Consider making software that is 10 years old available as Freewar

[Guest]

I think that Access 2.0 (and all prior versions) should be made freely
available, by Microsoft, on the internet as a service to their customers.

We have recently been involved in the redevelopment of a system from over 10
years ago. Thankfully we still have the Access Distribution Kit for 1.1 and
the Access Developer's Toolkit for 2.0 and the standard products and were
able to support the conversion from 1.1 to 2.0 and then to Access 97
(available for free in September 2006 (if MS would change policy)) and
finally to Access 2003 (at their insistence, we suggested staying at 97 they
were concerned about the general level of support of Access 97).

Some small businesses cannot afford to keep upgrading especially when what
they have in say Access 2.0 is fine for their purposes. And if we (including
MS) are honest about this not that much of the _core_ functionality of
Access has changed through all the versions.

Access 2.0 and Access 97 are the Gold standards, a few tweaks and Access
2003 can join that illustrious company.

This is not a radical idea many software companies actually make earlier
versions (a lot more recent than 10 years old I might add) available for
free download or included on a CD/DVD insert of a computer magazine. They
usually offer an upgrade path to the current version.

Just an idea, Microsoft.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...-b70c-45dbcf04d10b&dg=microsoft.public.access

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

I think that Access 2.0 (and all prior versions) should be made freely
available, by Microsoft, on the internet as a service to their customers.

Why? What benefit is this to consumers? Why would you want to encourage
users to use a 10+ year old piece of software?

Further, what is stopping that consumer from using that 10 year old version?
Unlike other competitors, and especially Apple computer, Microsoft works
VERY HARD to ensure compatibility. You can't run ANY software from the mid
80's on a new Mac (Apple forced ALL SOFTWARE to be thrown out - remember, we
are talking about loosing the choice here! Simply put, all developer tools,
and all software had to be thrown out when the new Mac software came out in
the 90's...and apple done this more then once!).

Contrast Microsoft to the above. The fact that you are TALKING about working
with a 10+ year old piece of software should really prove the whole point
here:

What is stopping you from running the old version? While most companies make
you throw out old software, Microsoft clearly has the resources, and thus
had added compatibility features to windows to allow your old software to
run. So, what is stopping that customer from using version 1.1, or version
2? If you want to continue to develop on access 2.0, or use vb5, or even
older versions, you are free to do so. The reason you are free to do so is
that unlike Apple, Microsoft has spend large sums of money to keep
compatibility. In fact, so great is this track record, that you can go back
all the way to 1981, and download the ORIGINAL Visi-Calc spreadsheet for the
IBM pc (and, guess what..it still runs on a brand new windows XP box).

When you compare the track record of capability to other companies in the
industry, no other company even comes remotely close to what Microsoft
offers. The fact is, that your software investment has been preserved better
then any other company in the industry.

So, if you want to continue to use a old windows 3.1 access 2.0
version..then you can do so. And, if you want to use a old FoxPro program
form late 80's, then you can do so (I have clients still running old FoxPro
software from the late 80's...and they are free to do so).

So, I not sure at all what the benefit here would be to consumers, and
further, we really don't want to take away support dollars, and money spent
on new versions. As a consumer, you are FREE to continue to use that old
version...be it 2, 3, 4 or 6 versions old. Apple, and other vendors in the
industry force you to throw out that software, but as your example
shows...you can CONTINUE to use that old software.

Why did the company upgrade anyway? If they been running a 13+ year old
version of software, and been out of support for 10+ years...why all of the
sudden a change of heart? It is certainly not Microsoft forcing them to
upgrade, and then been running for 10+ years.....

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

Albert

Why? What benefit is this to consumers? Why would you want to encourage
users to use a 10+ year old piece of software?

I would not encourage users to use a 10 year old piece of software, but they
do.

Further, what is stopping that consumer from using that 10 year old
version?

If they have a need to make a few changes to reflect a change in the way
their business operates who do they turn to (they only have MSARN110.EXE
installed not MSACCESS.EXE), nearly every developer will have dumped this
software years ago to use the later versions. Yet we see here on a daily
basis people looking for the old software Access 97 is still very widely in
use in small to medium sized businesses. This version will be ten years old
next year, people aren't going to stop using it many developers still
recommend it above the later versions if the features added since Access 97
are not required.

