESS, the only way I can get rid of them is by having them
make manual registry modifications. I don't really need the new
features but another issue is when my clients see the database is in
2003 they think it's obsolete.

All you have to do is put the files in a "trusted folder" and they will get
no security warnings.

My third party programmer told me all my macros need to get converted
to VB to run my 2003 app in 2007 and I have quite a few. Is this
true?

I don't use macros much, but I highly doubt this is true. VBA code is
vastly superior to macros, but saying they must be converted to work in 2007
sounds over the top to me.

He's also the one telling me MS Access is equialent to a
chevette and SQL is equivalent to a cadillac! I think he just wants
to make some money! I'm staying with ACCESS.

Well that would be somewhat accurate when talking only about the database
engine. Access is your application. SQL Server could be substituted as your
database, but it cannot be your application.

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

Thank you for your response. It is very helpful.

On clients who have office 2007 installed on their computers, I am running
into problems using the unconverted 2003 database. First, the 2003
edition
has macros that don't work correctly anymore in 2007. Second, all the
security warnings when they open the database are annoying. If they have
office 2007 but don't have the version with MS ACCESS, the only way I can
get
rid of them is by having them make manual registry modifications. I don't
really need the new features but another issue is when my clients see the
database is in 2003 they think it's obsolete.

My third party programmer told me all my macros need to get converted to
VB
to run my 2003 app in 2007 and I have quite a few. Is this true? He's
also
the one telling me MS Access is equialent to a chevette and SQL is
equivalent
to a cadillac! I think he just wants to make some money! I'm staying
with
ACCESS.

Your 3rd party programmer told you incorrectly. Converting to VBA, while
desirable for many reasons, only creates even bigger security problems. What
your 2007 clients need to do is to build a Trusted Location and allow macros
to run.

To answer your other question: There will be another version of Access. Many
of the MVPs here personally know the folks at Microsoft working on that
version. There will most likely be many more versions of Access as well.
I've personally bet my future on it.

Your assumption that the programmer only wants to make more money seems
accurate. He most likely is not a database developer anyway, most
programmers know only a tiny amount of what it takes to create a successful
database application. It's far more complex than writing code. Besides, a
Chevette is a far more sensible vehicle for commuting to work. At the price
of gas today, the Cadillac is only for the rich who don't need to worry
about cost.

The version that your database is in is immaterial as long as it runs
correctly. If you are hiding the database window, they wouldn't know the
format that the application is anyway. If you are comfortable writing
macros, do it. I suggest that you learn some VBA code as well since it can
do far more than macros.

 

[Larry Linson]

Never fear, Jeff, we'd all give you glowing recommendations.

On the other hand, Robert A Heinlein's character Lazarus Long said, "Being a
shaman is a good job, if you can stomach it." I could say the same about
any other database product that I'd class as an "Access replacement", so
we'll keep our fingers crossed that it's the same unfounded rumor that's
floated since 1993.

In the past, the only ones who hoped there were plans to abandon Access were
people trying to sell a solution in one of those inferior products or
overpriced enterprise solutions that Chris O'C described. That situation
probably has not changed.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Office Access MVP

 

[George Hepworth]

Chevette's and Cadillacs...

That reminds me of an incident that took place many years ago in a company
where I no longer work, thank goodness. They bought too many Cadillacs.

The Background:
Our Training Department was shopping for a replacement for a little Access
app I'd created (it was my first effort and not very good). Several vendor
products were brought in for evaluation. One was an enterprise app with a 6
figure license fee. One was a VB app with a Jet back end; it had a 3 figure
license fee.

The story:
Our aligned IT analyst offered the following analogy to help the Big Boss
decide between the two.

If your requirement is to move pigs from the farm to the slaughterhouse, you
can purchase any one of several different vehicles, including a flatbed
truck or a Cadillac to get the job done. The Cadillac is going to cost more
up front, but, boy, does it look a lot nicer sitting in the parking lot.

