I need some artillery against Access haters (1 Viewer)

[hi there]

Hey all,

i need some artillery to throw back at some corporate IT folks who hate Access and was hoping to get some of the wonderful experts in this forum's opionions. i'm developing a small application in Access to basically turn a large document into a electronic version with some other stuff. the corporate IT folks want to do this in SQL server with a .NET front end for their local intranet. they are currently running Access 97 (in the process of switching to XP) at the facility and are complaining about all the problems with updating 97 applications into Access XP. they say if we do it in XP we'll have all kinds of problems when the next version of Access comes out. they said they've had problems even with applications that include Access 97 run time, which i don't know a whole lot about, but thought you don't even need Access to run these. anyway, i thought MS fixed a lot of these conversion problems with Access 2000 > XP. they basically told me they despise Access. i was thinking how dare they. here are some facts about the application:

1. requires only 9 concurrent users (max)
2. will have < 1000 records.
3. will require a GUI with editing capabilities. not a read only web page.
4. only a select few personnel should have access to the information in the dbase.
5. will require frequent updates from folks with limited computer literacy.


any help y'all could give me with this would be EXTREMELY appreciated.

thanks

 

[FoFa]

If your I.T. dept. has to do the conversion, I can understand the problem. Access version changes has been not so bad, to pretty bad depending on the application. What Access brings to the table, is users can deal with it, not I.T., so if you as Joe User need something, you can do it in Access and not have to deal with I.T. You must also remember I.T. is in the position of maintaining corp. information integrity. So if this data has to interface with something of theirs, they would be in the position of being screwed by bad data coming from this application they have no control over. That is one reason I.T. typically shoots for the bigger solution, control and data integrity. Access has it's place, but it is NOT an enterprise solution like Sqlserver or Oracle (as an example). It has a tendency to corrupt every so often, security is not as good, enterprise backup solutions are not as sound, and when there is a problem, there is usually no tracability as to why it happened. And that is when you turn to I.T. to fix it. And that is usually the first time they know this application exists, and all of a sudden it's I.T.s fault. Go figure.

 

[hi there]

Hi Fofa,

thanks for the response. i can understand you points about Access' pitfalls as a true client/server application. my thinking was that this is not intended to be an enterprise solution, and the simpler i can make this application the better. i would like to avoid having to go to the IT dept everytime i or someone else needs a change to be made. if the IT dept is swamped with stuff, who knows when they'll get around to updating the dbase. there is also the issue that i really think the folks who have intimate knowledge with the subject matter contained in the dbase should be doing the updates. i'm afraid instructions to the IT dept could get misinterpreted and then end up causing a lot of confusion. do you or anyone else know of any significant problems in Access 2000 > XP conversions. i've stumbled through some 97 applications converting them to 2000 or XP, but haven't had any problems going back and forth between 2000 and XP. ideally, i'd like to make the argument that MS has fixed most of these conversion problems. another thing i'm wondering and i'm not too familiar with SQL server, but it is similar to Access in that new versions of that software also come out (e.g. SQL Server 7.0 and SQL Server 2000). i know you're (Fofa) familiar with SQL Server. are there similar problems with updating applications in different versions of SQL server. again thanks for your comments and help.

 

[FoFa]

The A2.x to A95 and A97 to A2K (or 2002) were biggie updates. A2K to 2002 is a no brainer with very few if any issues.
Sql 6.5 to Sql 7 was a biggie, but it still did not have the impact of converting DAO to ADO, and duplicate named objects as in Access.
I really was not saying YOUR application was an enterprise app., but I.T. thinks on a higher level because they are enterprise app. oriented. Where you are thinking I just need this one dang thing, I hate waiting on I.T. all the time, I.T. is thinking, if they pass some garbage into our enterprise systems, they could bring down half the company. I AM NOT saying Access is not a good fit for what you said, I was just trying to let you know why a lot of I.T. depts. have the attitude they do.
But your I.T. dept. just hating Access is not a good thing either. Their problems with converting A97 to A2002 shows that the apps were not designed properly to start with or they took it upon themselve to update the DAO to ADO even thought it is not REQUIRED to do that (it might in the next version however, who knows). The open nature of Access leads to these kinds of problems (it's advantage and it's bain). If the data in this system has to feed your enterprise systems, let your I.T. dept. do it, or at the least develop an interface to thier systems.

 

[hi there]

thanks again Fofa. you bring up some good points. i think your right about IT trying to switch all the DAO code to ADO instead of just including the proper reference library. i also think they are not familiar with ease at which Access 2000 converts to 2002. i think their frame of reference is with Access 97 and there are some problems with that conversion. thanks again for all of your help.

 

[cdacey]

I would agree with everthing you guys said.

In general, for the workload & specifications you described, Access can easily dothe job. My only thought is whether there would be any plans in the future for more widespread use, which might lead you to use SQL. But, if you need ammo, keep reminding them of the SQL licensing fees vs. access (and/ or access runtime) in regard to deployment.

