MICROSOFT INVESTING HEAVILY IN ACCESS

[Mike Painter]

The question of the continuation of Access has come up a few times here.

This is taken from FMS


"MICROSOFT INVESTING HEAVILY IN ACCESS

Last week at the Access Advisor conference in Las Vegas, Microsoft announced
their plans for enhancing Access over the next several versions. In his
keynote, Richard McAniff, Corporate Vice President of Access, Excel and
Office Programmability, revealed the future direction for Access and their
renewed commitment to the roots of making databases easy, along with
SharePoint integration for web connectivity. With the largest Access
development team since the early days of Access, Microsoft is refocusing its
efforts on making Access the no-brainer choice for Excel users who need more
power. By simplifying the development of database applications, information
workers will be empowered to solve more database problems on their own.
Meanwhile, the developer features will allow the continued creation of
professional solutions. Overall, the investment Microsoft is making, the
change in focus and simpler marketing message for Office, is quite
tremendous and bodes well for the future of Access."

 

[Tom Wickerath]

Hi Mike,

You didn't include the 2nd paragraph, from this newsletter item, which includes information that
should be of interest to Access developers. For example, at the company that I work at, I
occasionally run into developers who treat Access as a toy, and make statements to the effect
that you should always use SQL Server or Oracle for a real database. I do not share such an
opinion that a 10-ton-truck is needed for light duty hauling. This is in line with the
cost-justify statement in the 2nd paragraph.

Here is the newsletter item in it's entirety:


MICROSOFT INVESTING HEAVILY IN ACCESS

Last week at the Access Advisor conference in Las Vegas, Microsoft announced their plans for
enhancing Access over the next several versions. In his keynote, Richard McAniff, Corporate Vice
President of Access, Excel and Office Programmability, revealed the future direction for Access
and their renewed commitment to the roots of making databases easy, along with SharePoint
integration for web connectivity. With the largest Access development team since the early days
of Access, Microsoft is refocusing its efforts on making Access the no-brainer choice for Excel
users who need more power. By simplifying the development of database applications, information
workers will be empowered to solve more database problems on their own. Meanwhile, the developer
features will allow the continued creation of professional solutions. Overall, the investment
Microsoft is making, the change in focus and simpler marketing message for Office, is quite
tremendous and bodes well for the future of Access.

At FMS we are extremely pleased to see this new focus. Rather than focusing on SQL Server or
..NET, Microsoft is returning focus to Access' core strength: a rapid development environment for
users that can be extended by experienced database developers and programmers. Very few
programmers train to become Access developers, but many developers start from their use of
Access. The new initiative will result in even more databases that can be created by information
workers, and gives skilled Access users and developers more opportunities. While there are
tradeoffs between Access and other, more advanced platforms, making it easier to create Access
projects will allow organizations to build applications they could not cost-justify on more
expensive platforms. We at FMS have always believed there are a wide range of business and
organizational challenges that require database solutions. Some justify expensive and
sophisticated solutions, while others are best satisfied with the rapid, cost effective solutions
Access offers.


_________________________________________________


The question of the continuation of Access has come up a few times here.

This is taken from FMS


"MICROSOFT INVESTING HEAVILY IN ACCESS

Last week at the Access Advisor conference in Las Vegas, Microsoft announced
their plans for enhancing Access over the next several versions. In his
keynote, Richard McAniff, Corporate Vice President of Access, Excel and
Office Programmability, revealed the future direction for Access and their
renewed commitment to the roots of making databases easy, along with
SharePoint integration for web connectivity. With the largest Access
development team since the early days of Access, Microsoft is refocusing its
efforts on making Access the no-brainer choice for Excel users who need more
power. By simplifying the development of database applications, information
workers will be empowered to solve more database problems on their own.
Meanwhile, the developer features will allow the continued creation of
professional solutions. Overall, the investment Microsoft is making, the
change in focus and simpler marketing message for Office, is quite
tremendous and bodes well for the future of Access."

 

[Chan Tzer Jiun]

-----Original Message-----
The question of the continuation of Access has come up a few times here.

