popularity of Access?

[aaron.kempf]

Team;

has anyone done any serious reviews on the uptake of Access 2007?

It seems dreadfully slow-- conversions; etc-- but I've got a dozen
clients that insist on diving into it for the new Excel functionality.

Do you guys believe that Access 2007 is 'a success'?
Is it as popular as Excel 2007?

Is it going to stick around- in it's current shape in the next
release?
It is an Access 2000 or an Access 2002? (in quality).

Have you guys heard- in the real world- with what is happening with
the next release?

I've heard a lot of good stuff about Access 14... I've been working in
the MS Marketing Department the past few months.. so I'm just not
going to talk about it due to some NDA issues.

I just wanted to guage-- it seems to me like the number of people in
the Access groups is _DEFINITELY_ down. I mean; I think that there
used to be 10 times this many people in the group.

Is it because everyones moving to VB 2005 / 2002 / 2003 / 2008?

Are you guys _HAPPY_ that they conned us into _TWO_ layers instead of
one?

I'm not trying to start an argument. It just seems like Access is now
'lower on the totem pole' because you guys are a tool for SharePoint
instead of a tool for SQL.

From where I'm standing-- everything in Access is moving to
SharePoint.. and it just really seems to me like we would have been
better off by hitting the SQL engine directly-- instead of through all
these other layers.

I'm just curious-- Do you guys _LIKE_ getting SharePoint jammed down
our throats?
Do you guys _LIKE_ all the web services layers?

Are there any opensource alternatives to SharePoint that can use this
Access functionality?

Are there any exciting implementions using WebServices with Micosoft
Access?
Is Access becoming more of a 'closed system' or is it more open?

Are we all going to have hosted environments with the next release?

Thanks

-Aaron Kempf
MCITP: Database Administrator

 

[Maurice]

Hi Aaron,

I think it's a question of taste. Took me a long time to get used to. During
beta testing back in november 2005 I was shocked and had a lot of trouble
getting around in Acc 2007. There are certain things i don't like. I set all
of my db's to overlapping windows instead of tabbed windows. Furthermore i
recall a discussion i was in during the testingperiod about sharepoint and
access 2007. I seem to recall the fact asking why the db model looked strange
and not well normalized back then. I got a response that sharepoint doesn't
work well with a good normalized db and it should be denormalized to a
certain degree. One of the hickups was the fact of using comboboxes on
sharepoint and making choices between them. That's where the multivalued
lookups came into place.

So just a couple of pointers, do i think my clients are intrested in this?
Yes they are. Do they listen to the advice we give them? Generally no because
they don't buy just one app but the whole suite. So when the Excel guru in
the company tells them to migrate the access people just have to follow as
wel as the Word and Outlook people.

I'm looking forward to Office 14 and am curious what new and improved
features might be there. Reminds me to start as early as possible to get
adjusted to yet another version (still developing in 2000, 2002, 2003 and
2007, and a small portion actually uses 97)

 

[aaron.kempf]

Yes; I am looking forward to the new version as well.

Some things still just confuse the heck out of me in Access.. I mean..
I pretty much refuse to use the SharePoint tech; I work in a BEA site
and we support the BEA portal (I'm kidding)

I just.. I don't know where they come up with these ideas.

I just want to start a good conversation -- so that we can learn more
about Access 2007-- as a platform.

I've had some people just demand Access 2007 even before it was
released; you know?
But for the most part; I think that I might officially prefer Excel to
Access.

-GASP-.

I just.. The 64k -> 1m row thing.. That really changes the equation.
I just wish that Access would support 10 m rows now and not puke.

Back in 2000.. I walked into this company in South Seattle.
They had about 60 different Access databases. I was just in shock. I
moved them to SQL Server; but not fast enough and not wide enough.

I've worked in maybe 10 other companies since then that are just 'ape-
shit about access'.
I just don't get it.

Why do you guys commit to a database that only works for 10k rows?
Doesnt' it work better to build a scalable solution from the start?

I guess I've been kindof disenfranchised with the Access idea. I
mean.. I guess I'm really disenfranchised with the whole idea of
Access.

Can we even create an ODBC connection to a ACCDB file?
Does anyone have any _GOOD_ technical examples about using XSLT in
order to transform _WHOLE_DATABASES_?

It's not growing-- in the upper realms.
And it really seems like it's getting dumber; not more technical.

I just don't get why they steered that ship the _WRONG_ direction.