 

[hi there]

thanks chris. one more bullet in my holster. could you elaborate a little more on SQL licensing fees and deployment.

thanks

 

[harra]

Having had to deal with a strict IT Department or 2, I can tell you this.....

The #1 reasoning behind their Nazism is the fact that many corporate IT departments are going to centralized control. A solution such as you are suggesting will punch holes in many corporate infrastructures. It opens a possibility of their being an app that needs to be maintained by users OUTSIDE of their group. Not only that, many of them view it as a threat to their Group's Identity. They are the ones who create and distribute applications used by the corporation, NOT "Joe Schmo" in Department X. I also agree with many of the comments provided by FoFa about insight into the thinking of Corporate IT departments.

I can tell you this, the reason they are probably having big headaches moving from Access 97 to Access 2000/2002 is because Access 97 defaulted to DAO and Access 2000/2002 defaulted to DAO. So when you wrote your code as such

Dim dbs as Database

In Access 97, that causes problems in 2000/2002.

 

[FoFa]

Sql Licensing is either per server(maybe per cpu I don't recall) or per client. If they are using per server (most do not) than licensing is not an issue, if it is per client, and you are not using Sqlserver, it might be an issue. If the license is on a web server connecting to the Sqlserver, it may not be an issue. Sql server licensing has gotten complicated, and I don't keep up with it because we have an enterprise agreement that gives us client licenses.

 

[hi there]

thanks Fofa and Harra. you are completely correct Harra in your statement about corporate IT focusing on a centralized control strategy and i think they feel i'm invading their turf. the biggest problem i see with lumping everything into a "centralized" control strategy is you can lose customization and productivity in a manufacturing setting. unit supervisors and various plant personnel need to be able to develop small applications to aide them in their daily routines w/o having to bring IT into the mix, but Fofa was right in his statement that if anything goes wrong its IT responsibility to fix it. then again this happens to everyone who works in a structured environment. i have to fix a lot of problems other people create because they create them in my area of responsibility. its not fair, but that's the way it is. anyway thanks for everyone's comments. they were very helpful. if possible could anyone describe some of the issues associated with the SQL Server 6.5 to 7.0 update.

thanks everyone. you all are great.

 

[FoFa]

ROFL
And there it is.

We want to use Access to keep it out of the I.T. dept.

if anything goes wrong its IT responsibility to fix it

 

[hi there]

that's not what i meant. i don't expect IT to maintain the application in question in any way at all. i was speaking in generalities.

 

[BillD]

I have been using Access 2000 for over 6 years now. I have customers with XP. I have never had a problem. I have over 40 databases with 10 to 15,000 records on each. Never a problem. I love Access 2000 and Access 2002. Upward and downward compatible. A first for microsoft. In the past, I ran a small phone billing Company with Access 95. Over 150,000 calls a month.
You can design your own tables, queries, forms, reports. What more can you ask for?
BillD

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Luke Chung presentation "Access In Organizations"

Luke Chung, President of FMS, Inc www.fmsinc.com, did an excellent presentation titled Access In Organizations at the UK Access Users Group meeting at the Microsoft Campus, Reading I think it was two years ago. (May 2006)

The PowerPoint slides of his presentation are available for download here:

It was an excellent presentation, Luke identified the problem you are having with the IT department, basically MS Access does cause them a headache, however it is strange that they pick on MS Access when "everyone" uses spreadsheets all over the place handling sensitive data and no one seems to bother about it.

The main benefit of MS Access is that it can produce results very quickly, in other words the return on investment (ROI) is excellent and nothing else can't touch it really.

It is ideal for a small team of people within the organization to use, as long as the files are kept on secure PC's then the security problem is no different than for any other files. However if the data is very sensitive and used in multiple places over the network then obviously SQL server is a much better choice. There is still a case for developing and testing a solution in MS Access first before developing it in SQL server, Again quicker, easier to modify and taking into account user input.

One of the most embarrassing problems that the IT department can have with MS Access is that one of their bosses will develop their own MS Access database and when they run into the problems they take it to the IT department expecting them to fix it!

This is your opportunity, place yourself in their mind as the MS Access expert, they will only be too pleased to pass the responsibility of on to you.

Luke's presentation was quite a while ago I can remember bits of it, if you want to know more, then I would only be too happy to talk through the presentation with you, drawing on my failing memories of it!

Cheers Tony

 

[statsman]

The best selling point may be that Access is only available on the Microsoft Office

PROFESSIONAL

Version.

That in itself should shut them up.

 

[unclejoe]

A pretty old post, but worth a read thru.

I have been using Access 2000 for over 6 years now. I have customers with XP. I have never had a problem. I have over 40 databases with 10 to 15,000 records on each. Never a problem. I love Access 2000 and Access 2002. Upward and downward compatible. A first for microsoft. In the past, I ran a small phone billing Company with Access 95. Over 150,000 calls a month.
You can design your own tables, queries, forms, reports. What more can you ask for?
BillD

 

[GaryPanic]

Cost......
should do it
pound for pound Access is cost effective
it can be tweaked as the business develops at next to no cost...