This is taken from FMS


"MICROSOFT INVESTING HEAVILY IN ACCESS

Last week at the Access Advisor conference in Las Vegas, Microsoft announced
their plans for enhancing Access over the next several versions. In his
keynote, Richard McAniff, Corporate Vice President of Access, Excel and
Office Programmability, revealed the future direction for Access and their
renewed commitment to the roots of making databases easy, along with
SharePoint integration for web connectivity. With the largest Access
development team since the early days of Access, Microsoft is refocusing its
efforts on making Access the no-brainer choice for Excel users who need more
power. By simplifying the development of database applications, information
workers will be empowered to solve more database problems on their own.
Meanwhile, the developer features will allow the continued creation of
professional solutions. Overall, the investment Microsoft is making, the
change in focus and simpler marketing message for Office, is quite
tremendous and bodes well for the future of Access."



.

 

[Jamie Collins]

at the company that I work at, I
occasionally run into developers who treat Access as a toy, and make
statements to the effect
that you should always use SQL Server or Oracle for a real database.

Did you read the article <g>? It even tells you MS Access is 'a rapid
development environment'. MS Access ins't a real database, it isn't
even a database.

Did you mean MS Jet? There was no mention of Jet in the article. I
would be very surprised if Jet development was to be resurrected, a
shame though that is.

Jamie.

--

 

[Brendan Reynolds]

Microsoft's plan seems to have been that we would all move from Jet to MSDE.
But that hasn't happened, and shows no sign of happening. Just compare the
number of questions in the newsgroups involving Jet databases to the number
of questions involving any version of SQL Server. It seems to me that
Microsoft's customers have 'voted with their feet' on this issue, and
Microsoft seems to have got the message. If Microsoft had not got the
message, there'd have been much more investment in improving ADPs in recent
versions of Access, in my opinion. The restoration of the default DAO
reference in Access 2003 is also significant.
--
Brendan Reynolds (MVP)
http://brenreyn.blogspot.com

The spammers and script-kiddies have succeeded in making it impossible for
me to use a real e-mail address in public newsgroups. E-mail replies to
this post will be deleted without being read. Any e-mail claiming to be
from brenreyn at indigo dot ie that is not digitally signed by me with a
GlobalSign digital certificate is a forgery and should be deleted without
being read. Follow-up questions should in general be posted to the
newsgroup, but if you have a good reason to send me e-mail, you'll find
a useable e-mail address at the URL above.

 

[Arvin Meyer]

Did you read the article <g>? It even tells you MS Access is 'a rapid
development environment'. MS Access ins't a real database, it isn't
even a database.

Did you mean MS Jet? There was no mention of Jet in the article. I
would be very surprised if Jet development was to be resurrected, a
shame though that is.

Microsoft has practically doubled its development team. For those who don't
know who Richard McAniff is. He was the original developer of the Access
reporting engine. That still is the best report engine in existence, bar
none. Jet is far from dead, it is being actively worked on, although I have
no idea if there will be any new features or not.

In the strictest sense, there is no true relational database engine as
outlined by E.J. Codd. To say Access isn't a "real database" is ridiculous.
Any container of data is a "real database". Access adheres to most of the
relational database principles and moreso than most of the other desktop
databases. For all practical purposes, Access is more relational than anyone
who uses it will ever need.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access downloads:
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

 

[Tom Wickerath]

Jamie,

Did you read the article <g>?
Did you mean MS Jet?

Wordplay....I think you knew what I meant, without any question, the first time you read my
statement. Of course I know that Access is just a GUI for JET or MSDE. When most people talk of
Access databases, they mean Access + JET (or in the case of ADP's, Access + MSDE). I work at a
Fortune 100 company (NYSE symbol: BA). We have internal e-mail lists for lots of topics,
including Access related questions. Any employee, in any corner of the globe, can use our
internal list to post questions or answers to (very similar to a newsgroup like this, but without
the anonymity).

The point I was trying to make is that some developers post their opinions to "DL DevTalkAccess",
in an attempt to steer people who are having problems using Access to the more expensive SQL
Server or Oracle solutions (since they work for such groups and have a self-interest in
maintaining a steady source of work). In pretty much all cases, this would have the effect of
taking a project out of the hands of the person who is seeking the help, and turning it over to a
DBA. A lot of these types of projects simply cannot cost-justify the use of a "10 ton truck" when
its not really needed.