Unlike other competitors, and especially Apple computer, Microsoft works
VERY HARD to ensure compatibility. You can't run ANY software from the mid
80's on a new Mac (Apple forced ALL SOFTWARE to be thrown out - remember,
we are talking about loosing the choice here! Simply put, all developer
tools, and all software had to be thrown out when the new Mac software
came out in the 90's...and apple done this more then once!).

Apple is just fashion. Stand back and light the blue touchpaper. (g)

I would maintain that whilst Access 2.0 is ancient it still runs a lot of
businesses, you will note that Microsoft made an Access 2 Converter
available to run on Access 2003. No doubt to encourage migration to Access
2003. I have seen people on these newsgroups ask how to make working Access
97 applications in Access 2003.

You should note that support for older versions of SQL Server is required,
databases have been developed that run businesses they can't just jump on
the latest bandwagon unlike developers and corporate IT faddists looking to
add to their skills repertoire. IT departments spend more on meetings than
many businesses do on software development.

Contrast Microsoft to the above. The fact that you are TALKING about
working with a 10+ year old piece of software should really prove the
whole point here:

Only because I was forced to (vbg) mind you as already stated Access 97 will
be 10 shortly. I had to hunt around for a machine with a 3 1/2 diskette
drive for this thing.

What is stopping you from running the old version?
Nothing.

While most companies make you throw out old software, Microsoft clearly
has the resources, and thus had added compatibility features to windows to
allow your old software to run. So, what is stopping that customer from
using version 1.1, or version 2? If you want to continue to develop on
access 2.0, or use vb5, or even older versions, you are free to do so.
The reason you are free to do so is that unlike Apple, Microsoft has spend
large sums of money to keep compatibility.

What happens when all the Access 2.0 developers have gone, and all the
versions of the software are gone. Make it freeware and small businesses
throughout the world will continue to work with it. In Africa there are some
modern IT projects using wireless PDAs in schools, yet in many other areas
the 80386 still runs Windows 3.x and early versions of Access. Are you
saying Africa should upgrade to the latest Pentiums or do you think they
have other priorities?

Bill Gates is now heavily involved in the Make Poverty History campaign and
supporting Africa and other developing areas and we would all love to see
everyone able to use the latest software and hardware, this just is not
going to happen. Many charities throughout the world are involved in
recycling PCs moving them to other geographical areas not only is this
altruistic it is also a good use of resources using these machines that
still have years of useful service to provide before becoming more and more
landfill in the more profligate areas of the world.

Let's face it the focus of enhancements in the last ten years is tighter
integration with the internet and now security. What can we do with Access,
Excel and Word that we couldn't do 10 years ago? Ok, there is a big list,
but to run a small to medium sized business?

In fact, so great is this track
record, that you can go back all the way to 1981, and download the
ORIGINAL Visi-Calc spreadsheet for the IBM pc (and, guess what..it still
runs on a brand new windows XP box).

Ok downloaded it and phew it runs like nothing I have ever seen, wow what
speed. (vbg)

Actually you should see Access 2.0 run on current equipment.

Microsoft have made great efforts to ensure a degree of future proofing and
I commend them for that. Although perhaps they should say goodbye with
Windows Vista which will have at its very heart, security. I would hate to
see Vista compromised for the legacy stuff, perhaps Windows XP Classic for
that.

When you compare the track record of capability to other companies in the
industry, no other company even comes remotely close to what Microsoft
offers. The fact is, that your software investment has been preserved
better then any other company in the industry.

I am not criticising Microsoft at all. Indeed I think there are
opportunities in this approach in markets that Microsoft do not have a major
presence.

So, if you want to continue to use a old windows 3.1 access 2.0
version..then you can do so. And, if you want to use a old FoxPro program
form late 80's, then you can do so (I have clients still running old
FoxPro software from the late 80's...and they are free to do so).

Indeed they are free to use the old software, who can support them? Even
developers that would want to would need to have full copies of Access,
especially if the clients only have runtime installations.

So, I not sure at all what the benefit here would be to consumers, and
further, we really don't want to take away support dollars, and money
spent on new versions. As a consumer, you are FREE to continue to use that
old version...be it 2, 3, 4 or 6 versions old. Apple, and other vendors
in the industry force you to throw out that software, but as your example
shows...you can CONTINUE to use that old software.

