OT: Pls submit your Access 97, 2000, XP/2002 databases to help build conversion tool

[Rita Nikas [MSFT]]

The Microsoft Access Product Group (the people who build Microsoft Access)
want your help! One of the main things we're working on for the near future
is a conversion tool to take Microsoft Access 97 databases (primarily, but
also Microsoft Access 2000 or 2002/XP databases) up to Microsoft Office
Access 2003. For us to do this, we need sample databases from *you*, our
customers, to ensure a quality tool.

Here is what we are looking for:

* Working Access 97 .mdb databases (we are also interested in Access 2000
and 2002 files) for conversion testing.
* Databases in wide use and in production environments.
* Please alter any sensitive information before providing us the database.
* The database will *not* be returned.
* Secured databases are welcome, just be sure to send the .MDW and the admin
user information.
* The database will be used for internal testing purposes *only* and will be
kept confidential within Microsoft.
* Please ZIP the file(s).

Please send your ZIPPED file(s) to (e-mail address removed).

Microsoft anticipates that it will make use of your file(s) to improve
Microsoft Access and other Microsoft products and technologies. While
Microsoft does not intend to make any public disclosure of your file(s), for
your protection, you should not disclose any information considered to be
confidential or proprietary in nature.

Thanks for helping Microsoft build better products!

Rita Nikas, MCSE MCDBA
Microsoft MVP Lead
Product Support Services
Microsoft Corporation

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Greg Homyer]

Unless, you posted in error, I see you chose not to answer any of Chris'
concerns, but simply posted the initial request for databases once again.

Thus far, at least in my case, conversions have not been the big problem.

Due to the multitude of posts in the various Access newsgroups concerning
problems with what has been described by many as a very "lame" PDW, I would
be working to cure that.

There are those that I would bet are more advanced and/or patient than I,
who are willing to put up with the headaches that the PDW causes. Others of
us, who desire very dependable tools for packaging runtimes, have found the
need to spend additional funds for third party tools that do work.

If you would cure the ills of the PDW, then perhaps we wouldn't have to
spend all those additional funds, which for the better tools, amount to
nearly as much as the cost of the Developer Edition. If you cured the ills
of the PDW, we could also recommend only the MS product, Office Developer,
rather than the products of others.

Wouldn't it be good for MS if the small potatoes developer without a big
budget could crank out Access runtime apps that installed dependably
regardless of what may or may not be present on the target machines.
Wouldn't that help you compete and make the use of Access runtimes a more
respectable option for business?

You had about five years from the Set Up Wizard for 97 Developer to the PDW
in Access 2002 to get it right, but didn't. So, I have little faith that
the PDW for 2003 will be fixed to our satisfaction.

Let's see, if I have little faith that you are going to cure the PDW, I must
figure that even if I upgrade to Access 2003, I will still have to spend the
additional funds, yet again, for alternatives to the PDW, and now I learn
that you will expect me to shell out another $400.00 every two years for
digital certificates for Access 2003. ...and not as an option. (I do hope
that information, as posted previously in the newsgroups, is erroneous.
Please verify?)

Then you tell us that Microsoft with all its funds, which should be able to
pay for the best programmers in the world, can't build an acceptable tool
for conversions unless we lowly customers donate our databases for testing.
As I see it, we have already been doing a lot of your testing for free,
finding bugs through use, many of which should have been cured prior to
release of a new version. At this point, you ought to be offering to pay
us for the use of our work.

How about this? I will purchase Office Developer 2003 right now under the
following conditions: If the PDW for 2003 does not work as well as does
packaging Access runtimes with SageKey/Wise per my discretion, you will
reimburse me the cost of these additional tools.

If I will be forced to pay $400. every other year for digital certificates,
I must charge you a like amount for use of my databases for testing in order
to offset the cost of non-optional digital certificates.

Otherwise, I won't have to worry about converting my databases to Access
2003 versions for some time because I will do my best to avoid Office
Developer 2003 and continue to use Access 2002 until the last dog dies.

 

[Chris Mills]

Lotta aggro out there, Rita, from developers.

Apart from MOD not being fit for sale in the last 2 major releases, try these
independent issues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2181508.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2193275.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3090918.stm

Chris

 

[Paul Overway]

You certainly won't find me defending Microsoft on the topic of PDW, but the
2003 version (now called ADE) is a major improvement, albeit not to the
extent that I'll be able to forgo 3rd party tools to package my app. It is
finally windows installer technology though, and should be better for the
casual developer.

Nevertheless, during beta testing with ADE, I made comments about what
needed to be fixed/improved. But after less than a week of testing, I was
told that it would be shipped without addressing the issues I encountered.
Defeats the purpose of beta testing, no? So, I stopped testing. Why test
something if it isn't going to be fixed? I haven't tested whether or not
the 2003 run-time will install without mucking up previous installations of
Access yet, but based on the hurried beta schedule, I'm not optimistic.
Adding the digital certificate issue to the hurried beta, you can be sure I
won't be an early adopter/guinea pig.

Microsoft seems bent on causing angst amongst developers lately. I'm really
starting to wonder if Microsoft/Access has a future.

--
Paul Overway
Logico Solutions, LLC
www.logico-solutions.com

 

[JanetB]

I would be happy to send a couple of databases to you. How can we
make a product better if we aren't willing to participate? I don't
want MSO development to go away. I love the things I can do with
Access and the integration with the other office products. I want
Office and Access to live long. I have been dragging my feet on
C#.net or vb.net development because I can do such much with Access
and DataAccess pages, along with vbscript of course.

I understand the frustration of elements not working correctly. I ran
into issues with the Developers addition as well. I hope they do get
the kinks worked out with the packaging.

Janet

 

[Paul Overway]

Greg:

A digital certificate is optional...however, with default macro security
settings in Access and unsigned code, your users will be scared out their
wits with prompts that your app may be "unsafe". So, you either have to get
a certificate or tell all your users to set macro security to low.
--
Paul Overway
Logico Solutions, LLC
www.logico-solutions.com

 

[Greg Homyer]

Thank you for the info, Paul. Will this digital certificate issue concern
only Access 2003 databases.

 

[Paul Overway]

It will affect any database run on Access 2003 platform.

BTW...they haven't addressed the runtime install...so, you'll get to shell
out for SageKey again. )