Arvin made the statement "Jet is far from dead, it is being actively worked on, although I have
no idea if there will be any new features or not." I sincerely hope that Microsoft is working on
Jet, although I recently asked a member of the Access Development Team why they cannot or will
not fix a particular issue in Jet, the answer I was given was that the Jet team had been
disbanded some time ago. The issue I was asking about concerns KB article # 306435:

PRB: Jet 4.0 Row-Level Locking Is Not Available with DAO 3.60
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=306435

I'd like to see Microsoft fix this problem in Jet, so that we can get the row level locking that
was promised, without having to implement a work-around like this to actually achieve it.

Tom
____________________________________

at the company that I work at, I
occasionally run into developers who treat Access as a toy, and make
statements to the effect
that you should always use SQL Server or Oracle for a real database.

Did you read the article <g>? It even tells you MS Access is 'a rapid
development environment'. MS Access ins't a real database, it isn't
even a database.

Did you mean MS Jet? There was no mention of Jet in the article. I
would be very surprised if Jet development was to be resurrected, a
shame though that is.

Jamie.

--

 

[Guest]

Yeah!!!!

 

[Jamie Collins]

Microsoft's plan seems to have been that we would all move from Jet to MSDE.
But that hasn't happened, and shows no sign of happening.
Just compare the
number of questions in the newsgroups involving Jet databases to the number
of questions involving any version of SQL Server. It seems to me that
Microsoft's customers have 'voted with their feet' on this issue, and
Microsoft seems to have got the message. If Microsoft had not got the
message, there'd have been much more investment in improving ADPs in recent
versions of Access, in my opinion.

The bias currently remains in Jet's favor. My understanding is that
MSDE is not automatically installed by MS Access, that MS Access
objects are not stored in MSDE tables and that choosing a new blank
database gives you a Jet database by default. If the bias was altered
in favor of MSDE, MS Access natively used a MSDE database for it's own
settings and to use Jet you had to install it and explicitly choose a
Jet database each time, would we see the same number voting with their
feet for Jet? The very term ADP suggests a bolt on.

Take Visual Studio as an example. Did MS create VS7.0 with the .NET
framework being an optional install with a new .NET project type? Or
did they completely re-write it from the foundations up as VS.NET with
a VS6 project not being an option?

The restoration of the default DAO
reference in Access 2003 is also significant.

I'm guessing they haven't removed the default reference to ADO. Doing
so would be highly significant. And I'll pre-empt you by saying, I
fully expect to find DAO to have higher precedence than ADO where both
are referenced by default, in order to maintain MS Office's great
history on compatibility issues i.e. in the interest of not breaking
pre-ADO code where the qualifying 'DAO' was not widely used in VBA.

Jamie.

--

 

[Jamie Collins]

In the strictest sense, there is no true relational database engine as
outlined by E.J. Codd.

Don't drag Dr Codd into this! I didn't say 'relational'. Focus on the
word 'database' as in, 'MS Access isn't a database.'

Jamie.

--

 

[Jamie Collins]

...

Tom, Thanks for replying.

Wordplay....I think you knew what I meant, without any question, the first time you read my
statement.

The <g> means take this in a light hearted way. I don't think you took
genuine offence and hope this is correct.

Wordplay? No. Value judgements aside, MS Access isn't comparable to
SQL Server and Oracle because they are entirely different animals. A
more reasonable comparison would be comparing Jet with SQL Server and
Oracle and that is what I meant in my second comment, 'Did you mean MS
Jet?'

Of course I know that Access is just a GUI for JET or MSDE. When most people talk of
Access databases, they mean Access + JET

Sometimes people say 'MS Access database' when what they are referring
to (e.g. a data schema issue) does not involve MS Access.

If you know the distinction, make it. For example, when you alluded to
'developers who treat Access as a toy', is it Jet or the MS Access UI
they think is a toy? I would guess they think Jet is a toy.