In China today they are implementing OpenSource and FreeWare solutions in
preference to the "relatively" high cost of Microsoft products,
notwithstanding the TCO debate.

Making old versions that are still capable of serving a useful purpose may
have some commercial payback downstream.

Why did the company upgrade anyway? If they been running a 13+ year old
version of software, and been out of support for 10+ years...why all of
the sudden a change of heart? It is certainly not Microsoft forcing them
to upgrade, and then been running for 10+ years.....

If there is a change in the way they do business, their system would need to
reflect it; A major change maybe worth the cost of a complete redevelopment,
a few tweaks maybe not. How many Access 1.1 developers are there in NYC, how
many are there in anytown, anystate?

The particular company was moved to change following the changes in the
Financial Regulatory body's rules for their type of business, which required
them to hold additional information as a matter compliance with the new
rules. If the rule changes had a minor impact what would you do, upgrade the
whole system, install new hardware, yes that is the general view of
developers, not sure about the business owners.

I have the latest version of all Microsoft software through MSDN Universal,
many developers I know also have this yet continue to develop in Visual
Studio 6 and Access 97.

How many do you think will still be using SQL Server 2000 in 5 years? I
think it will be thousands of businesses of all sizes. I wonder how many are
still using SQL Server 6.5.

So what's in it for Microsoft, well they should give it active
consideration. If they can honestly see nothing in it for them can they see
anything in it for less developed countries that will in all likelihood be
the rising stars of the future.

And to close, finally, how many illegal copies are out there because people
cannot get a legal copy. If it was available as freeware, there would be no
justification for illegal copies and MS would reconnect with these people
and businesses.

Just a suggestion, I'm alright we have every version of every piece of
Microsoft Database Software since 1992, but this isn't about what I want.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison

Why? What benefit is this to consumers? Why would you want to encourage
users to use a 10+ year old piece of software?

comments above.

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

If they have a need to make a few changes to reflect a change in the way
their business operates who do they turn to (they only have MSARN110.EXE
installed not MSACCESS.EXE)

That means they did not purchase ms-access, and if that developer left them
high and dry..that is the developers fault.

Because some company develops a product with QuickBasic, or a old version of
C, that is the responsibility of the vendors, and not the tool makers in
that case. The above example is that of a vendor...and really not much of
the tool makers issue in this case.

Further, there is a converter for 2.0 that works with a2003, you can
download it here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...f8-f3ab-41e9-902a-2255a66e1c4a&DisplayLang=en

So, it is not like MS is trying to hang people out to dry.

nearly every developer will have dumped this
software years ago to use the later versions.

I disagree. We might not have access 2.0 installed, but I certainly kept the
2.0 disks. However, I also got a97 hanging around, and it can convert 2.0
files anyway (and, I believe 1.1 files). Further, if you got a MSDN
subscription, then access 2.0 is available as a download anyway.

So, we got a free download for a 2.0 converter available to any an all. You
can use a a97 version to convert, and if are a MSDN subscription, then 2.0
is available as a download (not even a97 is available as a download by the
way).

So, looking at the above, it is not like users (or us developers) are being
left out in the cold in any way at all. If MS was trying to be mean, and
force upgrades, then I don't think all of the above mentioned resources
would STILL be available. (this why we pay for software.....as then 10 years
later we got someone to help us out).

I would maintain that whilst Access 2.0 is ancient it still runs a lot of
businesses, you will note that Microsoft made an Access 2 Converter
available to run on Access 2003. No doubt to encourage migration to Access
2003.

Yes, sure MS did the above..but many other companies don't even have that
kind assistance available for old versions.

I have seen people on these newsgroups ask how to make working Access
97 applications in Access 2003.

Sure, and again, MS came out with a migration tools (and, source is
included). This was again requested by customers to make upgrading
easer....it was not MS's idea. Further, a2003 consumes most a97 applications
without any problems. (again, a2003 added the dao references by
default..something a2000, and 2002 did not have). What this means is that MS
sure wants us to upgrade, but they also listen to us developers. The fact
that dao was added back as default is rather remarkable, and really shows a
considering that MS has us developers.

