‘Access 11’ Beta (”A11”)

Topic

New Reply

I’ve been reading some articles (in print & online) about what new features (for both users & developers) we can expect from the next version of Access, imaginatively code-named “Access 11.” There’s the usual hype about features like enhanced XML support, integration with SharePoint, “Smart Tags”, “Object Dependencies”, etc. But one new feature I really look forward to is something more prosaic: at long last, you will be able to change the font type & size for text displayed in Query Design and SQL view (via Options dialog; settings will apply to all databases). Now THAT’S what I call an “enhancement”!! – no more going blind squinting at that tiny type …. (I confess to be less than excited about “Smart Tags” & SharePoint integration….) Link to MSDN article:

Microsoft “Access 11” Beta 1 Preview

Link to article in current issue of Access-VB-SQL Advisor magazine by MS’s Lead PM for Access/Excel:

Check out what “Access 11” beta 2 gives you

The latter article states, “Check out the Microsoft Web site for details on how you can get a copy of Microsoft “Office 11″ beta 2 to test-drive” — but searching MS Office & MSDN sites in effort to find how to obtain copy of the “Office 11” beta (Beta 2 is the “public” version?) proved futile, all I got was links to various articles hyping new features, but not telling you how to actually obtain the beta….

Reply | Quote

Replies

You are after bundle now known as “Office System Beta 2 products” – according to the spin, “Microsoft Office is no longer simply a suite of programs, but a comprehensive, integrated system” (grin!) It includes:

Products
• Microsoft Office 2003 Beta 2 CD

Reply | Quote

Oh – alternatively (and this is cool) save a few bucks by ordering the CDs for the Exchange 2003 Beta 2 Kit – it comes with the comlete Office System – go to http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/evaluation/ti/beta.asp%5B/url%5D – That way it only costs about USD$8 for domestic shipping.

Reply | Quote

Thanx for link – I plan to order a copy and, if I figure out how to partition my hard drive w/o destroying it in process, actually install it too. (The last Office Beta I tested was Office 2K, which I managed to install & use w/o any dire consequences for my then current Office 97 installation.) I find it interesting that the “Important Notices” list states:

“The software can be installed on up to five unique computers and each install must be activated through the online Office Activation Wizard (or by telephone). ”

(Emphasis added) – Product Activation for a beta costing $19.95 for shipping/handling??

Reply | Quote

When is Microsoft going to wake up and smell the coffee. 99% of their product ‘upgrades’ are nothing but managerial and salesman fluff! It seems like the push to get a new product out the door only gives the developers enough time to give the application a new look and feel, but leaving the core processes intact. If they would just slowdown the process a bit, and REALLY look into actually IMPROVING their products, we would have some really slick software right now.

For example, with their OSes, Windows 95 was a true innovation in operating systems. It was a far cry more powerful then any of it’s Microsoft predecessors. Windows 2000 was also a true innovation. 95 allowed for pretty functional ‘multi-tasking’, a decent interface, and Plug and Play. Pretty good innovations. 2000 really solidified things, by creating a solid NT framework, with a much ‘easier’ interface. All other OS versions are nothing more then fluff on their predecessors.

When it comes to Access, I really don’t think Microsoft has topped 97 yet. The 2000 version was down right criminal to release to the public. It has really no advantages over 97, and MANY MANY disadvantages. 2002 (XP), which I don’t actually own, has only one improvement that I have heard about, that I would even care about, and that is the printer object, which makes some of the ‘massive’ code I’ve had to use in the past obsolete. But that’s about it. I know interfaces are a bit different, but I am really creating ASP interfaces to Access .mdb’s, so I am not all that concerned with the new GUI bells and whistles. (I haven’t heard much about the help files in XP, but 2000’s were out and out horrible compared to 97’s….actually, Access 97’s help files are probably the best I have seen for ANY application).

What Microsoft really needs to look into, is making actual changes to really improve their products. Increase Jet’s multi-user capability. Create a Server Side jet, where you can make an .mdb on your workstation, push it to the server, and have the Jet Server Side db just pick it up and run with it. Really increase the size limit. Improve repair capabilities….or better yet give more details on the file structure.

Sorry about that, I’m just getting sick of the flood of ‘new’ software that does nothing more then look different from an older version.

Reply | Quote

Drew,

I can remember similar rants when Access 95 and then 97 came out because Access 2.0 was another “rock solid” release.

