Switch out Access' backend for a SQL-Server version
Wesley Kenis commented
I tried using the Access to sql server migration wizard with an 64 bit office installation and guess what: the shit doesn't work because it doesn't use the 64 bit access connection libraries.
how is it possible that after more than 5 years of 64 bit processing that 99% of your own shit still runs on 32 bit (and even "suggests" users to keep using it because of "compatibility issues". Isn't it about time you started FIXING your bugs instead of fucking users over and keep crying about how difficult it is and searchingfor an excuse. Upsizing used to be a part of Access itself and it worked wonders, whish idiot is responsible for the removal of this feature?? and more troublesome: for the fucking up of the compatibility???? The only option I now have left is to unistall my access and install the "access client" just to get back to 32 bits, I'm NOT going down that path just because of your idiot managers. FIX IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS. as a professional .NET developer I find it an outrage that "collegues" that are supposed to know what they're doing release such crappy versions??? If a version is not production ready DON'T release it and tell marketing they can stick it where the sun don't shine. it's not because the competition releases a new crappy version every 5 minutes that you must follow. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY always prevails. Follow that philosophy for once. You force tools and updates down on us but you have no idea what you're doing. I had to "upgrade" several times already just to get a working version of windows. And with the latest update you just "killed" my working verions with yet another one, resetting ALL my preferences along the way. be bye numlock and other fast boot options. I had to redo all my settings because of your disrespect for users. No wonder Apple is so popular these days: they deliver quality faster than you can get your crap out the door.
Adrian Bell (MVP) commented
Some of the stuff in there is certainly acceptable as the Access Team asked us to get it out in our messages. Some of the rest I'm less sure about so that's really up to MS to determine.
My guess is that this is acceptable, but I'd be a little more cautious personally. I suspect that in trying to get the allowable message across they may have let something slip. Hence caution. It's very difficult to keep publicising without letting anything NDA slip.
I do know that, as a group, we are very careful about what we put out. We take the NDA side very seriously indeed.
@George Hepworth, in the same LinkedIn PMADN thread, previously mentioned, a comment was also made by a different Access MVP. Does this also constitute a breach of NDA?..
"I just got back from the Summit and can tell you that VBA isn't going away; Microsoft (finally) understands the impact that it has on business. The OM will continue to be updated as features are added, however the IDE will not be updated - Period. Yes, there is a push to JS API's, and MS is doing a pretty cool job of building out cross functionality, but it's going to take a while. The big thing to remember is that they want to provide the same experience across all platforms. Yeah, you're not going to develop a VBA app on the iPhone, but you might need people to be able to view such a thing without it breaking."
@George Hepworth, without mentioning names, you can view the comment made by one of your MVP colleague's in LinkedIn's PMADN group. Furthermore, I was just asking if this is true, so no need to insinuate I'm spreading rumors or fabricating this.
Ananda Sim commented
You can't switch out the Access backend for anything. Access Forms, Reports and Querys are intimately bound to ACE - the way the Form behaviour handles the Update event, Autonumber event is tightly intimate to ACE (the engine formerly known as JET). The field types in SQL Server have some compatibility with ACE field types but that's similar features, they are not the same.
Access Forms and Reports without ACE is the old Access Data Project file format - I used that once and the integration layer was so thin, it was pale and lacking richness
George Hepworth commented
Spreading rumors of this sort is not helpful to anyone, Mr. Ruperto.
Besides, if someone "...who recently attended the MVP Summit..." made such a statement, it would most likely be a violation of NDA we all sign prior to the event. On that basis alone, I have to suspect this one is made up out of whole cloth.
I heard from someone who recently attended the MVP Summit that MS is going to deprecate DAO. Is this true?
Perhaps the proposal here is to make SQL Server the default engine instead of ACE. I have suggested the same thing: https://access.uservoice.com/forums/319956-access-desktop/suggestions/10626486-better-integration-with-sql-server
Mark Burns commented
I'm guessing they are asking to replace Jet/Ace engine entirely with SQL Server's Local File store...or something along those lines (or, perhaps make Ace read/write into/with those SQL Server Local File Store databases - which have up to 10GB size limit iirc).
You can already use a multitude of Back-Ends (Oracle, SQL Server, ....). What exactly do you mean?
Anders Ebro (TheSmileyCoder) commented
I am wondering what you mean by that? You can already have SQL server as your backend, either through linked tables, or plain ADO/DAO connections.