Plus, if you buy the flatbed, you have to pay a little extra to have a rack
installed so the pigs don't fall off. On the other, if you buy the Cadillac,
you have to pay a little extra to modify the back seat to accomodate a pig
or two, so you have to figure those customization costs into the acquisition
price either way.

Moreover, there's a good chance you'll be spending a lot more on keeping the
Cadillac clean.

However, the big difference comes when you put the vehicle into service
hauling pigs to the slaugherhouse. No matter how you slice it, hauling pigs
in a Cadillac is just plain going to make you look foolish to the guys in
the slaugherhouse.

What's my point? Just this: Access gets maligned a lot by Cadillac salesmen,
but it does get the job done, and that's all that really matters to your end
users.

 

[David W. Fenton]

I have a Access 2003 database I am getting ready to convert to
Access 2007.

Why? The A2K3 MDB format is a native format for A2K7, so it should
run just fine without alteration.

 

[David W. Fenton]

My third party programmer told me all my macros need to get
converted to VB to run my 2003 app in 2007 and I have quite a few.
Is this true? He's also the one telling me MS Access is
equialent to a chevette and SQL is equivalent to a cadillac! I
think he just wants to make some money! I'm staying with ACCESS.

Fire your 3rd-party programmer. He's an obvious idiot, or a complete
scammer.

 

[Stonewall]

How do you put the files in a "trusted location" if the user does not have
Microsoft Acess 2007 installed on their computer? I distribute my app with
the runtime version of Access 2003. If they have Office 2007 but not the
professional edition with MS Access, that's when I have trouble getting rid
of the security warnings. The only way I know to do it is modifying the
registry. If there is another way please let me know since not all my
clients are comfortable in the registry.

 

[Rick Brandt]

How do you put the files in a "trusted location" if the user does not
have Microsoft Acess 2007 installed on their computer? I distribute
my app with the runtime version of Access 2003. If they have Office
2007 but not the professional edition with MS Access, that's when I
have trouble getting rid of the security warnings. The only way I
know to do it is modifying the registry. If there is another way
please let me know since not all my clients are comfortable in the
registry.

Okay so they are not using 2007, they are using the 2003 runtime. I have
never done it, but if you search these groups there are numerous posts that
describe how to programmatically make the registry changes for 2003.

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

It's actually easier to modify the registry. If you have admin permissions,
you can write a reg file or a VBScript to do it.

I believe that you need the full version of Office to use Trusted Locations.
Set them up under the Office button Options.

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

Here's a sample reg file which is nothing more than a text file with the reg
extension:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Jet\4.0\Engines\Text\]
"Extensions"="!txt,csv,tab,asc,dat"

 

[JString]

Come to think of it, can anyone recall when Microsoft has ever completely
discontinued a major branch of its software products? Seriously, my copy of
Vista STILL provides the old analog of the MS-DOS shell (aka cmd.exe).

Just like Windows is still Windows and Word is still Word, my guess is that
Access will probably still be around for years in some form or another.

 

[Brendan Reynolds]

Come to think of it, can anyone recall when Microsoft has ever completely
discontinued a major branch of its software products? Seriously, my copy
of
Vista STILL provides the old analog of the MS-DOS shell (aka cmd.exe).

PhotoDraw.

 

[Fred]

There is a huge requirement in the market for an Access-like application.
dropping it would create a larger migration to a competitor (and staying with
older Office versions during the transition) Although Microsoft has, in
the last few years, gotten too stupid to know or listen to their customers
(e.g. trying to muscle in Vista by getting rid of XP) I don't think that they
would be stupid enough to ditch a major product where they have no real
replacement for it's actual users. Well, OK, maybee dropping FrontPage
proves me wrong on this, but Access would be too big of an error to drop even
for them.

 

[Larry Daugherty]

VB6 is the end of the line for the old style VB. Microsoft now touts
VB.Net which won't run the older style code.