|
|
Our Hot Pick: Rising Antivirus 2006 - Certified by TUV & Checkmark! Get 10% discount by entering this coupon code: ONDISCOUNT10
Not that there was really any doubt however it has been confirmed to me on
the Access Blog, not that I was asking.
Good luck to all developers who use Access 2007 (or more to the point Good
Luck to your guinea pigs (oops - clients), I think we shall give this
upgrade a miss, for now.
--
Slainte
Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited
Small Business Solutions Provider
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Good luck to all developers who use Access 2007 (or more to the point Good
> Luck to your guinea pigs (oops - clients), I think we shall give this
> upgrade a miss, for now.
>
Ta! Do you think A97 will still be alright? <guffaw>
Well, not guffaw, I still use A97, A2000, or A2002.
A2003 was too much for me because of the security warnings and having to pay
to remove them (possibly annually)(the result being nothing much more than
removing them, which prev versions "do" anyway!)
A2007 is too much for me because they removed User Level Security (they
improved the DB Password, but they REMOVED ULS when SURELY they could have
improved ULS password security too?)
MS Blogs on the subject have been full of BS, such as that Access can never be
secure coz it's file-based and SQLServer is secure coz it's client-server.
Bullshit. Access is insecure coz MS never made the password secure, whereas
they did with SQLSever. When it boils down to a fundamental issue like this,
SQLServer is itself file-based (or where DO they store it - LALA Land?)
Thanks, Slaine (former Access developer for MS). I appreciate that a few
people like you, have their heads screwed on, once worked for MS, and did what
you sensibly could at the time.
Hope I got all that right, always appreciative of your comments
Chris
PS Nearly forgot <VBG>
Did they improve the PDW - like get rid of just any one of it's known BUGS?
PPS What does Tony Toews have to say about it? He's on some MS Runtime
advisory committee.
|
|
"Chris Mills" <phad_nospam[ at ]cleardotnet.nz> wrote in message
news:OJfzUhYzGHA.4092[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> Good luck to all developers who use Access 2007 (or more to the point
>> Good
>> Luck to your guinea pigs (oops - clients), I think we shall give this
>> upgrade a miss, for now.
>>
> Ta! Do you think A97 will still be alright? <guffaw>
>
> Well, not guffaw, I still use A97, A2000, or A2002.
>
> A2003 was too much for me because of the security warnings and having to
> pay
> to remove them (possibly annually)(the result being nothing much more than
> removing them, which prev versions "do" anyway!)
I use two registry entries to disable the warnings in A2003:
ROOT:Local Machine
Key: SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Jet\4.0\Engines
Name:SandBoxMode
Value:#00000002
ROOT:Local Machine
Key: Software\Microsoft\Office\11.0\Access\Security
Name:Level
Value:#00000001
You can have these added using the Visual Studio 2005 PDW. Or, I've moved
to InstallShield Express. It actually works. I paid for Visual Studio
2005, just to get the runtime. The PDW sucks. Add to that the fact that
you can't distribute RT with current service packs. What a ripoff and crock
of shit.
How can Microsoft take a product like A97 Dev. and continue to screw it up
with each new version? In A97, you could designate a file to never be
deleted or replaced, even with an uninstall. Did they think that nobody
wants to keep their data? I don't understand it. Maybe it's that they
would rather have everybody move to Visual Studio and SQL? Or maybe all of
us Access guys are just "pretend developers", and therefore don't deserve a
robust product?
In A97, you could even use your own icon for your app. You lost that too in
A2k PDW. They added that back in A02. But even now, with Visual Studio
2005, you can't tell it to not detete/replace your back-end data file. What
a bunch of crap. InstallShield Express handles all the above just fine.
Get a clue MS.
-Larry
<snip>
|
|
|