Having made the distinction, though, I'm still unsure whether you are
a supporter of MS Access or Jet or both. If you had to choose one,
would you put the money into Jet or MS Access? I'd choose Jet. I've
got a feeling MS have chosen the latter.

Arvin made the statement "Jet is far from dead, it is being actively
worked on, although I have no idea if there will be any new
features or not."
I recently asked a member of the Access Development Team why
they cannot or will not fix a particular issue in Jet, the answer I
was given was that the Jet team had been disbanded some time
ago.

I find all this talk a little contradictory. If it is true that Jet is
being actively worked, then I'd conclude they must be bug fixing,
reengineering existing features or developing new features. I know
which makes more sense to me.

However, I think I'm going to put all this down to rumour and
speculation for the moment. If only the NDAs could talk. I still quite
bring myself to believe in a Jet 5.0. So few MS Access users seem to
be using the Jet 4.0-only features.

The issue I was asking about concerns KB article # 306435:

I had a quick look at this one. I think I'll file it under 'Another
Great Reason For Using ADO' <g>. Sincerely I do hope Jet development
resumes and your issues are addressed.

Jamie.

--

 

[Brendan Reynolds]

If the bias was altered
in favor of MSDE, MS Access natively used a MSDE database for it's own
settings and to use Jet you had to install it and explicitly choose a
Jet database each time, would we see the same number voting with their
feet for Jet?

<snip>

I suspect that we would have seen significant numbers voting with their feet
not to use Access. I suspect that one of the reasons Microsoft didn't do it
is that they think so too!

--
Brendan Reynolds (MVP)
http://brenreyn.blogspot.com

The spammers and script-kiddies have succeeded in making it impossible for
me to use a real e-mail address in public newsgroups. E-mail replies to
this post will be deleted without being read. Any e-mail claiming to be
from brenreyn at indigo dot ie that is not digitally signed by me with a
GlobalSign digital certificate is a forgery and should be deleted without
being read. Follow-up questions should in general be posted to the
newsgroup, but if you have a good reason to send me e-mail, you'll find
a useable e-mail address at the URL above.

 

[Lynn Trapp]

Having made the distinction, though, I'm still unsure whether you are

a supporter of MS Access or Jet or both. If you had to choose one,
would you put the money into Jet or MS Access? I'd choose Jet. I've
got a feeling MS have chosen the latter.

I'm sure Tom can speak for himself well enough, but thought I would insert
some thoughts on the paragraph above. I would say the answer to your
question depends on the type and size of the business involved and the
business needs. In my day job, I do development in Oracle. In my consulting
business, however, I work exclusively with small to medium sized businesses
and not-for-profit organizations. For most of those kind of businesses Jet
is a more than adequate database engine and, obviously, Access is the
perfect choice for developing applications for them.

 

[Mike Painter]

...

Tom, Thanks for replying.


The <g> means take this in a light hearted way. I don't think you took
genuine offence and hope this is correct.

Wordplay? No. Value judgements aside, MS Access isn't comparable to
SQL Server and Oracle because they are entirely different animals. A
more reasonable comparison would be comparing Jet with SQL Server and
Oracle and that is what I meant in my second comment, 'Did you mean MS
Jet?'

I think calling Access a database is as valid as calling SQL server a
database.
"Everybody" knows that SQL means structured Query language and is
independant of how the data is physically stored. Server is clearly related
to SQL so a "SQL server" is something that applies the language to a
database.

Of course we have to bring Codd back into the picture because the language
deals with relational databases.

 

[Tom Wickerath]

Hi Jamie,

Value judgements aside, MS Access isn't comparable to
SQL Server and Oracle because ....

I don't think I was trying to compare them, other than pointing out that I felt the 2nd paragraph
of the FMS letter, which was missing in the original post, included valid points.

If you know the distinction, make it.

Being so precise is just not necessary in everyday language. For example, I am a chemist at my
place of work (who is also providing a significant amount of Access DB support at work to fellow
employees world wide through the internal e-mail list I previously mentioned). As a chemist, I
don't go around correcting people who make statements to the effect of something "weighs" grams.
You see, I know what they *really* mean is that something has a mass of X grams. This is just one
small example of how we come to talk in common terms, even though it may not be exact.