I have to confess that I *liked* Access 2000 in spite of its problems. I also like Access XP for the same reasons: it has the new functions available in VB6 like Split(), Replace(), Join(), etc., and it has objects like CurrentProject and built in support for ADO. Access 97 was a solid product, but I am grateful to be allowed to leave its code workarounds behind!

As for the much vaunted Printer object in AXP, forget it because it was designed for “power users”, not developers. It works under some circumstances and breaks under others. If your users ever use Ctl-P to pop up the print dialog, the settings they can change there will mess up any code using the Printer or PrtDevMode objects, which the dialog overrides. Stick to your existing code because it will still work regardless. Of course, if you want to invest a lot of time in tracking down and finding workarounds for all the ways setting print settings from the dialog can break the Printer object, I’ll be glad to “borrow” the results.

Reply | Quote

That’s interesting about the ballyhooed Printer object in XP, I haven’t used it because my apps need to work in A2K. But if using Printer, can’t you disable CTRL+P with an AutoKeys macro, for example, Macro Name = “^p”, Action = Beep; if user tries to enter a CTRL+P the computer will just beep at him (assuming you are also using customized menus that don’t allow user to access Print dialog…..)??

Reply | Quote

I tried that, Mark, but I couldn’t get it to work, maybe because Ctl+P is a Windows shortcut rather than an Access hotkey.

Reply | Quote

I will admit that it was nice to have VB6 in A2K, but that is the only advantage I see. And again, I develop mostly in ASP and VB, with Access as a backend, so it doesn’t really matter to me all that much as to the Access interface.

Reply | Quote

The other advantage of A2K is the unicode support in the database — not necessary for most people, but if you ever have to deal with multiple languages (especially Asian ones), it’s invaluable.

Reply | Quote

Yes but the Unicode process swings both ways. The disadvantage is that it takes up more room (thus negating the increased max size limit).

Reply | Quote

Well, actually it doesn’t take up twice as much in most cases – the option that says store single byte characters in one byte rather than two is designed to mitigate that. There is no question it balloons much quicker than Jet 3.5, but that is due mostly to the way temporary objects are handled, and to the improved locking strategy, which is another significant improvement. In addition, Jet 4.0 corrupts far less frequently than 3.5 did – in our experience by a factor of at least 10. I agree that some of the “upgrades” to Office products is more marketing blather than anything else, but in the case of Access 2000 I find it significantly better all the way around. On the other hand, Access 2002 is pretty much a marginal improvement unless you have very specific needs it meets. My

Reply | Quote

That’s true, with Unicode compression, you can take up less then ‘double’ the space.

As far as corruption goes, I find you numbers pretty odd. I have never had an Access 97 database corrupt for reasons other then network problems, which would have corrupted an Access 2000 database too.

Reply | Quote

We had extensive problems with database corruption with Access 97 in a network of about 80 users with about 20 different databases, several of them quite complex. We could plan on one to two corruptions a week to deal with. In that same environment we converted to Access 2000 2 plus years ago (right after SR1 was released) and in that time we saw only two database corruptions – one of which involved an Access 2000 front-end running on an Access 97 back-end. We saw similar but less dramatic results at another client running a 120 workstation network. It appears that for whatever reason, 2000 workstation crashes were much less likely to corrupt a database than a workstation running Access 97 that crashed. But perhaps others have had different experiences. One thing we did learn, was not to run a database that had been converted by Access 2000. Instead we created blank new databases and imported everything into it. Not sure why that made a difference, but converted databases often seemed to be flakey. They didn’t seem to corrupt – they would just exhibit an occasional strange behavior. Isn’t this stuff fun!

Reply | Quote

That’s pretty odd. Still prefer 97, but I can see where your experience would lead you to want to move to 2k.

Reply | Quote

I’ve seen similar things on a more limited scope, but I agree that a crash in 2000 and later is less likely to cause corruption than in 97. Of course, we are programming Access front ends against Access back ends, which is a different situation from Drew’s scenario. The same problems may not occur if VB or ASP is used to handle front-end duties.

Reply | Quote

Of course what I most like about A97 is that you can compile a single form or module!

Reply | Quote

Once I got used to it, I don’t mind compiling the project. At least you *can* compile the project without having to run it the way you do in VB.

Reply | Quote