What happens when all the Access 2.0 developers have gone, and all the
versions of the software are gone. Make it freeware and small businesses
throughout the world will continue to work with it.

The problem here is us developers. Right now, about 3% of the market in
north America is windows 98. I can't even afford to support those customers.
Doing so will mean that by button line is reduced, and then I jeopardize my
paying clients. My clients WANT me to do well, but they don't want to pay me
to support loosing customers out of their bills, or have me raise my support
costs to cover those clients running older stuff. Further, if those clients
that can't afford to upgrade to windows XP, then generally they can't afford
to pay me, or purchase new software. This means they can't support our
industry anyway. At the end of the day, if no money comes into our industry,
then we might as get out and not bother writing software.

In Africa there are some
modern IT projects using wireless PDAs in schools, yet in many other areas
the 80386 still runs Windows 3.x and early versions of Access. Are you
saying Africa should upgrade to the latest Pentiums or do you think they
have other priorities?

Donations of used computers and software is a great idea. However, if no one
is there to support that stuff, then often the results are people who are
FAR more bitter then if they did without. I sold old computers to friends of
mine for near next to nothing. Yet years later these friends are still VERY
VERY bitter at me for selling them something that was not good. (you just
can't win in these kinds of cases). So, having some of these people jump on
to old software can often really handicap cap these people.

Indeed they are free to use the old software, who can support them? Even
developers that would want to would need to have full copies of Access,
especially if the clients only have runtime installations.

As I mentioned, this is not different then running a 10 year old version of
QuickBooks, or whatever. This all comes back to the cost of support. If
developers have enough PAYING customers with that old software, then I don't
see why, or how they would have thrown out access 2.0. The problem is that
any developer that solely develops and supports access 2.0 has likely gone
bankrupt..and can't support anyone, or even make a donation to the local
food bank. There is often this idea that support, and maintaining of
software has no cost, but that is not the case. Ether the users pay for some
type of support, or they don't. If users don't pay for some type of support,
then what right do they have to ask others to give up their resources to do
so for them?

I know of a client in town that is running a old green screen multi-user
system. That person is wondering why no one can come and support his system?
The reason is that no one can make money and THUS CAN NOT AFFORD to support
him (as much as one would like to...it is simply a issue of food on the
table).

I know of a security company that STILL uses k-cars for their drivers. They
have a full time mechanic, and about 40-50 "extra" cars they pull parts from
to keep the fleet running. Another company simply leases their equipment.
So, either road is possible, but you can't even get parts for those k-cars,
and a local dealer in town can hardly service those cars. (the reason why
they can't service the cars is because they can't afford to anymore..not
because they don't want to). However, if you can afford a full time
mechanic, and keep a yard full of old used k-cars laying around, then you
CAN afford to keep those k-cars going. So, it really comes down to what you
can keep laying around, and what skill set you keep (at what point do I
throw out my old FoxPro manuals?).

At the end of the day, we are talking about what it takes to keep our
industry viable. Free software, and out of support software don't contribute
to our industry, and if consumers can't pay for software..then our industry
finished....

 

[Tony Toews]

"Craig Alexander Morrison"

Only because I was forced to (vbg) mind you as already stated Access 97 will
be 10 shortly. I had to hunt around for a machine with a 3 1/2 diskette
drive for this thing.

FWIW if you copy the floppies to directories named, DISK1, DISK2, etc.
they should install quite nicely. This has worked for me for a
number of different floppy based MS software.

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

 

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

FWIW if you copy the floppies to directories named, DISK1, DISK2, etc.

they should install quite nicely. This has worked for me for a
number of different floppy based MS software.

Thanks, now that you mention it I am sure that I did know this, another item
to add to the list of things I used to know (vbg).

I copied nearly 400 hundred old diskettes over the last few months onto a
folder called software archive and was getting ready to burn a DVD and then
I noticed that they would fit on a single CD (of course).

The tip will come in handy, (now if only I had named the folders on the
archive as you mentioned, I would be able to skip a step).

 

[Tony Toews]

"Craig Alexander Morrison"

Thanks, now that you mention it I am sure that I did know this, another item
to add to the list of things I used to know (vbg).

I knows the feeling. <smile>

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