For example, when you alluded to 'developers who treat
Access as a toy', is it Jet or the MS Access UI they think
is a toy? I would guess they think Jet is a toy.

I really don't know. These developers neither made the distinction, nor did I demand one in a
reply. I don't want to try to answer this question for them. Therefore, I won't make any such
guess.

Having made the distinction, though, I'm still unsure whether you
are a supporter of MS Access or Jet or both.

I am a strong supporter of both Access and Jet, where it makes business sense, ie. where it won't
be an absolute catastrophe if a JET database becomes corrupt, and one must spend some time
recovering as much as they can from their last backup.

If you had to choose one, would you put the money into Jet or
MS Access? I'd choose Jet. I've got a feeling MS have chosen the latter.

I would invest in both technologies. I wouldn't consider an either / or proposition. However, if
I was calling the shots at Microsoft, I would freeze any further development effort in data
access pages, and re-direct the budget to other areas of Access & Jet.

I find all this talk a little contradictory. If it is true that Jet is
being actively worked, then I'd conclude they must be bug fixing,
reengineering existing features or developing new features. I know
which makes more sense to me.

The word I got, directly from a member of the Access Development team, is that only security
related fixes will be made to Jet.

However, I think I'm going to put all this down to rumour and
speculation for the moment. If only the NDAs could talk.

I *have* been talking as much as I can. Yes, I am one of those who has a current signed NDA with
Microsoft for the next release of Access.


Tom
___________________________________________

...

Tom, Thanks for replying.

Wordplay....I think you knew what I meant, without any question, the first time you read my
statement.

The <g> means take this in a light hearted way. I don't think you took
genuine offence and hope this is correct.

Wordplay? No. Value judgements aside, MS Access isn't comparable to
SQL Server and Oracle because they are entirely different animals. A
more reasonable comparison would be comparing Jet with SQL Server and
Oracle and that is what I meant in my second comment, 'Did you mean MS
Jet?'

Of course I know that Access is just a GUI for JET or MSDE. When most people talk of
Access databases, they mean Access + JET

Sometimes people say 'MS Access database' when what they are referring
to (e.g. a data schema issue) does not involve MS Access.

If you know the distinction, make it. For example, when you alluded to
'developers who treat Access as a toy', is it Jet or the MS Access UI
they think is a toy? I would guess they think Jet is a toy.

Having made the distinction, though, I'm still unsure whether you are
a supporter of MS Access or Jet or both. If you had to choose one,
would you put the money into Jet or MS Access? I'd choose Jet. I've
got a feeling MS have chosen the latter.

Arvin made the statement "Jet is far from dead, it is being actively
worked on, although I have no idea if there will be any new
features or not."
I recently asked a member of the Access Development Team why
they cannot or will not fix a particular issue in Jet, the answer I
was given was that the Jet team had been disbanded some time
ago.

I find all this talk a little contradictory. If it is true that Jet is
being actively worked, then I'd conclude they must be bug fixing,
reengineering existing features or developing new features. I know
which makes more sense to me.

However, I think I'm going to put all this down to rumour and
speculation for the moment. If only the NDAs could talk. I still quite
bring myself to believe in a Jet 5.0. So few MS Access users seem to
be using the Jet 4.0-only features.

The issue I was asking about concerns KB article # 306435:

I had a quick look at this one. I think I'll file it under 'Another
Great Reason For Using ADO' <g>. Sincerely I do hope Jet development
resumes and your issues are addressed.

Jamie.

--

 

[Jamie Collins]

I think calling Access a database is as valid as calling SQL server a
database.

When the project is: MS Access front end, SQL Server back end, is the
MS Access element an 'Access database', is the SQL Server element an
'Access database' or is the whole thing an 'Access database'? My
answer is: MS Access UI, SQL Server database and MS Access project
respectively. If the back end is Jet, you can substitute 'Jet' for
'SQL Server' in my answer.

"Everybody" knows that SQL means structured Query language and is
independant of how the data is physically stored. Server is clearly related
to SQL so a "SQL server" is something that applies the language to a
database.