I just.. things like SharePoint.. they can't just _SPRING_ these
things on us without any notice; you know?
SharePoint-- it didn't work for _CRAP_ in Access 2003.

Do they really think that I'm going to put all my weight behind it
now?

It just still blows my mind...

-Aaron

 

[Tom van Stiphout]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:16:31 -0700 (PDT), "(e-mail address removed)"

Forgive me if I am a bit sceptical that you are working in the
Microsoft Marketing Department. Their typical language is a bit
different from yours, and you would not be allowed to write these
comments.

I have not seen a significant slow-down when adopting A007. Perhaps
our clients are by and large running it on appropriate hardware.

Sharepoint we're not as hot of.

-Tom.

 

[aaron.kempf]

I don't care if you're skeptical.

It is a _FACT_.

I will not argue with you about _FACTS_.

I don't mean a slowdown when adopting Access 2007.. I mean 'adopting
Access 2007 slowly because it's a PITA'.

-Aaron

 

[John W. Vinson]

I don't mean a slowdown when adopting Access 2007.. I mean 'adopting
Access 2007 slowly because it's a PITA'.

Well, *that* we can agree on!

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Maurice:

I got a response that sharepoint doesn't
work well with a good normalized db and it should be denormalized to a
certain degree.

Is that to say that under Access 2007, one cannot have ODBC
connections to a .MDB?

If that's true, how about .ADO?

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Is that to say that under Access 2007, one cannot have ODBC
connections to a .MDB?

AFAIK, you've never been able to use ODBC connections from an Access
front-end to another Jet back-end in any version of Access.

 

[aaron.kempf]

thanks John.

I'm trying to be more positive in these newsgroups.

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

what about Access 97?

-aaron

AFAIK, you've never been able to use ODBC connections from an Access
front-end to another Jet back-end in any version of Access.

 

[aaron.kempf]

Maurice;

I'm actually looking forward to setting away from tabbed windows.
That might really help me.

When I first saw the tabbed windows, my response was 'oh, they finally
copied Dreamweaver'.
But after 18 months of using it; i'm not so sure I like it.

I'll definitely have to give that a shot-- thanks so much for your
feedback.

Now if I could only make sense of that bar on the left!!!!!!

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

Well I'm not so sure I agree with that Rick.

I remember it clear as a bell-- that the Access 2000 documentation
says that 'everything is now Ole DB' and you can no longer make an
ODBC connection to a MDB.

It's just my recollection-- I just swear the documentation _SURE_
makes it sound possible.

Sorry

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

how long has Ole DB been around?

I remember they called everythign Ole back in about '95 lol. Then
they renamed everything to ActiveX and COM and all this other crap. I
just really honestly thought that everything was via ODBC until Access
2000... Or-- at least it was a possiblility.

I just could have sworn that the documentation sure _IMPLIES_ it was
possible in a previous version.


Gosh-- I still am not positive-- can't you setup a DSN that points to
a MDB and this uses ODBC against a MDB?
I believe that he meant to say that you can't setup an ODBC to a ACCDB
file.

I just see ACCDB as somewhat of a failure.

-Aaron

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

No. You cannot use ODBC from an Access 97 front end to any Jet backend.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP

(no e-mails, please!)



Well I'm not so sure I agree with that Rick.

I remember it clear as a bell-- that the Access 2000 documentation
says that 'everything is now Ole DB' and you can no longer make an
ODBC connection to a MDB.

It's just my recollection-- I just swear the documentation _SURE_
makes it sound possible.

Sorry

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Gosh-- I still am not positive-- can't you setup a DSN that points to
a MDB and this uses ODBC against a MDB?

No, not from an Access front-end.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Douglas J. Steele:

AFAIK, you've never been able to use ODBC connections from an Access
front-end to another Jet back-end in any version of Access.

Then I'm guilty of misuse of the terminology.

What I'm trying to describe are the "linked tables" that one
creates in MS Access using "File | Get External Date | Link
Tables".

For some reason, I always thought of these as having ODBC
connections.

Can somebody cite the proper term of art?

 

[gllincoln]

Hi Aaron,

regarding facts:
#1. Every new version of anything is a PITA. Only once in a while, is the gain worth the pain from the IT point of view.

#2. Access 97 could handle (real world) 1M + rows. As far as I know, the number of rows capability hasn't changed. It's just rather s_l_o_w when you go there.
Not sure what the limit is - I haven't hit it yet and I did have one table that was over 5M when I moved it to SQL. I have hit the db file size limit, and that one is rather abrupt, a hard limit.

Working with large prospect and mailing lists - it's easy to slam into the db file size barrier; you concatenate this list and the product of a query or two with this old list; whammo.

Most of the people I see going into Sharepoint are Microsoft groupies - if MS brought Bob & Clippy back, they'd sign on. The theory of Sharepoint sounds great but it doesn't match the real workday world in my experience.

If the people using and sharing the data were technical peers and equally meticulous it could work well, but... usually an office has one or two people who do the bulk of the skull work, and the majority are reactive, passive about the general workflow. Then you have the couple of individuals who should be exploring a career in the front line of fast food or perhaps sanitation engineering, where a touch screen with limited input options is the closest they ever get to a database.

Seems to be one or two folks in every company with a staff of 30 or more, who are quite capable of deleting or overwriting 6 months work (or worse) and then giving you that wide-eyed ?what? look as you attempt to remain calm and professional (while thanking the cyber-Gods for backups, you do have a good backup program, right?)

I'm seeing Access gaining ground in the SMB arena - not necessarily 2007 version, but overall. Where I am seeing the gains are amongst Excel enthusiasts. They still like Excel but now they want to build their data stores in Access and publish their queries in Excel. SQL Server holds no allure for them. Some Excel users who are going towards Access actively dislike, mistrust anything to do with SQL Server. These tend to be department heads or their SIC. IT departments have jealously guarded the gates of the SQL database, been unpleasant to work with. If they can get the data together in Access then they own it and (by comparison) Excel hookups to their Access database are fast.

On a related subject - for complex processes - demand estimates for instance, stored procedures can become cumbersome and surprisingly slow. In two specific instances where the stored procedures were taking 5 minutes or more (up to 10 minutes or so) to update an Excel/ MS-Query requested data sheet - I was able to sharply improve the performance by using ADO to snag a partially filtered recordset into an Access database appending to a local table, then use a combination of Access SQL & VBA to complete the processing. Doing it this way reduced the user's wait time to less than a minute from opening Access to being able to work with the information in Excel.

Caveat - I'm not a strong SQL programmer where stored procedures are concerned, don't know the ins and outs of optimization. It seemed to me that the procedures were calling each other in a way that would cause a bit of thrashing - the author is a certified MS SQL dba with a master's in comp sci so the presumption is that the stored procedures weren't unnecessarily inefficient. I attribute the huge difference in performance to the read only mode doing two straight forward queries and appending that information to local tables. All subsequent processing being done locally - no delays due to locked records that way compared to what one might be banging into, in the multi-user SQL database.

Cordially,
Gordon









I don't care if you're skeptical.

It is a _FACT_.

I will not argue with you about _FACTS_.

I don't mean a slowdown when adopting Access 2007.. I mean 'adopting
Access 2007 slowly because it's a PITA'.

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

Gordon;

Thanks for your cordial message. It is refreshing to see real
intellectuals on this newsgroups.

#1. I'm not sure that I agree that 'every new version of anything is a
pita'.
I've never had problems using a database or a backup between SQL
7.0, 2000 or 2005.
They convert automatically basically.

Just because Microsoft has been reckless in their strategies--
that does not mean that there is not a better way.

#2. I worked with a dozen databases with more than 1m rows... back in
Access 97 days. I strongly disagree. Performance and stability were
not available until we moved to SQL Server; and had thigns properly
indexed. There is not technical way to say 'how should things be
indexed' in Access MDB. SQL Server has 3-4 ways to do this; depending
on the version.

I've not had a problem with the 2gb (or should I say 1gb) limit ever
since I lost the training wheels and I started using Access Data
Projects.

I agree completely about SharePoint. Yes it is trendy-- yes it is
fun. But it's a piece of crap that doesn't scale.
If Microsoft took the _SIMPLE_ step of combining Data Access Pages
with SharePoint-- which seems entirely logical - then maybe today we
would all have simple bound data entry and reporting applications.

As it is; the only way to do something simple like this is to use
DreamWeaver.

I strongly agree with this also:
Some Excel users who are going towards Access actively dislike,
mistrust anything to do with SQL Server.

I would like to find out more about this.
I've got a little pansy brother that has done a _TON_ with Excel.. and
some Access queries. He just doesn't want to get 'too technical'--
because he's a finance guy and not a database guy. I kindly tell him
that is why they hire these dipshits from India-- because people in
America are scared to be seen as 'too geeky'.

I believe that a _LOT_ of this 'fear of SQL Server' comes down to two
things:
a) misinformaiton in _THIS_ newsgroup. I've found a half dozen
_BLATANT_ lies from Access MVPs in the past month about SQL Server. I
took almost a 9-month hiatus from this newsgroup. I've been working
at Microsoft marketing; doing a bunch with SQL Server; obviously. I
can no longer afford to sit idly by while these Access MDB cry babies
continue to spread mis-information about SQL Server. SQL Server is
_ZERO_ percent more complex than Access MDB and it allows 10 times the
performance in everything that you do. If you don't believe me; go
and get a book on 'Analysis Services'.

b) People that work in an Oracle shop are 'too good for SQL Server'.
Oracle is a _SCAM_ and we all know it. If you look at www.olapreport.com
you can see that Oracles marketshare went from 20% down to 5% before
purchasing Hyperion recently. Why would anyone give a crap about a
database with a 5% market share? I just don't get Oracle-- it is a
complete scam and a complete piece of crap. Unbreakable Databases??
Oracle has had consistently-- 10 bugs-- for every bug in SQL Server
for the past 5 years.

I personally-- don't like stored procedures. I'm a view guy. I see
a bunch of access dipshits that move to SQL Server; and they use temp
tables and cursors-- just because they can't find set based
alternatives to 'looping through and doing things one record at a
time'.

I've not had a single query in _ANY_ version of SQL Server take longer
than a second.

HONESTLY.

I really honestly haven't had a single query take longer than a
second-- except for 'Create Index DDL'.
So I really don't know what youre talking about-- 30 second sproc,
etc.

I just really don't understand your concept of 'doing things locally'.
Most of the people in this newsgroup think that it is _BAD_ when SQL
Server doesn't support local tables.

And I really honestly-- have _NO_ clue what they're talking about.
I sure don't need to run temp table crap in order to get stuff done.

Does your MCDBA / CompSci dude-- does he write C++ ? Java?

Is he using cursors?

I'd reccomend learning more about SQL Server and getting another
contract developer. I've really honestly-- never had anything in SQL
Server that takes me more than a second.

And that includes _VERY_ complex financial reports.

I just don't get it.

I've got 30 computers at home. I'm going to try to make a website
keeping track of some of these things. Because I really honestly--
think that Access is going in the wrong direction right now.

I was researching 'SharePoint Salaries' the other day. And I really
honestly was shocked to see that they were growing-- and in demand--
in a _VERY_ good way-- for the past 5 years.

It seems to me like 'SharePoint might be a good solution for some
people'.

But when SQL Server can't get traction-- because of the mis-
information on this newsgroups--- I don't see SharePoint being any
more successful.

Any way you look at SharePoint; it is merely 'yet another layer on top
of SQL Server' so I really don't get the point.

But again-- for non-techies who need to make a database... It might
seem like a good solution.

I'm just terrified of performance problems in SharePoint.

Can SharePoint / WSS 3.0 support 1m rows?

I just swear- any database that pukes on 1m rows is unusable in my
opinion.
I mean.. is it possible to predict how many 'help desk tickets your
company is going to have in the next 5 years'?
I mean.. is it possible to predict how many Accounting Transactions
are going to occur in the next 5 years'?
I mean.. is it possible to predict how many _PRODUCTS_ your company is
going to be selling 5 years from now?

And things like audit trails- profiler; index tuning wizards?

I just don't see Access MDB as 20% of a complete solution (compared to
SQL Server).

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

I know it's OLEDB from Access 2000-2003.

I don't know.. I'm going to have to find a copy of Access 97 and
research this.
I don't care if it is the _DEFAULT_. I care about whether or not it is
possible to create a ODBC link via Access 97.

Because I'd gladly bet $10 that I can do this.

Thanks

-Aaron

 

[Maurice]

Your right about that thing on the left side. Tha nav. pane is killing me.
With every db I open it changes everything. Somehow i'm investigating the
quickest way to navigate through my objects within the dbwindow (sorry
nav.pane). My collegue started using the tabbed forms and is exicted about
it. His good right, i don't agree just yet. Might be my stubberness. I think
it's good to hear various ideas from clienst and collegues to give me a
broader view and perspective of things. Remains the fact that I still have to
work and develop db's in Access.

Personally I like the option to connect to SQL as a backend but not
everybody is ready for such a transition when working with a front and
backend that easily.

Not to mention the fact that the ribbon is a new feature you really have to
dig into to make a cool look for your apps in Access. Figured that one out
and is starting to get my attention (looks cool your own ribbon).