Of course we have to bring Codd back into the picture because the language
deals with relational databases.

You are opening can of worms here and, yes, we do have to call on the
good Doctor again <g>.

In brief, SQL the language is:
- a variation on the IBM Dr. Codd project name 'SEQUEL';
- pronounced 'ess-que-elle', as decided by the ANSI committee;
- is not an acronym i.e. does not stand for 'structured query
language' or anything else.

SQL Server is:
- pronounced 'sequel server';
- often referred to as simply SQL e.g. 'I am trying to access data
in a SQL database', ambiguous and annoying.

It has been discussed many times before but this thread sums it up
(bear in mind Mr Celko was on that ANSI committee):

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

Jamie.

--

 

[Jamie Collins]

I suspect that we would have seen significant numbers voting with their feet
not to use Access. I suspect that one of the reasons Microsoft didn't do it
is that they think so too!

Replace, 'not to use Access', with, 'not to upgrade their version of
MS Access' and I'll agree.

However, to go back to my analogy, I understand that the uptake of
VS.NET has been slower than expected because many have decided to
stick with VB6. But does this mean MS are planning VB7? I genuinely
feel that MS dropping VB entirely is more likely.

Jamie.

--

 

[Jamie Collins]

I *have* been talking as much as I can. Yes, I am one of those
who has a current signed NDA with
Microsoft for the next release of Access.

Thank you for your comments, Tom, they are appreciated.

Jamie.

--

 

[Brendan Reynolds]

Replace, 'not to use Access', with, 'not to upgrade their version of
MS Access' and I'll agree.

But that has happened anyway.

However, to go back to my analogy, I understand that the uptake of
VS.NET has been slower than expected because many have decided to
stick with VB6. But does this mean MS are planning VB7? I genuinely
feel that MS dropping VB entirely is more likely.

I think both scenarios are so unlikely that whether one of them is more or
less likely than the other isn't very significant. I'm not convinced that
that says anything about the future of Jet, though.

I think .NET is great for web applications and services, a tremendous leap
forward in comparison to 'classic' ASP. But unless you're developing
'enterprise' distributed applications, I think the advantages of .NET over
'classic' VB for desktop applications are much more dubious, and now there's
the uncertainty over the future of Windows Forms vs. Avalon. I don't have
any figures available, but my guess is that developers who previously worked
in ASP and VBScript have probably adopted .NET enthusiastically, but
developers who use VB6 to develop desktop applications will wait and see
what happens with Avalon. And I think they're probably right to do so.

--
Brendan Reynolds (MVP)
http://brenreyn.blogspot.com

The spammers and script-kiddies have succeeded in making it impossible for
me to use a real e-mail address in public newsgroups. E-mail replies to
this post will be deleted without being read. Any e-mail claiming to be
from brenreyn at indigo dot ie that is not digitally signed by me with a
GlobalSign digital certificate is a forgery and should be deleted without
being read. Follow-up questions should in general be posted to the
newsgroup, but if you have a good reason to send me e-mail, you'll find
a useable e-mail address at the URL above.

 

[Larry Linson]

When the project is: MS Access front
end, SQL Server back end, is the
MS Access element an 'Access database',
is the SQL Server element an 'Access
database' or is the whole thing an 'Access
database'? My answer is: MS Access UI,
SQL Server database and MS Access
project respectively. If the back end is Jet,
you can substitute 'Jet' for 'SQL Server' in
my answer.

There's no "standard" for naming the configurations. I call that an "Access
client" to whatever server database is used, but that is still imprecise. It
could be an Access "project" (.ADP) interacting with MS SQL Server via ADODB
(OLEDB), or it could be an Access "database" (.MDB or .MDE), with Jet,
linked to tables in any ODBC-compliant database via appropriate ODBC
drivers. The latter is, once again, the more generally-recommended
configuration by knowledgeable Microsoft insiders.

But, the term "Access database" is widely used, even by Microsoft, to refer
to a "Jet database" where there is no Access involved at all -- like ".asp
pages with an Access database".

And, the usage is so imprecise, so often, that it is useless to argue
semantics.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP