Hi,

What do I need to use Access 2010 (or perhaps 2007) to port our 2003
application and create an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?

Are there any issues with 2010?

-paulw

You can use Access 2010 to develop your MDB until it is ready to release, 
but you will then need to use Access 2003 to create the MDE.

-- 
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP.  Perth, Western Australia
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.


"PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote in message 
news:j861b6h399p6ifggnv6in4jq2pg52kmnmi@4ax.com...
> Hi,
>
> What do I need to use Access 2010 (or perhaps 2007) to port our 2003
> application and create an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?
>
> Are there any issues with 2010?
>
> -paulw 

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:57:25 +0800, "Allen Browne"
<AllenBrowne@SeeSig.invalid> wrote:

>You can use Access 2010 to develop your MDB until it is ready to release, 
>but you will then need to use Access 2003 to create the MDE.

So you are saying that Access 2010 can not be used to produce a
commercial, distributable product?  I realize that 99.9% of the folks
here in this newsgroup most likely do not use Access to create a
marketable product. 

Thanks,

-paulw

?"PW"  wrote in message =
news:sj82b6lu4p2gvfk20fou0mb7v0d78qjhri@4ax.com...

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:57:25 +0800, "Allen Browne"
<AllenBrowne@SeeSig.invalid> wrote:

>You can use Access 2010 to develop your MDB until it is ready to =
release,
>but you will then need to use Access 2003 to create the MDE.

So you are saying that Access 2010 can not be used to produce a
commercial, distributable product?  I realize that 99.9% of the folks
here in this newsgroup most likely do not use Access to create a
marketable product.

Thanks,

-paulw
-------------------------

Yes, access can, but there are some additional challenges here.

However, I am MUCH confused by your observation that access 2010 can't=20
produce a 2003 mde (it cannot).

VB6 could not create compiled VB5 version executable.  And the VB5 =
version=20
could not create a compiled the VB4 executable.

And when using FoxPro, the version 3 could not create a version 2.0=20
executable.

And, access 2007 can't create a 2003 mde. And, access 2003 can't create =
an=20
2000 mde. And Access 2000 can't create a 97 mde.

And, in fact, not even .net works any different.

So, we are much talking about that for most of computing history, most=20
developer's tool could never compile down to a previous version =
executable.

To my knowledge for a good 20 years in the desktop computing industry, =
the=20
above is really quite much how whole computing landscape has functioned =
and=20
worked.  I suppose there is a couple exceptions, but the most part, I =
making=20
a simple obvious longtime observation of how the whole computing =
landscape=20
has functioned.

This is really not much of an observation then realizing the sky is =
blue.

So when you compiling and distributing your product, in almost all cases =
you=20
have to produce an environment on the target machine that will allow =
your=20
software to run.  You might want to expand on your question, but it's =
not=20
quite clear what in fact you're asking here, or what your observation or =

experience in software development is here. How this works for access is =
NOT=20
ANY different then most other systems in this regards.

Now if you're making the observation that it's rather challenging to=20
distribute access applications on a commercial level, then yes that is a =

challenge because Access represents a share component of the office =
suite=20
(the VBA editor, spell checker, menu bars (and now ribbon) etc. are ALL=20
shared components. In fact, once ONE part of office is installed, then =
ALL=20
additional parts much installed to the same dir and shared set of=20
components.

There are options available that can rather mitigate or allow you to =
widely=20
distribute and safely install your application on to target computers =
using=20
the runtime system. The end result and conclusion here is this problem =
or=20
issue is not a whole lot different then any other developer tool.

You can (must) develop to a particular standard version, and then =
distribute=20
that using the runtime edition of access (that is the SAME version of=20
access).

However, because of the shared office parts Access needs, to break this=20
dependences, you have to avoid using the runtime and installer office=20
provides.
For anything beyond computers that you don't have control over what =
version=20
of office, you best purchase a commercial installer.  I recommend sakey.

www.sagekey.com

Albert D. Kallal  (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
kallal@msn.com=20

"PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote

 > What do I need to use Access 2010 (or perhaps
 > 2007) to port our 2003 application and create
 > an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?

Others seem to think you want to produce an Access 2003 MDE with Access 
2010, but I understand you just want to create an MDE (which is not, BTW, an 
"executable", but merely a "compiled" form of the MDB) to be run with the 
Access Runtime.  Is my understanding correct?

If so, my understanding is that you can do what you want with Access 2010, 
and if you choose the MDB/MDE form, you can even still secure with Access 
user/group level security (for what that is worth, which I think is 
"little", because there's free code that can break your best attempts). This 
will run via the most recent version of the Jet database engine.

If you choose the newer ACE database engine, there is an ACCDE corresponding 
to the MDE, but it cannot be secured with the Access user/group level 
security.

If you are concerned about someone stealing your design, forms, code, etc., 
Access is not the best choice for creating a commercial application.  It's 
true that you cannot lock-down any software so that a determined cracker 
cannot break your security, it can be made more difficult with some other 
tools. I've never considered this a big deal because most Access 
applications are sufficiently simple that an experienced developer can 
observe the app being used, and, with little difficulty, re-create it in far 
less time than the original developer -- it's more a matter of approach to a 
particular problem than being able to see how the original was created.

The applications I create with Access for my clients are "bespoke" 
applications, commissioned by one client for their own use, so the security 
that really counts is security of the data, not security of the application 
itself.  Data security can be much more secure by using a server database as 
a back-end data store, employing the server DB's security.

 > Are there any issues with 2010?

It appears that some, perhaps many, of the issues of Access 2007 have been 
resolved in Access 2010. No software is "error-free" but I don't hear/read a 
lot of complaints about Access 2010.

My "issues" are that I find the "Ribbon" interface and the 
Development/Design Environment clumsy and user-UNfriendly... and that was 
not "fixed", nor do I expect it to be drastically changed in future 
versions. But, for developing the individual, LAN-based, or WAN-based 
applications for which Access is suited, there is no real competitor -- if 
you do the same application in DotNet languages or other, development will 
be more time-consuming, more difficult, and, thus, more expensive.

One other "issue" -- Microsoft does NOT consider Access to be a development 
tool, but an end-user tool that is just part of Office. This means that 
"developer issues" may not get the emphasis and attention that we Access 
developers would like.

 Larry Linson
 Microsoft Office Access MVP
 Co-author "Microsoft Access Small Business Solutions" pub by Wiley, 2010 

Access Developer wrote:

> "PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote
> 
> My "issues" are that I find the "Ribbon" interface and the 
> Development/Design Environment clumsy and user-UNfriendly... and that was 
> not "fixed", nor do I expect it to be drastically changed in future 
> versions. But, for developing the individual, LAN-based, or WAN-based 
> applications for which Access is suited, there is no real competitor -- if 
> you do the same application in DotNet languages or other, development will 
> be more time-consuming, more difficult, and, thus, more expensive.
> 

Is there a similar program like Office in the universe that uses a 
ribbon-like interface?  Apple?  Unix?  Windows?  Was it a design product 
of a focus group?

?"Salad"  wrote in message=20
news:aMOdnXt_PM1w3CzRnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@earthlink.com...

Access Developer wrote:

>>Is there a similar program like Office in the universe that uses a
ribbon-like interface?  Apple?  Unix?  Windows?  Was it a design product
of a focus group?

Yes, quite much every darn near web site I visit now has a set of =
buttons=20
across the top. And, they are not cascading menu bars.
(those cascading menu bars are really hard, and if you miss or fall off, =
you=20
have to START OVER from the beginning.

And, did you every try and use a cascading menu bar on a touch screen? =
Heck,=20
they don't even work very well in a web site either.

On the other hand, using a pen based computer, or a touch based =
computer, or=20
a web site, a nice row of buttons across the top is not only STANDARD =
FAIR=20
these days, but Mac, Linux, web, pen based, touch based phones, darn=20
everything has gone to a UI in which you can with great ease just  tap =
tap=20
tap away on some buttons across the top or side.

Ever use the ribbon with a touch screen or pen based computer?

Yup, it just fantastic and runs circles around the old fashion menu bar.

I am using my iPad on a SharePoint site, and golly gee, those nice big=20
ribbons in the browser
that SharePoint uses work just fantastic. So now all of SharePoint uses =
a=20
ribbon, and I
would LOVE to see what UI you would have suggested that would work so =
well=20
with
all the new systems we see?

In fact, when using my iPad, and the ribbon interface works just =
fantastic.

So I sure glad we not following your advice that ignores every new UI =
trend=20
on the planet and takes into account people actually use things like a =
web=20
browser, or touch screens, and as noted THEY ALL AS A GENERAL RULE =
PRESENT A=20
NICE BIG SET OF BUTTONS to hit with great ease (opps, sorry, just =
described=20
the ribbon!).

Seems to me that the ribbon was very future proofed for what just about=20
every new device on the planet these days is using.

So, what exact UI are you talking about from just about every new =
product or=20
even a basic web site these days that does not follow a UI like the =
ribbon=20
in which you can hit a bunch of nice large targets?

It very possible that you still using a old dos computer, or perhaps =
never=20
used a web based program and are 100% new to computers.

So, you never used a web browser, or never head of a touch based screen, =
but=20
then again, I would have to question your wisdom of not seeing this =
obvious=20
UI choice that EVERY NEW product and paradigm in the marketplace is =
using.

I am using the new free edition of Live Mail (beta) that replaces =
outlook=20
express to read and type this message.
And again, it uses a ribbon (with a nice set of large buttons to hit - =
but=20
you can minimize the ribbon if you want more room).

So, darn near every new product in the market placed has dropped =
cascading=20
menu bars and has adopted a set of buttons that can be easily touched =
with=20
your fingers, poked with a pen, or clicked on with a mouse (opps, right, =

golly gee, right, I just descripted the ribbon again: that is a nice set =
of=20
large buttons that you can hit).

It would seem that the world has so amazing passed you by, by you can't =
even=20
make the simple observation that most new products simply have buttons =
that=20
can be touched or poked at with great ease, and that is exactly what the =

ribbon is.

Have you used the ribbon on a iPad compared to a cascading menu on a web =

site?

You instantly see what a grand future choice the ribbon was.

You never seen a web site with a set of buttons of which you can hit =
with=20
your mouse? (opps, sorry, again I just described the ribbon UI).

--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com=20

Albert D. Kallal wrote:
> ?"Salad"  wrote in message 
> news:aMOdnXt_PM1w3CzRnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@earthlink.com...
> 
> Access Developer wrote:
> 
>>> Is there a similar program like Office in the universe that uses a
> 
> ribbon-like interface?  Apple?  Unix?  Windows?  Was it a design product
> of a focus group?
> 
> Yes, quite much every darn near web site I visit now has a set of 
> buttons across the top. And, they are not cascading menu bars.
> (those cascading menu bars are really hard, and if you miss or fall off, 
> you have to START OVER from the beginning.
> 
> And, did you every try and use a cascading menu bar on a touch screen? 
> Heck, they don't even work very well in a web site either.
> 
> On the other hand, using a pen based computer, or a touch based 
> computer, or a web site, a nice row of buttons across the top is not 
> only STANDARD FAIR these days, but Mac, Linux, web, pen based, touch 
> based phones, darn everything has gone to a UI in which you can with 
> great ease just  tap tap tap away on some buttons across the top or side.
> 
> Ever use the ribbon with a touch screen or pen based computer?
> 
> Yup, it just fantastic and runs circles around the old fashion menu bar.
> 
> I am using my iPad on a SharePoint site, and golly gee, those nice big 
> ribbons in the browser
> that SharePoint uses work just fantastic. So now all of SharePoint uses 
> a ribbon, and I
> would LOVE to see what UI you would have suggested that would work so 
> well with
> all the new systems we see?
> 
> In fact, when using my iPad, and the ribbon interface works just fantastic.
> 
> So I sure glad we not following your advice that ignores every new UI 
> trend on the planet and takes into account people actually use things 
> like a web browser, or touch screens, and as noted THEY ALL AS A GENERAL 
> RULE PRESENT A NICE BIG SET OF BUTTONS to hit with great ease (opps, 
> sorry, just described the ribbon!).
> 
> Seems to me that the ribbon was very future proofed for what just about 
> every new device on the planet these days is using.
> 
> So, what exact UI are you talking about from just about every new 
> product or even a basic web site these days that does not follow a UI 
> like the ribbon in which you can hit a bunch of nice large targets?
> 
> It very possible that you still using a old dos computer, or perhaps 
> never used a web based program and are 100% new to computers.
> 
> So, you never used a web browser, or never head of a touch based screen, 
> but then again, I would have to question your wisdom of not seeing this 
> obvious UI choice that EVERY NEW product and paradigm in the marketplace 
> is using.
> 
> I am using the new free edition of Live Mail (beta) that replaces 
> outlook express to read and type this message.
> And again, it uses a ribbon (with a nice set of large buttons to hit - 
> but you can minimize the ribbon if you want more room).
> 
> So, darn near every new product in the market placed has dropped 
> cascading menu bars and has adopted a set of buttons that can be easily 
> touched with your fingers, poked with a pen, or clicked on with a mouse 
> (opps, right, golly gee, right, I just descripted the ribbon again: that 
> is a nice set of large buttons that you can hit).
> 
> It would seem that the world has so amazing passed you by, by you can't 
> even make the simple observation that most new products simply have 
> buttons that can be touched or poked at with great ease, and that is 
> exactly what the ribbon is.
> 
> Have you used the ribbon on a iPad compared to a cascading menu on a web 
> site?
> 
> You instantly see what a grand future choice the ribbon was.
> 
> You never seen a web site with a set of buttons of which you can hit 
> with your mouse? (opps, sorry, again I just described the ribbon UI).
> 
Nice diatribe.  It had the proper amount of snit in the message.

I checked FireFox and Google to view their ribbons. Not there yet. 
Maybe Skype?  Ouch!  Same old technology dropdowns.  Maybe VB 2008? 
Nope, but that's old technology.  Cisco VPN?  No ribbon.  I don't have a 
Microsoft cellphone.  Maybe they employ a ribbon on it?  Oops!  After 2 
months they pulled that off the market.

Maybe you can work for Microsoft and become their Ribbon evangelist 
extolling the virtues to the unwashed masses.  I'd tone the messge down 
tho if you want to convert them.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 22:21:40 -0500, "Access Developer"
<accdevel@gmail.com> wrote:

>"PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote
>
> > What do I need to use Access 2010 (or perhaps
> > 2007) to port our 2003 application and create
> > an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?
>
>Others seem to think you want to produce an Access 2003 MDE with Access 
>2010, but I understand you just want to create an MDE (which is not, BTW, an 
>"executable", but merely a "compiled" form of the MDB) to be run with the 
>Access Runtime.  Is my understanding correct?
>

Yes. Convert our 2003 application to 2010 and distribute what is an
MDE in Access 2003 (just the code as our data is in a seperate MDB).

Thanks,

-pw


>If so, my understanding is that you can do what you want with Access 2010, 
>and if you choose the MDB/MDE form, you can even still secure with Access 
>user/group level security (for what that is worth, which I think is 
>"little", because there's free code that can break your best attempts). This 
>will run via the most recent version of the Jet database engine.
>
>If you choose the newer ACE database engine, there is an ACCDE corresponding 
>to the MDE, but it cannot be secured with the Access user/group level 
>security.
>
>If you are concerned about someone stealing your design, forms, code, etc., 
>Access is not the best choice for creating a commercial application.  It's 
>true that you cannot lock-down any software so that a determined cracker 
>cannot break your security, it can be made more difficult with some other 
>tools. I've never considered this a big deal because most Access 
>applications are sufficiently simple that an experienced developer can 
>observe the app being used, and, with little difficulty, re-create it in far 
>less time than the original developer -- it's more a matter of approach to a 
>particular problem than being able to see how the original was created.
>
>The applications I create with Access for my clients are "bespoke" 
>applications, commissioned by one client for their own use, so the security 
>that really counts is security of the data, not security of the application 
>itself.  Data security can be much more secure by using a server database as 
>a back-end data store, employing the server DB's security.
>
> > Are there any issues with 2010?
>
>It appears that some, perhaps many, of the issues of Access 2007 have been 
>resolved in Access 2010. No software is "error-free" but I don't hear/read a 
>lot of complaints about Access 2010.
>
>My "issues" are that I find the "Ribbon" interface and the 
>Development/Design Environment clumsy and user-UNfriendly... and that was 
>not "fixed", nor do I expect it to be drastically changed in future 
>versions. But, for developing the individual, LAN-based, or WAN-based 
>applications for which Access is suited, there is no real competitor -- if 
>you do the same application in DotNet languages or other, development will 
>be more time-consuming, more difficult, and, thus, more expensive.
>
>One other "issue" -- Microsoft does NOT consider Access to be a development 
>tool, but an end-user tool that is just part of Office. This means that 
>"developer issues" may not get the emphasis and attention that we Access 
>developers would like.
>
> Larry Linson
> Microsoft Office Access MVP
> Co-author "Microsoft Access Small Business Solutions" pub by Wiley, 2010 
>

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 20:45:58 -0600, "Albert D. Kallal"
<PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote:

>?"PW"  wrote in message news:sj82b6lu4p2gvfk20fou0mb7v0d78qjhri@4ax.com...
>
>On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:57:25 +0800, "Allen Browne"
><AllenBrowne@SeeSig.invalid> wrote:
>
>>You can use Access 2010 to develop your MDB until it is ready to release,
>>but you will then need to use Access 2003 to create the MDE.
>
>So you are saying that Access 2010 can not be used to produce a
>commercial, distributable product?  I realize that 99.9% of the folks
>here in this newsgroup most likely do not use Access to create a
>marketable product.
>
>Thanks,
>
>-paulw
>-------------------------
>
>Yes, access can, but there are some additional challenges here.
>
>However, I am MUCH confused by your observation that access 2010 can't 
>produce a 2003 mde (it cannot).
>

I don't want to use 2010 to create a 2003 MDE. I have no idea how that
subject got brought up.

-pw

>VB6 could not create compiled VB5 version executable.  And the VB5 version 
>could not create a compiled the VB4 executable.
>
>And when using FoxPro, the version 3 could not create a version 2.0 
>executable.
>
>And, access 2007 can't create a 2003 mde. And, access 2003 can't create an 
>2000 mde. And Access 2000 can't create a 97 mde.
>
>And, in fact, not even .net works any different.
>
>So, we are much talking about that for most of computing history, most 
>developer's tool could never compile down to a previous version executable.
>
>To my knowledge for a good 20 years in the desktop computing industry, the 
>above is really quite much how whole computing landscape has functioned and 
>worked.  I suppose there is a couple exceptions, but the most part, I making 
>a simple obvious longtime observation of how the whole computing landscape 
>has functioned.
>
>This is really not much of an observation then realizing the sky is blue.
>
>So when you compiling and distributing your product, in almost all cases you 
>have to produce an environment on the target machine that will allow your 
>software to run.  You might want to expand on your question, but it's not 
>quite clear what in fact you're asking here, or what your observation or 
>experience in software development is here. How this works for access is NOT 
>ANY different then most other systems in this regards.
>
>Now if you're making the observation that it's rather challenging to 
>distribute access applications on a commercial level, then yes that is a 
>challenge because Access represents a share component of the office suite 
>(the VBA editor, spell checker, menu bars (and now ribbon) etc. are ALL 
>shared components. In fact, once ONE part of office is installed, then ALL 
>additional parts much installed to the same dir and shared set of 
>components.
>
>There are options available that can rather mitigate or allow you to widely 
>distribute and safely install your application on to target computers using 
>the runtime system. The end result and conclusion here is this problem or 
>issue is not a whole lot different then any other developer tool.
>
>You can (must) develop to a particular standard version, and then distribute 
>that using the runtime edition of access (that is the SAME version of 
>access).
>
>However, because of the shared office parts Access needs, to break this 
>dependences, you have to avoid using the runtime and installer office 
>provides.
>For anything beyond computers that you don't have control over what version 
>of office, you best purchase a commercial installer.  I recommend sakey.
>
>www.sagekey.com
>
>Albert D. Kallal  (Access MVP)
>Edmonton, Alberta Canada
>kallal@msn.com 

PW wrote:
> I don't want to use 2010 to create a 2003 MDE. I have no idea how that
> subject got brought up.

But if you use it to create a 2010 mde then only users with 2010 will be 
able to run it.  Is your target audience that limited?

I don't think the runtime for 2010 has been released yet.  Those always lag 
the normal product by several months.

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:16:24 -0600, PW
<emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote:
  
>Yes. Convert our 2003 application to 2010 and distribute what is an
>MDE in Access 2003 (just the code as our data is in a seperate MDB).

But just to clarify.   You're going to create the MDE in A2010 and
only A2010 users will be executing the MDE.   You won't have any A2003
users attempting to execute your A2010 MDE?

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:48:59 -0500, Rick Brandt
<rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote:
  
>I don't think the runtime for 2010 has been released yet.  

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?familyid=57a350cd-5250-4df6-bfd1-6ced700a6715&displaylang=en

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:48:59 -0500, Rick Brandt
<rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote:

>PW wrote:
>> I don't want to use 2010 to create a 2003 MDE. I have no idea how that
>> subject got brought up.
>
>But if you use it to create a 2010 mde then only users with 2010 will be 
>able to run it.  Is your target audience that limited?
>

Our clients don't have to have Access installed on their computers. We
distribute and MDE and use InstallShield.

>I don't think the runtime for 2010 has been released yet.  Those always lag 
>the normal product by several months.

It is the runtime that I meant to ask about.  Thanks.

-paulw

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:57:24 -0600, Tony Toews
<ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:16:24 -0600, PW
><emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote:
>  
>>Yes. Convert our 2003 application to 2010 and distribute what is an
>>MDE in Access 2003 (just the code as our data is in a seperate MDB).
>
>But just to clarify.   You're going to create the MDE in A2010 and
>only A2010 users will be executing the MDE.   You won't have any A2003
>users attempting to execute your A2010 MDE?
>
>Tony


I want to do what we do now with our Access 2003 version. We give them
an install CD which has the standard setup program which will install
our application on their systems.  It does not matter if their
computers have Office/Access installed or not and what version.

We don't have "users" so to speak.  We have clients.  We have a
product that we sell that we wrote in Access 97 and now it is in 2003.
If we have to keep it in 2003, then so be it.

I know of only one other developer here that distributes an Access
application and sells it.  He has now switched to Servoy so I guess it
is just me now. We (my wife and I) have been successfully selling our
Access product for over 15 years.

Thanks Tony.

-paulw

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:57:24 -0600, Tony Toews
<ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:16:24 -0600, PW
><emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote:
>  
>>Yes. Convert our 2003 application to 2010 and distribute what is an
>>MDE in Access 2003 (just the code as our data is in a seperate MDB).
>
>But just to clarify.   You're going to create the MDE in A2010 and
>only A2010 users will be executing the MDE.   You won't have any A2003
>users attempting to execute your A2010 MDE?
>
>Tony

Tony,

If you want to see what my wife and I have come up with using Access,
and what we market and sell, head to www.lodge-ical.com and check out
the Lodge-ical pages.  Maybe this will make things clearer?

-paulw

"PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote

 > I want to do what we do now with our Access 2003
 > version. We give them an install CD which has the
 > standard setup program which will install our appli-
 > cation on their systems.  It does not matter if their
 > computers have Office/Access installed or not and
 > what version.

 > We don't have "users" so to speak.  We have clients.
 > We have a product that we sell that we wrote in
 > Access 97 and now it is in 2003. If we have to
 > keep it in 2003, then so be it.

I'm puzzled that so many of my knowledgeable colleagues here got so far "off 
track" that they are talking about the users/clients of your application 
having to have Access 2010... when you have made it clear that you are 
distributing the "setup" which includes the runtime (it certainly does, from 
your description).

You can use the identical approach with Access 2010.  Most likely you will 
not even have to make any changes to your application to "accomodate" the 
newer version of Access, but you will have to adapt to using the new 
"Ribbon" UI to use Access 2010 for development.  And, despite Albert's 
fondness for it, there are many, including all of my clients, who detest it 
and have refused to move from Access 2003 (they are using Access for more 
than 'packaged' applications, so cannot just use the old UI as included in 
the application) primarily because of it.

 > I know of only one other developer here that
 > distributes an Access application and sells it.
 > He has now switched to Servoy so I guess it
 > is just me now. We (my wife and I) have been
 > successfully selling our Access product for
 > over 15 years.

I know of a few others who distribute Access applications, and if security 
of the application itself has not been an issue for you before now, it 
should not be any different now.  Most users are not "thieves", out to pass 
on copies of the application they buy from you to others to be "cracked" and 
used for free.

 Larry Linson
 Microsoft Office Access MVP


 

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 20:07:35 -0600, PW
<emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote:
  
>I want to do what we do now with our Access 2003 version. We give them
>an install CD which has the standard setup program which will install
>our application on their systems.  It does not matter if their
>computers have Office/Access installed or not and what version.
>
>We don't have "users" so to speak.  We have clients.  We have a
>product that we sell that we wrote in Access 97 and now it is in 2003.
>If we have to keep it in 2003, then so be it.

No, you can certainly distribute A2010 apps.I was just puzzled about
exactly what your plans were.

>I know of only one other developer here that distributes an Access
>application and sells it.  He has now switched to Servoy so I guess it
>is just me now. We (my wife and I) have been successfully selling our
>Access product for over 15 years.

Never heard of Servoy.until now.

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_003E_01CB68DE.8463EA00
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

?"Salad"  wrote in message =
news:UK2dnWVSEOP1byzRnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlink.com...=20

>>Nice diatribe.  It had the proper amount of snit in the message.

There is an old proverb about throwing coconuts and not watching what =
you hit.

However, no I'm not evangelizing anything at all here.

If I make the observation and tell you that the sky is blue, I'm not =
evangelizing about you to like blue, or even to like the sky.

However it would be rather silly to stand here and tell me that the sky =
doesn't exist, nor there's never a blue sky.

I simply stated that the ribbon CLEARLY represents for the most part =
that of some buttons placed beside each other, and that is VERY MUCH THE =
TREND in our industry.

If you take the average access application (not the exceptions), you see =
forms with a a set of buttons placed beside each other for program =
options:

Here is a screen shot of Some buttons on access application I wrote 10 =
years ago:




The above is just like any access application and it rather typical to =
see some buttons placed beside each other.=20

Now, lets look at this as a ribbon:




Gee, golly, wow!, they look the same!

Now, here is a menu bar:




Now of to rational thought, methodology of reason and the use of =
Socratic debate, the simple intellectual basic fact and deduction is in =
the above 3 images, CLEARY the the ribbon is far more similar then a =
menu bar. I also put forth the statement that for the last maybe 15 or =
more years, the basic user interface choice built by access developers =
has been a series of buttons placed beside each other, I also state and =
clearly demonstrate here that that's also what the ribbon in its basic =
form also is.

So I am making the basic public basic statement of fact, that for the =
most part access developers since access 2 with the exception of =
building custom menu bars, have followed this concept of placing several =
buttons beside each other on a form as their basic user interface design =
choice.

I also make the case that as the above screen shot shows, a simple set =
of buttons placed beside each other is much what the ribbon is.

Now let's move forward and ferret out the rest of this issue and points =
on making here :

>>I checked FireFox=20

No actually you really did not check Firefox, because if you did you =
would've bothered to look at the ad-ins and the UI being adopted here:



and















I will simply stop it this point, I can EASILY cut and paste for =
hundreds MORE of Firefox ad-ins, and it is clear these add ins FOR THE =
MOST PART have adopted a ribbon like UI. (not all, but it sure wide =
spread)


>>Maybe Skype?

Apparently you are not aware of the android version of Skype, or the =
upcoming iPad version neither of which have cascading menus..

I ALSO BEEN a LONG time Skype user and even the PC desktop based version =
as a general rule is CLEARLY moving more functionality out of the menu =
bars and adopting a web style navigation in which options are being =
removed from the menu bar.=20

With Skype appearing on new touch and smart phones, it is clear that =
Skype is moving away from those menu bars and moving them to top, or =
side grouping of buttons to choose from. So once again Skype is a great =
example of an company that is clearly adopted and is on the road to =
reducing the importance of menu bars




Again, groups of buttons are being moved to the left side, and they not =
cascading menu bars. So, yes, Skype has menu bars, but it CLEARLY moving =
away and every new version demonstrates this trend.


>>Maybe VB 2008?=20


Yes, As a matter of fact there's been a huge addition of ribbon creating =
libraries for VS 2008. Once again a great example of support for =
building ribbon based applications.


Want to try a screen shot of the Macintosh desktop:




Gee, golly, what example does the above look like to you?


How about some web pages?

How about apple home page:




Or Oracle:



or stack overflow:



And, what about desktop (non web software)?



Above is mac



(above is pc)




Need I go on?

So I'm not evangelizing anything at all here, I'm making a simple =
observation that anybody who's been around the computing landscape can =
clearly make.

I will restate my case and observation that I am making before the =
public and you:

1) access developers have classically and traditionally placed buttons =
on a form beside each other, and this constitutes a far more ribbon like =
interface then that of menu bar. For the near 18 years history of access =
when access developers have built a custom user interface they have =
built set of buttons beside each other and that really what the ribbon =
is.

2) As I demonstrated above, this is a clear and obvious trend in the =
industry. This clear and obvious trend supports touch and pen based =
devices, and it is clear this trend ALSO exists in general user =
interface trends in our industry as the screen shots above shot. This =
trend CLEARLY exists in both desktop, web, and device applications such =
as iPhone or iPad.

To stand here and ignore this would be like someone who is ignore the =
mouse and GUI trend while working with a text based green screen.

3) maybe you don't like these trends, and maybe they are not for you, =
but to ignore them and deny that they exist is to take a rather dim view =
of what is occurring in our industry.

I have presented my case and evidence here for all to see. I am not =
asking to you like the blue sky, but I am asking to you realize that the =
there is a sky, and it is often blue.=20

I also making the observation that these new UI trends such as the =
ribbon work well on desktop, on web, and on touch based devices, which =
quite much covers the trends we see in our industry.

I also making the case that simple buttons placed beside each other on a =
access form amounts to adopting the basic setup as to what a ribbon =
looks like and works like.



--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com
------=_NextPart_000_003E_01CB68DE.8463EA00
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=3Dltr>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>
<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: =
12pt">
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; =
COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: =
none">
<DIV dir=3Dltr>
<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: =
12pt">
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; =
COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: =
none">
<DIV dir=3Dltr>
<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: =
12pt">
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; =
COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: =
none">
<DIV dir=3Dltr>
<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: =
12pt">
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; =
COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: =
none">
<DIV dir=3Dltr>
<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: =
12pt">
<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; FONT-SIZE: ">
<DIV>"Salad"&nbsp; wrote in message=20
news:UK2dnWVSEOP1byzRnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlink.com... </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;&gt;Nice diatribe.&nbsp; It had the proper amount of snit in =
the=20
message.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>There is an old proverb about throwing coconuts and not watching =
what you=20
hit.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>However, no I'm not evangelizing anything at all here.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>If I make the observation and tell you that the sky is blue, I'm =
not=20
evangelizing about you to like blue, or even to like the sky.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>However it would be rather silly to stand here and tell me that the =
sky=20
doesn't exist, nor there's never a blue sky.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I simply stated that the ribbon CLEARLY represents for the most =
part that=20
of some buttons placed beside each other, and that is VERY MUCH THE =
TREND in our=20
industry.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>If you take the average access application (not the exceptions), =
you see=20
forms with a a set of buttons placed beside each other for program=20
options:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Here is a screen shot of Some buttons on access application I wrote =
10=20
years ago:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://0suqhw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pri2mDWBTuLT1N5sVvBqkuN3mYLE=
CB2jq3EdhORSGFYhnhQgDgLnEC1RadLWVw3Qhn_FZsEMYqDHRFcIK-W2Ea-dbEpzKq2aM/acc=
ui1.png?psid=3D1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The above is just like any access application and it rather typical =
to see=20
some buttons placed beside each other. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Now, lets look at this as a ribbon:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pS0UInTLHNNkczyWKxr3ffuYawzc=
WdsfzNwVCY3kekgA76TeL4JZ2gpR39NgkLhVcILjXCQKLN2RgVl8LRTbRbg/accuir1.png?p=
sid=3D1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Gee, golly, wow!, they look the same!</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Now, here is a menu bar:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1phs3-54RaTv5HjSObppZRlWMp8uA=
QASM7dFcav1msKhT94_Cz5JTGUCzo4j8oCGUbdk81lHWnNvctqYG4lR0_rA/m0.png?psid=3D=
1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Now of to rational thought, methodology of reason and the use of =
Socratic=20
debate, the simple intellectual basic fact and deduction is in the above =
3=20
images, CLEARY the the ribbon is far more similar then a menu bar. I =
also put=20
forth the statement that for the last maybe 15 or more years, the basic =
user=20
interface choice built by access developers has been a series of buttons =
placed=20
beside each other, I also state and clearly demonstrate here that that's =
also=20
what the ribbon in its basic form also is.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>So I am making the basic public basic statement of fact, that for =
the most=20
part access developers since access 2 with the exception of building =
custom menu=20
bars, have followed this concept of placing several buttons beside each =
other on=20
a form as their basic user interface design choice.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I also make the case that as the above screen shot shows, a simple =
set of=20
buttons placed beside each other is much what the ribbon is.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Now let's move forward and ferret out the rest of this issue and =
points on=20
making here :</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;&gt;<FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">I checked FireFox =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>No actually you really did not check Firefox, because if you did =
you=20
would've bothered to look at the ad-ins and the UI being adopted =
here:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pW6b8rDprGD5twp_mk6W1I-PvE1f=
-vT-8TcLRnmwg4zJ8DsOA28Kzx_eNgMkkR1ZvrnUl32432azB_tf7IhPOwg/f2.png?psid=3D=
1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>and</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pW6b8rDprGD7pRfZmt2Tgwt_gUCh=
PE4VEHqFJsjb2M7yiNWJduyQUIwztKykzgFHQmNFK3aWd6J9P736u_HCOHw/f1.png?psid=3D=
1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pfQWY16CX-THRuuNL1tYU4OuJffs=
gNM-rkwzD2YMNRw2OkHBNed6vzUX_q83j3GzqFWhk7FWvKK5xSVSKJrcRFg/f3.png?psid=3D=
1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pfQWY16CX-TEkDmVtTapV8zoDoJD=
DqazaW4BGsCSrDigW1GDQBqvfFDnkeE3BiFYq14xPM0WH1Cz_645Lbxkj1w/f5.png?psid=3D=
1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p9Pe4nT6N6ZkChP6CYGTKTTvyQgn=
P0r7eOBw2alv4VGSZjvQ3Df2tVLzLncbIc0vTtkXpvvUBiYAJdE2g1ZZrhw/f6.png?psid=3D=
1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pv9NUZYOOTspsFjNY5YcDrFDWbPA=
AcolkiW8Zbcd_RKYdcNm5bK4qKe5C8k2nntp3FECYieWWJA0POuZD_K0T7A/f7.png?psid=3D=
1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I will simply stop it this point, I can EASILY cut and paste for =
hundreds=20
MORE of Firefox ad-ins, and it is clear these add ins FOR THE MOST PART =
have=20
adopted a ribbon like UI. (not all, but it sure wide spread)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;&gt;<FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Maybe Skype?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Apparently you are not aware of the android version of Skype, or =
the=20
upcoming iPad version neither of which have cascading menus..</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I ALSO BEEN a LONG time Skype user and even the PC desktop based =
version as=20
a general rule is CLEARLY moving more functionality out of the menu bars =
and=20
adopting a web style navigation in which options are being removed from =
the menu=20
bar. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>With Skype appearing on new touch and smart phones, it is clear =
that Skype=20
is moving away from those menu bars and moving them to top, or side =
grouping of=20
buttons to choose from. So once again Skype is a great example of an =
company=20
that is clearly adopted and is on the road to reducing the importance of =
menu=20
bars</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://0suqhw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pTHPC0_D-7tEurW0QhIY6knh59Am=
dplV0NX3UfEHz1E75fE2HZ_5tyscbaVk4vnEVjguEJILUJJTELcQxxfKpYPuP-nRtd3-h/sk.=
png?psid=3D1"=20
width=3D517 height=3D568></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Again, groups of buttons are being moved to the left side, and they =
not=20
cascading menu bars. So, yes, Skype has menu bars, but it CLEARLY moving =
away=20
and every new version demonstrates this trend.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;&gt;<FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Maybe VB 2008? =
</FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Yes, As a matter of fact there's been a huge addition of ribbon =
creating=20
libraries for VS 2008. Once again a great example of support for =
building ribbon=20
based applications.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Want to try a screen shot of the Macintosh desktop:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p9pQJzYgfdjBm7dAdJCQ-LHBgFPX=
vKVJMOfFQnuQ1MRvj-KbYyn-8jlmieIfX3penVuaYxy2lzM0vh0BKq5TBOA/mac10.png?psi=
d=3D1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Gee, golly, what example does the above look like to you?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>How about some web pages?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>How about apple home page:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://0suqhw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pGSY0NH9Sf83nodH03xqpP5gCCZ_=
7aSd8kmDNPjzwRwXhnjb32fHOrIEhTF5WrBatiwKCDnVTp9bdybS8Inu0Uf4cXUOLwnUb/ap1=
..png?psid=3D1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Or Oracle:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pb0nTjGhKOuuVpgM0NFeBevcLG-K=
y6duIzvMewH_y_hx2mz0B4Dnnh6dInBVRfSj0VqFQwYwkXXD-6KWWvlTFsA/w2.png?psid=3D=
1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>or stack overflow:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://0suqhw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p68FEk7k-fxWTOaLEf-OuL8cZet5=
UUMZ3irDAz0ZUtj9v-XtqJ_wIbTat6nx6X-Cq-EaiXyBiWX71NLmMWYYprY2XxhAcgQ5R/sta=
ck1.png?psid=3D1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>And, what about desktop (non web software)?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://0suqhw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p68FEk7k-fxXo2Q7L2_v6FE4Y0Wy=
xBFP1iqiZk8t-pbRqEht1jv9PM5diXOIJmS47YmGEevgvO0IBuvq18N2ps-kfxaZ-d2Ga/r7.=
png?psid=3D1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Above is mac</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://0suqhw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p8rHbo6C8sSLrFshK-gRJZLlLmww=
a1g_sJTZyR_MNMoLfOTmhzDmhKmPUqNiM64br3pV6pdr0zXqgah4u1kMiVBptpzxrzvsX/r1.=
png?psid=3D1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>(above is pc)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><IMG=20
src=3D"http://0suqhw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1piaqmarwL7N05FaHKir8ZvFOpdhP=
vxESj9YzGqam-goJv48VXmy5mZyAeBDvck4n4zRkimlit9yVlIA4CpYpAZovCEghINJD_/r2.=
png?psid=3D1"></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Need I go on?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>So I'm not evangelizing anything at all here, I'm making a simple=20
observation that anybody who's been around the computing landscape can =
clearly=20
make.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I will restate my case and observation that I am making before the =
public=20
and you:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>1) access developers have classically and traditionally placed =
buttons on a=20
form beside each other, and this constitutes a far more ribbon like =
interface=20
then that of menu bar. For the near 18 years history of access when =
access=20
developers have built a custom user interface they have built set of =
buttons=20
beside each other and that really what the ribbon is.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>2) As I demonstrated above, this is a clear and obvious trend in =
the=20
industry. This clear and obvious trend supports touch and pen based =
devices, and=20
it is clear this trend ALSO exists in general user interface trends in =
our=20
industry as the screen shots above shot. This trend CLEARLY exists in =
both=20
desktop, web, and device applications such as iPhone or iPad.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>To stand here and ignore this would be like someone who is ignore =
the mouse=20
and GUI trend while working with a text based green screen.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>3) maybe you don't like these trends, and maybe they are not for =
you, but=20
to ignore them and deny that they exist is to take a rather dim view of =
what is=20
occurring in our industry.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I have presented my case and evidence here for all to see. I am not =
asking=20
to you like the blue sky, but I am asking to you realize that the there =
is a=20
sky, and it is often blue. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I also making the observation that these new UI trends such as the =
ribbon=20
work well on desktop, on web, and on touch based devices, which quite =
much=20
covers the trends we see in our industry.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I also making the case that simple buttons placed beside each other =
on a=20
access form amounts to adopting the basic setup as to what a ribbon =
looks like=20
and works like.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: =
12pt">--=20
<BR>Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)<BR>Edmonton, Alberta=20
Canada<BR>Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>=
</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML=
>

------=_NextPart_000_003E_01CB68DE.8463EA00--

?"PW"  wrote in message =
news:vr04b6t430qf95gou8m0ri1fnh59ee9qnu@4ax.com...

>I don't want to use 2010 to create a 2003 MDE. I have no idea how that
subject got brought up.

Well, you asked:

>What do I need to use Access 2010 (or perhaps 2007) to port our 2003
>application and create an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?

The above sent acne says:

"and create an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?"

So, you looking to create a MDE in Access 2003 is how this was read. It=20
clear now that you looking to create the equivalent as to what you did =
in=20
2003, but not necessary create a mde.

In fact, access 2007 and 20010 uses accDB and not mde files. And the mde =
for=20
2010 is now called a accDE.

So, the side track occurred with your above asking about a mde in 2003,=20
which can't be done with 2010.

It certainly understandable and clear now that you looking to do the =
same=20
thing you done in the past, but simply with 2010, not that you need to=20
continue creating mde files with 2010.

--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com=20

??"PW"  wrote in message =
news:vr04b6t430qf95gou8m0ri1fnh59ee9qnu@4ax.com...

>I don't want to use 2010 to create a 2003 MDE. I have no idea how that
subject got brought up.

Well, you asked:

>What do I need to use Access 2010 (or perhaps 2007) to port our 2003
>application and create an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?

The above  says:

"and create an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?"

So, you looking to create a MDE in Access 2003 is how this was read. It
clear now that you looking to create the equivalent as to what you did =
in
2003, but not necessary create a mde.

In fact, access 2007 and 20010 uses accDB and not mde files. And the mde =
for
2010 is now called a accDE.

So, the side track occurred with your above asking about a mde in 2003,
which can't be done with 2010.

It certainly understandable and clear now that you looking to do the =
same
thing you done in the past, but simply with 2010, not that you need to
continue creating mde files with 2010.

--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com=20

????"PW"  wrote in message=20
news:vr04b6t430qf95gou8m0ri1fnh59ee9qnu@4ax.com...

>I don't want to use 2010 to create a 2003 MDE. I have no idea how that
subject got brought up.

Well, you asked:

>What do I need to use Access 2010 (or perhaps 2007) to port our 2003
>application and create an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?

The above  says:

"and create an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?"

So, you looking to create a MDE in Access 2003 is how this was read. It
clear now that you looking to create the equivalent as to what you did =
in
2003, but not necessary create a mde.

In fact, access 2007 and 20010 uses accDB and not mde files. And the mde =
for
2010 is now called a accDE.

So, the side track occurred with your above asking about a mde in 2003,
which can't be done with 2010.

It certainly understandable and clear now that you looking to do the =
same
thing you done in the past, but simply with 2010, not that you need to
continue creating mde 2003 files with 2010.

--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com=20

On Oct 11, 2:52=A0am, "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkal...@msn.com>
wrote:
> ?"Salad" =A0wrote in messagenews:UK2dnWVSEOP1byzRnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthli=
nk.com...
> >>Nice diatribe. =A0It had the proper amount of snit in the message.
>
> There is an old proverb about throwing coconuts and not watching what you=
 hit.

Albert,

I don't think anyone is really disputing your observations.  (He
didn't say you were FULL of snit :-).)  It's just that your style and
tone are reminiscent of Microsoft marketers who try to disparage other
products by making fun of them.  Salad's rebuttal may have been mostly
an attempt to show you your apparent lack of objectivity.  Instead of
relying on puerile tactics, realize that most readers here, including
myself, are swayed by cool, dispassionate adherence to pertinent
facts, and are even likely to be dissuaded by such marketing style.
Even when the ideas behind the hype are factual, I mentally tune out
anyone using that tone.  I also tune out anyone once they start
rambling, but that might just be me.

BTW, I totally missed the point about throwing coconuts.  The proverb
must be from before my time or commonly used elsewhere.

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:0sAso.17500$Ib3.9734@newsfe21.iad: 

> In fact, access 2007 and 20010 uses accDB and not mde files. And
> the mde for 2010 is now called a accDE.

Er, what?

You can create an MDE in A2007 and A2010. It just won't run in
A2003. If you're starting from an MDB you can compile it to MDE in
A2007/2010 just as you can in any other version of Access that
supports MDEs. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

PW <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote in
news:fnr4b6lktq6m624239j5lufncj0kqbt0rp@4ax.com: 

> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:48:59 -0500, Rick Brandt
><rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>PW wrote:
>>> I don't want to use 2010 to create a 2003 MDE. I have no idea
>>> how that subject got brought up.
>>
>>But if you use it to create a 2010 mde then only users with 2010
>>will be able to run it.  Is your target audience that limited?
> 
> Our clients don't have to have Access installed on their
> computers. We distribute and MDE and use InstallShield.

If you're installing the runtime, your clients do have Access
installed -- it's just the Access runtime, not full Access. 

>>I don't think the runtime for 2010 has been released yet.  Those
>>always lag the normal product by several months.
> 
> It is the runtime that I meant to ask about.  Thanks.

The runtime is no different from full Access. If you're using the
A2003 runtime, you need an MDE compiled on A2003 (or A2002 or A2000
-- MDEs are forward-compatible). If you're using the A2007 runtime,
you need to compile your MDE on A2007 (or A2003, 2002, 2000, etc.).
And if you're using the A2010 runtime, you need to compile on A2010. 

In other words, it's exactly the same as if your users were running
full Access. That's because the runtime is binary identical with the
full version of Access. It excludes certain components (like
SpellCheck and so forth), but in regard to VBA code, it's exactly
the same. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Salad <salad@oilandvinegar.com> wrote in
news:aMOdnXt_PM1w3CzRnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@earthlink.com: 

> Is there a similar program like Office in the universe that uses a
> ribbon-like interface?  Apple?  Unix?  Windows?  Was it a design
> product of a focus group?

The ribbon concept was part of the Vista development cycle. Office
2007 and Vista were developed as something of a package. 

The Office menus/toolbars were badly in need of fixing. They'd been
mucking about with it for a long time, with the sidebars and all of
that, and making it increasingly difficult to find things in each
subsequent version of Office. And they made many really stupid
decisions (like adaptive menus -- that subverts the whole purpose of
a menu, of course) that needed to be entirely undone. 

I have not used Office 2007/2010 enough to give the ribbon a fair
shake. Most of my frustration with it is simply that things are not
in the same place they used to be, and many of the things I use on a
regular basis are quite successfully hidden. But that's just my lack
of familiarity -- if I'd started out with the ribbon I probably
wouldn't be noticing that. 

The goal of the ribbon was to get more features in front of the user
and accessible, and in that regard I think it's actually pretty
successful. But I still don't find it comfortable to use because a
legacy of 15 years of using the old system (which has been largely
the same since Office 97, if not before). 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:v%cso.2364$dl7.1851@newsfe24.iad: 

> quite much every darn near web site I visit now has a set of
> buttons across the top. And, they are not cascading menu bars.
> (those cascading menu bars are really hard, and if you miss or
> fall off, you have to START OVER from the beginning.

That's not even close to a fair comparison. DHTML and JavaScript
menus on web pages have always been more difficult to use than
Microsoft's application menus. It's one of the things that causes
many websites to reject using them (I was just involved in a website
redesign that decided get rid of the cascading DHTML menus). 

I don't find menus difficult at all, and they worked just fine in MS
Office. The problem was that the applications had become complicated
enough that you had to dig through multiple levels in the hierarchy
to find some features. The ribbon is an effort to flatten out that
hierarchy and expose as many of those features as possible at the
surface, instead of burying them two or three menu levels deep. 

But in reality, the ribbon hasn't solved some of MS's problems. One
of the worst interfaces in the world has always been the one for
editing styles in Word. Styles are one of the most powerful and
useful features of Word and have been there in Word for a long time
(since Word 2, when it was stolen by MS from Ami Pro). And the
problem has always been present -- how do you offer access to the
tools needed to manage and edit your styles? Every major version of
Word since 1997 has mucked about somewhat with the interface. Word
2000 added the awful feature of automatically creating styles from
formatting you typed. Later versions removed that awful feature.
Word 2003 moved a bunch of the features to the sidebar, which made
them somewhat easier to access (instead of going through the FORMAT
menu). Word 2007 combines the accessibility of the sidebar into the
ribbon, and makes it easy to modify a style (right click it in the
ribbon and choose MODIFY). 

But then you end up with the same horrible dialog that Word has used
for editing styles since at least Word 97 -- almost everything
important is buried in that combination command button/menu called
FORMAT. Sure, there are cosmetic changes, and they've put some of
the most common format changes in that dialog, so for many tasks you
don't have to go as deep into the weeds as you used to. 

Unfortunately, the ribbon hasn't solved all the problems, though, as
this one dialog demonstrates. 

I don't know what they should do, but I'm pretty sure that this
dialog really ought to be completely redesigned, and that's
something that's been needed since forever. The ribbon doesn't
automatically resolve that -- all it does is bring more features to
the surface for quicker access, and to me, that's a good thing, even
if it does confuse me occasionally because it's different from what
I'm accustomed to. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:quyso.4187$7z4.1885@newsfe17.iad: 

> I simply stated that the ribbon CLEARLY represents for the most
> part that of some buttons placed beside each other, and that is
> VERY MUCH THE TREND in our industry. 

But you cite only MS products. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

PW <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote in
news:qsr4b6h1t8622il3bn4u9gvss4644eabkd@4ax.com: 

> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:57:24 -0600, Tony Toews
><ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:16:24 -0600, PW
>><emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote:
>>  
>>>Yes. Convert our 2003 application to 2010 and distribute what is
>>>an MDE in Access 2003 (just the code as our data is in a seperate
>>>MDB). 
>>
>>But just to clarify.   You're going to create the MDE in A2010 and
>>only A2010 users will be executing the MDE.   You won't have any
>>A2003 users attempting to execute your A2010 MDE?
> 
> I want to do what we do now with our Access 2003 version. We give
> them an install CD which has the standard setup program which will
> install our application on their systems.  It does not matter if
> their computers have Office/Access installed or not and what
> version. 

What matters is what version of the Access runtime you are using. If
your installation CD uses the A2003 runtime, then you need an MDE
compiled in A2003. If it uses the A2010 runtime, then you can
compile your MDE in A2010. 

> We don't have "users" so to speak.  We have clients.  We have a
> product that we sell that we wrote in Access 97 and now it is in
> 2003. If we have to keep it in 2003, then so be it.

If you're still providing upgrades to the legacy users and want to
be able to provide them just an MDE (and not the whole runtime),
you're going to need to compile your MDE for those users in the
version of Access that their runtime is. That is, if you have
existing users running your app in the A2003 runtime and you want to
give them upgrades without providing them an installation CD, you'll
need to give them an A2003-compiled MDE. 

On the other hand, if you choose to provide only full upgrades (new
MDE plus new runtime), you can provide A2010 MDEs as long as you
also install the A2010 runtime at the same time. 

> I know of only one other developer here that distributes an Access
> application and sells it.  He has now switched to Servoy so I
> guess it is just me now. We (my wife and I) have been successfully
> selling our Access product for over 15 years.

Along with a client, I contemplated the idea of developing a
commercial product from a client's app more than 10 years ago. I
concluded it was probably filled with insurmountable problems. Other
than SageKey, which takes an ad hoc approach to resolving those
issues, I don't know that there's any what to avoid it unless you
are like Michael Kaplan and know how to revise the setup scripts to
not step on existing installations. 

If I were in your position, I think I'd continue targetting A2003,
because otherwise you have to deal with redesigning for the ribbon.
You still have to consider that, though, because your users running
in A2007/A2010 will have that issue. Of course, whether that is
relevant depends on whether or not you're forcing use of the
runtime, or using the installed version where that's available. The
details of that I don't know. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 22:21:40 -0500, "Access Developer"
<accdevel@gmail.com> wrote:
  
>My "issues" are that I find the "Ribbon" interface and the 
>Development/Design Environment clumsy and user-UNfriendly... and that was 
>not "fixed", nor do I expect it to be drastically changed in future 
>versions. But, for developing the individual, LAN-based, or WAN-based 
>applications for which Access is suited, there is no real competitor -- if 
>you do the same application in DotNet languages or other, development will 
>be more time-consuming, more difficult, and, thus, more expensive.

I'm still not comfortable with them in Access 2007 but then I haven't
done much work in A2007.

However I very much like them in Word and Excel which I seldom use.
It's much easier for me to find something that in the past was hidden
away and that I only used once a year or so.   

An Excel MVP once stated that with the ribbon he was no longer the
Excel expert in the office because now everyone could find the
"hidden" items.  

Someone at MS once stated that one third of the feature requests they
got were for features already in the product that the users couldn't
find.

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message=20
news:Xns9E0E883BBF728f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.91...

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:quyso.4187$7z4.1885@newsfe17.iad:

> I simply stated that the ribbon CLEARLY represents for the most
> part that of some buttons placed beside each other, and that is
> VERY MUCH THE TREND in our industry.

But you cite only MS products.

--=20
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
---------------

Actually, no, if you look at the screen shots I included in that post, =
most=20
of the pictures are Apple shots, and a good further number are FireFox=20
add-ins, and quite much all of them have adopted a ribbon like UI.

As I mentioned, I am not here to tell someone to like the ribbon or =
promote=20
it. However, I just showing what is occurring in our industry.  We are=20
seeing an era of natural interfaces, and a general move away from menu =
bars.

As noted a ribbon works really great on my iPad. And, as noted, those =
screen=20
shots, MOST of them were from FireFox add-ins, and they ALL look like=20
ribbons. And a further bunch more where from Apple products.

I am just making the observation that we see less and less emphasis on =
menu=20
bars. We clearly see MORE ribbon like UI occurring. I further make the =
case=20
this UI trend is occurring in Browser, desktop and touch/pen based =
devices.=20
(all 3 areas).

So, if you look at most of the screen shots in that post, MOST are from=20
Apple and the others are windows + Firefox. I could have posted far more =

windows screen caps, but that would not help my case as much as posting=20
Firefox and Apple screens.

I am not here to tell anyone to like this trend, or even agree with it.=20
However, it is simply what is occurring in our industry. More and more=20
software is working this way, and this includes windows desktop, Apple=20
Desktop, browser based software and also that of pen + touch based =
computing=20
(it is occurring on ALL fronts).

I have no problem if the person says they don't like the ribbon UI, but =
I=20
MOST certainly have a problem with someone who can't make a simple=20
observation about the sky, or in this case a CLEAR ui trend in our =
industry.

--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com

?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message=20
news:Xns9E0E835172B56f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.91...

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:0sAso.17500$Ib3.9734@newsfe21.iad:

> In fact, access 2007 and 20010 uses accDB and not mde files. And
> the mde for 2010 is now called a accDE.

Er, what?

You can create an MDE in A2007 and A2010. It just won't run in
A2003. If you're starting from an MDB you can compile it to MDE in
A2007/2010 just as you can in any other version of Access that
supports MDEs.

--=20
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
--------------

Well, Golly gee.

I simply did not know that is/was possible. It seems that the create mde =

option does appear when you open a mdb file and I was not aware of this=20
fact.

I don't know what occurs feature wise when you do this, but this =
certainly=20
opens up a lot of issues and was/is a possibility I was not aware of.

I simply stand corrected on this issue and thus am wrong.

--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com

"Tony Toews" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:si37b6levib73hi8d3reromreb8njm3b7l@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 22:21:40 -0500, "Access Developer"
> <accdevel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >My "issues" are that I find the "Ribbon" interface and the
> >Development/Design Environment clumsy and user-UNfriendly... and that was
> >not "fixed", nor do I expect it to be drastically changed in future
> >versions. But, for developing the individual, LAN-based, or WAN-based
> >applications for which Access is suited, there is no real competitor -- 
if
> >you do the same application in DotNet languages or other, development
will
> >be more time-consuming, more difficult, and, thus, more expensive.
>
> I'm still not comfortable with them in Access 2007 but then I haven't
> done much work in A2007.
>
> However I very much like them in Word and Excel which I seldom use.
> It's much easier for me to find something that in the past was hidden
> away and that I only used once a year or so.
>
> An Excel MVP once stated that with the ribbon he was no longer the
> Excel expert in the office because now everyone could find the
> "hidden" items.
>
> Someone at MS once stated that one third of the feature requests they
> got were for features already in the product that the users couldn't
> find.
>
> Tony
> -- 
> Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
> Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
> Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
> For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files
>   updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

I agree that the Ribbon in Word and Excel if very intuitive. When 1st used
they look strange but within the1st hour I had become comfortable with them.
IMO the issues with the ribbon in  Access is a fear of the dark. Yes it will
take some time to learn to create and use them, but when done you may find
that you can provide features, which were not available in toolbars,
especially if you want to use runtime. I'm moving up from Access97 to Access
2010 and the applications look better and commands are easer to find with
the ribbon. My only wish is that they could be generated on the fly instead
of requiring a restart like I can do in AutoLisp.

[Albert, you really do need to fix your reply settings. Your
messages are not formatted like anybody else's that is posting
either via plain old Usenet or in the MS Forums via one of the NNTP
bridges. Your news client just isn't doing reply quoting correctly,
and it makes it difficult to reply to your posts in turn] 

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:uwPso.13612$nj3.10465@newsfe04.iad: 

> > ?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message 
> > news:Xns9E0E835172B56f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.91...
> > 
> > "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
> > news:0sAso.17500$Ib3.9734@newsfe21.iad:
> > 
> >> In fact, access 2007 and 20010 uses accDB and not mde files.
> >> And the mde for 2010 is now called a accDE.
> > 
> > Er, what?
> > 
> > You can create an MDE in A2007 and A2010. It just won't run in
> > A2003. If you're starting from an MDB you can compile it to MDE
> > in A2007/2010 just as you can in any other version of Access
> > that supports MDEs.
> 
> Well, Golly gee.
> 
> I simply did not know that is/was possible. It seems that the
> create mde option does appear when you open a mdb file and I was
> not aware of this fact.

I have been saying it over and over again since A2007 was released:

MDB is a native format for A2007.

> I don't know what occurs feature wise when you do this, but this
> certainly opens up a lot of issues and was/is a possibility I was
> not aware of. 

You *did* know that you could use an MDB in A2007/A2010, and that
both Jet ULS and Jet Replication worked in A2007/A2010 with MDB
format, right? Why would you think MDEs wouldn't work? So far as I'm
aware, there's no difference in features set in VBA between ACCDB
and MDB, so there wouldn't be any reason why you can't produce an
MDE/ACCDE in A2007/A2010. 

> I simply stand corrected on this issue and thus am wrong.

You didn't think too carefully about it, I think, or you would have
realized this already. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:HpPso.13611$nj3.5976@newsfe04.iad: 

> > ?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message 
> > news:Xns9E0E883BBF728f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.91...
> > 
> > "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
> > news:quyso.4187$7z4.1885@newsfe17.iad:
> > 
> >> I simply stated that the ribbon CLEARLY represents for the most
> >> part that of some buttons placed beside each other, and that is
> >> VERY MUCH THE TREND in our industry.
> > 
> > But you cite only MS products.
> 
> Actually, no, if you look at the screen shots I included in that
> post, most of the pictures are Apple shots, and a good further
> number are FireFox add-ins, and quite much all of them have
> adopted a ribbon like UI. 

So, Apple (not Windows native applications) and a web browser's
plugins (which also aren't Windows native applications). 

I don't think either of those examples are compelling examples of
where UI design is going, unless you are claiming that: 

1. Apple is going to take over the industry

2. the Web is going to make desktop apps entirely obsolete.

As Access developers we're very aware of how Access is better
adapted to created database applications than generic VB/VB.NET.
This is because database applications have specific needs in terms
of UI. You don't adapt the UI of apps created for other purposes
unless they are applicable to the application you're creating
(remember the old User Interface Hall of Shame's escoriation of the
QuickTime player?). 

You seem to be claiming that all apps need and benefit from the
exact same UI. 

I think that's a non-starter. 

Menus are fine in some apps.

The ribbon interface is fine in others.

It's also important not to be so free with claiming that any old
interface with big, friendly toolbar buttons is similar to the
ribbon. Most of them aren't at all -- the ribbon is substantially
more sophisticated than many of the icon-based interfaces. 

> As I mentioned, I am not here to tell someone to like the ribbon
> or promote it. However, I just showing what is occurring in our
> industry.  We are seeing an era of natural interfaces, and a
> general move away from menu bars. 

I think you're using as your models applications that are not
applicable to database applications. 

> As noted a ribbon works really great on my iPad. And, as noted,
> those screen shots, MOST of them were from FireFox add-ins, and
> they ALL look like ribbons. And a further bunch more where from
> Apple products. 

I didn't see any screen shots, Albert. You posted in a text-only
newsgroup, and attachments are not supported for the vast majority
of compliant newsreaders. If you need to post graphics, put them on
a website and cite a URL. 

> I am just making the observation that we see less and less
> emphasis on menu bars. We clearly see MORE ribbon like UI
> occurring. I further make the case this UI trend is occurring in
> Browser, desktop and touch/pen based devices. (all 3 areas).

I don't think Apple's UIs have much in common with the ribbon,
except the generalized goal of surfacing more of the useful features
of the application. 

[]

> I have no problem if the person says they don't like the ribbon
> UI, but I MOST certainly have a problem with someone who can't
> make a simple observation about the sky, or in this case a CLEAR
> ui trend in our industry. 

Albert, I'm one of the people who recognizes the virtues of the
ribbon. I'm not comfortable with it myself, but I understand what
its design is intended to accomplish. I'm arguing only that your
case for the ribbon is misguided, in that you're citing examples
that are mostly from outside the types of applications that are
relevant to Access/Office developers, or that don't really have much
in common with the ribbon except the surface-level usage of larger
icons. 

From where I sit, there's no there there.

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"paii, Ron" <none@no.com> wrote in
news:i91r8a$4hb$1@news.eternal-september.org: 

> My only wish is that they could be generated on the fly instead
> of requiring a restart like I can do in AutoLisp.

I think it's criminal there is no ribbon creator tool for
developers. That right there would end a huge amount of the
resistance to them. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"David-W-Fenton" <NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9E0FA040079D5f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.90...
> "paii, Ron" <none@no.com> wrote in
> news:i91r8a$4hb$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > My only wish is that they could be generated on the fly instead
> > of requiring a restart like I can do in AutoLisp.
>
> I think it's criminal there is no ribbon creator tool for
> developers. That right there would end a huge amount of the
> resistance to them.
>
> -- 
> David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/
> contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

I Agree

Currently I use the modify ribbon tool, export customization, edit, import
into the USysRibbons table. All Microsoft would need to do is allow me to
edit a blank ribbon or an existing ribbon stored in the USysRibbons table.
That and include the USysRibbons table as a default system table.

On Oct 13, 5:45=A0am, "David-W-Fenton" <NoEm...@SeeSignature.invalid>
wrote:

> I think it's criminal there is no ribbon creator tool for
> developers. That right there would end a huge amount of the
> resistance to them.

+1. I was hoping for a native Ribbon creator in A2010, but it didn't
appear.

The tool developed by Avenius Gunter works well and is reasonably
priced.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 00:11:09 -0500, "Access Developer"
<accdevel@gmail.com> wrote:

>"PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote
>
> > I want to do what we do now with our Access 2003
> > version. We give them an install CD which has the
> > standard setup program which will install our appli-
> > cation on their systems.  It does not matter if their
> > computers have Office/Access installed or not and
> > what version.
>
> > We don't have "users" so to speak.  We have clients.
> > We have a product that we sell that we wrote in
> > Access 97 and now it is in 2003. If we have to
> > keep it in 2003, then so be it.
>
>I'm puzzled that so many of my knowledgeable colleagues here got so far "off 
>track" that they are talking about the users/clients of your application 
>having to have Access 2010... when you have made it clear that you are 
>distributing the "setup" which includes the runtime (it certainly does, from 
>your description).
>
>You can use the identical approach with Access 2010.  Most likely you will 
>not even have to make any changes to your application to "accomodate" the 
>newer version of Access, but you will have to adapt to using the new 
>"Ribbon" UI to use Access 2010 for development.  And, despite Albert's 
>fondness for it, there are many, including all of my clients, who detest it 
>and have refused to move from Access 2003 (they are using Access for more 
>than 'packaged' applications, so cannot just use the old UI as included in 
>the application) primarily because of it.
>
> > I know of only one other developer here that
> > distributes an Access application and sells it.
> > He has now switched to Servoy so I guess it
> > is just me now. We (my wife and I) have been
> > successfully selling our Access product for
> > over 15 years.
>
>I know of a few others who distribute Access applications, and if security 
>of the application itself has not been an issue for you before now, it 
>should not be any different now.  Most users are not "thieves", out to pass 
>on copies of the application they buy from you to others to be "cracked" and 
>used for free.
>
> Larry Linson
> Microsoft Office Access MVP

I ended up writing my own security module (which might be "easy" to
crack by someone that knows Access fairly well) after trying ADOX via
Alison Balter's (?) suggestions in her Access 2003 book.  It worked
great for a while, then the MDW got corrupted so I said to heck with
that.  Did not want that to happen to a client.

Any way, is there a "toolkit" or something I need with 2010 to
distribute a setup program on a CD to install our application?  Sorry
about the terminology as my wife does all the installations ;-)

We did have one client ( a fishing guide for one of our ex-clients)
"steal" our idea but I see he is somehow doing a web based service
now.  I've never tried it.  Which brings me to another question that I
should most likely start a new thread here "Are desktop applications
getting obsolete?  Is the future or today now SaaS and .NET only?"

Thanks Larry,

-paulw

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 00:19:51 -0600, Tony Toews
<ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 20:07:35 -0600, PW
><emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote:
>  
>>I want to do what we do now with our Access 2003 version. We give them
>>an install CD which has the standard setup program which will install
>>our application on their systems.  It does not matter if their
>>computers have Office/Access installed or not and what version.
>>
>>We don't have "users" so to speak.  We have clients.  We have a
>>product that we sell that we wrote in Access 97 and now it is in 2003.
>>If we have to keep it in 2003, then so be it.
>
>No, you can certainly distribute A2010 apps.I was just puzzled about
>exactly what your plans were.
>
>>I know of only one other developer here that distributes an Access
>>application and sells it.  He has now switched to Servoy so I guess it
>>is just me now. We (my wife and I) have been successfully selling our
>>Access product for over 15 years.
>
>Never heard of Servoy.until now.
>
>Tony


Thanks Tony. I would appreciate it if you did check out what Servoy is
and give me some feedback.  It appears it is bigger in Europe than
here in the USA.

-pwul

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:26:23 -0600, Tony Toews
<ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 22:21:40 -0500, "Access Developer"
><accdevel@gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>>My "issues" are that I find the "Ribbon" interface and the 
>>Development/Design Environment clumsy and user-UNfriendly... and that was 
>>not "fixed", nor do I expect it to be drastically changed in future 
>>versions. But, for developing the individual, LAN-based, or WAN-based 
>>applications for which Access is suited, there is no real competitor -- if 
>>you do the same application in DotNet languages or other, development will 
>>be more time-consuming, more difficult, and, thus, more expensive.
>
>I'm still not comfortable with them in Access 2007 but then I haven't
>done much work in A2007.
>
>However I very much like them in Word and Excel which I seldom use.
>It's much easier for me to find something that in the past was hidden
>away and that I only used once a year or so.   
>
>An Excel MVP once stated that with the ribbon he was no longer the
>Excel expert in the office because now everyone could find the
>"hidden" items.  
>
>Someone at MS once stated that one third of the feature requests they
>got were for features already in the product that the users couldn't
>find.
>
>Tony


Is the Ribbon mandatory in distributable applications with 2007 and
2010?  I can no longer create a basic menu bar as we do now?

-paulw

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 22:21:40 -0500, "Access Developer"
<accdevel@gmail.com> wrote:

>"PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote
>
> > What do I need to use Access 2010 (or perhaps
> > 2007) to port our 2003 application and create
> > an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?
>
>Others seem to think you want to produce an Access 2003 MDE with Access 
>2010, but I understand you just want to create an MDE (which is not, BTW, an 
>"executable", but merely a "compiled" form of the MDB) to be run with the 
>Access Runtime.  Is my understanding correct?

I assumed that to port our 2003 code, reports, data, queries, whatever
else to 2010 that we would just copy and paste everything into blank
2010 databases and then be able to create whatever 2010 calls an
"MDE".  Sorry, I have not taken the time to research 2010 very much
yet.  Or bought a book on it. My bad.

Since we skipped 2007 and there are some new features of 2010 that I
read about here and may use, I was thinking that converting our 2003
stuff into 2010 may be worth it next year.

-paulw

Albert, with all due respect, that does not mean PW wants to create an A2003 
MDE -- it means PW wants (as he says) to create an executable (which, when 
he was working in A2003, was an MDE).  That is what I understood it to mean 
and PW's later posts confirm that my understanding was correct.  It's really 
not productive to try to justify a misunderstanding.

Also, Access 2007 (and Access 2010, if I am not mistaken) can produce 
_either_ an MDB/MDE or an ACCDB/ACCDE.

 Larry Linson
 Microsoft Office Access MVP

"PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote

 > Any way, is there a "toolkit" or something
 > I need with 2010 to distribute a setup program
 > on a CD to install our application?  Sorry
 > about the terminology as my wife does all the installations ;-)
>
> We did have one client ( a fishing guide for one of our ex-clients)
> "steal" our idea but I see he is somehow doing a web based service
> now.  I've never tried it.

 > Which brings me to another question that I
 > should most likely start a new thread here
 > "Are desktop applications getting obsolete?
 >  Is the future or today now SaaS and .NET only?"

There are those who would benefit from SaaS and cloud computing -- they are 
pushing the idea as hard as they can and trying to get everyone to follow 
along.  There are some enterprise organizations which are moving in that 
direction for some applications.  Most organizations, however, are reluctant 
to entrust their data/information to someone else.  Some of them remember 
that some Application Service Providers (ASP) in the DotComBubble timeframe 
disappeared, and so did all their clients' data.

None of my current/probable clients are developing applications extensive 
enough to need cloud computing -- they are all small to modest-sized 
organizations.

There's a runtime that is available for free download from Microsoft for 
Access 2010.  I don't know that it has been available long enough for good 
feedback on its quality and stability.  Most developers of my acquaintance 
go with one of the commercial distribution and installation products to 
create the actual installation CD/DVD.  I wouldn't venture to recommend one, 
because the last time I had any contact with them was back in the 1990s, but 
almost all seem to use Sagekey scripts.

Best of luck with your application.

 Larry Linson
 Microsoft Office Access MVP 

?"Access Developer"  wrote in message=20
news:8hkuntFnesU1@mid.individual.net...

>That is what I understood it to mean
and PW's later posts confirm that my understanding was correct.  It's =
really
not productive to try to justify a misunderstanding.


I 100% agree. However, the poster asked why I was on a side track and =
saw=20
this wrong.  I simply replied that I miss read this.

I not trying to make this look better then it is! (it is not good!)

<quote>
I don't want to use 2010 to create a 2003 MDE. I have no idea how that
subject got brought up.
</quote>

The poster asked how I could see this wrong and thus I answered the =
above=20
question as to how I could and read this wrong.

Since others did not see it this way then my view is explaining further =
and=20
outlining how I got this so wrong is really an of humility on my part.

It is rare for people to take extra time out as to how they did such a =
great=20
job of putting their foot in their mouth.

In fact, taking time to explain what I got so wrong rather makes me even =

look worse, but that looking of me worse is still a better thing for me =
to=20
admit to the community here rather then trying to sugar coat this.

So, no, not looking to sugar coat this or even trying to justify my=20
position, but rather I am doing the reverse and do clearly point out I =
saw=20
this the wrong way when everyone else did not...

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com=20

"PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote in message
news:sr5ab65193dvseq8acqajdkptoe13vf6uv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:26:23 -0600, Tony Toews
> <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 22:21:40 -0500, "Access Developer"
> ><accdevel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>My "issues" are that I find the "Ribbon" interface and the
> >>Development/Design Environment clumsy and user-UNfriendly... and that
was
> >>not "fixed", nor do I expect it to be drastically changed in future
> >>versions. But, for developing the individual, LAN-based, or WAN-based
> >>applications for which Access is suited, there is no real competitor -- 
if
> >>you do the same application in DotNet languages or other, development
will
> >>be more time-consuming, more difficult, and, thus, more expensive.
> >
> >I'm still not comfortable with them in Access 2007 but then I haven't
> >done much work in A2007.
> >
> >However I very much like them in Word and Excel which I seldom use.
> >It's much easier for me to find something that in the past was hidden
> >away and that I only used once a year or so.
> >
> >An Excel MVP once stated that with the ribbon he was no longer the
> >Excel expert in the office because now everyone could find the
> >"hidden" items.
> >
> >Someone at MS once stated that one third of the feature requests they
> >got were for features already in the product that the users couldn't
> >find.
> >
> >Tony
>
>
> Is the Ribbon mandatory in distributable applications with 2007 and
> 2010?  I can no longer create a basic menu bar as we do now?
>
> -paulw

You can import custom toolbars into 2010 and they appear behind the "Add-On"
button on the main ribbon. I have found no way to edit them in 2010 and a
simple thing like changing a forms toolbar using VBA does not work. So in my
case the ribbon is mandatory.

??"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message
news:Xns9E0FA003A226Af99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.90...


>So, Apple (not Windows native applications) and a web browser's
>plugins (which also aren't Windows native applications).

>I don't think either of those examples are compelling examples of
>where UI design is going, unless you are claiming that:

>1. Apple is going to take over the industry

>2. the Web is going to make desktop apps entirely obsolete.

As noted, I did not bother with window applications since MS paint,=20
SharePoint,
office, live mail and just about everything else out of Redmond these =
days
has a ribbon.

I did not think the obvious needed to be pointed out, so I concentrated =
on
NON MS products since anyone up to date on windows don't need to be told
what is obvious and occurring.

I thus on purpose took time to show non ms products to demonstrate they =
ALSO
exhibit this same UI trend.

>You seem to be claiming that all apps need and benefit from the
>exact same UI.

No claim being made either way.
The claim and statement being made is Salad claims no one is
adopting the ribbon or ribbon like UI.
I see clearly this trend and I see this trend in all sectors from =
desktop to
tablet to web to smart phones.

>It's also important not to be so free with claiming that any old
>interface with big, friendly toolbar buttons is similar to the
>ribbon. Most of them aren't at all -- the ribbon is substantially
>more sophisticated than many of the icon-based interfaces.

Well, yes, in it basic form, I do make that claim. No question that =
there
many other parts to ribbon, say such as the image gallery used in access
2010 to insert an image. This feature of the ribbon is called a gallery =
and
it very nice (and saved some real nice development dollars to allow this =
UI
in access since the display was a standard ribbon UI feature).

So, the ribbon has a lot of very rich type of features, even things like
combo boxes with images. However, at the end of the day, in it most =
basic
form, it is a simple row of buttons (graphics) beside each other, and =
that
is fundamental difference then a menu bar. Ribbons can cascade, but
for the most part they do not. Menus don't have to cascade, but for
the most part they do, or at least they drop down.

>> As I mentioned, I am not here to tell someone to like the ribbon
>> or promote it. However, I just showing what is occurring in our
>> industry.  We are seeing an era of natural interfaces, and a
>> general move away from menu bars.

>I think you're using as your models applications that are not
>applicable to database applications.

Never made any claim either way as such. However, if you include
applications that edit data on the web, then this is not such a simple
answer one way or another.

>> As noted a ribbon works really great on my iPad. And, as noted,
>> those screen shots, MOST of them were from FireFox add-ins, and
>> they ALL look like ribbons. And a further bunch more where from
>> Apple products.

>I didn't see any screen shots, Albert. You posted in a text-only
>newsgroup, and attachments are not supported for the vast majority
>of compliant newsreaders. If you need to post graphics, put them on
>a website and cite a URL.

Actually,  it was HTML markup (so you need a reader that supports HTML).
In respect of bandwidth, no images where included or attached. However
while the HTML keeps text/bandwidth small, I do believe as a general =
rule
HTML should not be posted here - so, my sorry.

I did not want to loose the context (and to save time), so I just =
cut+pasted
that text here intact:

http://www.kallal.ca/test/rib1.htm

(above is faster then have to click on 15 links while reading anyway).

Do take note of the 1st two images in above, the ribbon and the access =
form
with buttons - they are very similar.

>> I am just making the observation that we see less and less
>> emphasis on menu bars. We clearly see MORE ribbon like UI
>> occurring. I further make the case this UI trend is occurring in
>> Browser, desktop and touch/pen based devices. (all 3 areas).

>I don't think Apple's UIs have much in common with the ribbon,
>except the generalized goal of surfacing more of the useful features
>of the application.

Well, if you agree that a set of buttons beside each other constitutes =
the
ribbon in it basic form, then yes, I do see this issue in this light. =
There
is a lot of apple shots in the above link, and they look ribbon like.

It is simply a UI trend that I see in our industry, and I think it is =
quite
hard to to make the claim that this type of UI is not gaining traction =
in
the computer industry.

--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com=20

On Oct 13, 6:21=A0am, "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkal...@msn.com>
wrote:
> ?"Access Developer" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:8hkuntFnesU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >That is what I understood it to mean
>
> and PW's later posts confirm that my understanding was correct. =A0It's r=
eally
> not productive to try to justify a misunderstanding.
>
> I 100% agree. However, the poster asked why I was on a side track and saw
> this wrong. =A0I simply replied that I miss read this.
>
> I not trying to make this look better then it is! (it is not good!)
>
> <quote>
> I don't want to use 2010 to create a 2003 MDE. I have no idea how that
> subject got brought up.
> </quote>
>
> The poster asked how I could see this wrong and thus I answered the above
> question as to how I could and read this wrong.
>
> Since others did not see it this way then my view is explaining further a=
nd
> outlining how I got this so wrong is really an of humility on my part.
>
> It is rare for people to take extra time out as to how they did such a gr=
eat
> job of putting their foot in their mouth.
>
> In fact, taking time to explain what I got so wrong rather makes me even
> look worse, but that looking of me worse is still a better thing for me t=
o
> admit to the community here rather then trying to sugar coat this.
>
> So, no, not looking to sugar coat this or even trying to justify my
> position, but rather I am doing the reverse and do clearly point out I sa=
w
> this the wrong way when everyone else did not...

We all make mistakes sometimes when trying to understand posts.  I
think this NG has a high tolerance for such misunderstandings,
especially with those who work to correct those misunderstandings
until they are able to understand and solve the problems.  You should
feel no shame at an honest misunderstanding, especially when the OP's
are sometimes a little clumsy or vague when articulating not-so-
exactly what it is they're looking for.  IMO, the honor of having
courage to take such risks to answer questions outweighs the dishonor
of an occasional misinterpretation of the question.

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com

Hey, Albert, we all love ya, anyway.  I hear there's gonna be "group hug 
time" at the Access MVP's dinner at next year's MVP Summit. <GRIN>

And, to be honest, I haven't always learned to stop digging when I am in a 
hole, either.

 Larry 

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:hjito.5575$c94.1437@newsfe07.iad: 

> ??"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message
> news:Xns9E0FA003A226Af99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.90...
> 
> 
>>So, Apple (not Windows native applications) and a web browser's
>>plugins (which also aren't Windows native applications).
> 
>>I don't think either of those examples are compelling examples of
>>where UI design is going, unless you are claiming that:
> 
>>1. Apple is going to take over the industry
> 
>>2. the Web is going to make desktop apps entirely obsolete.
> 
> As noted, I did not bother with window applications since MS
> paint, SharePoint,
> office, live mail and just about everything else out of Redmond
> these days has a ribbon.

All of those are MICROSOFT apps, so they don't tell us anything
about the merit of the ribbon as a new UI -- MS has settled on it as
the standard for all new app development, so all new apps are going
to get it, whether it's a good idea or not. 

If the ribbon interface (or something very close to it) is being
used in lots of non-MS apps, then that's different. But the only
ones you've mentioned are from outside the Windows software
ecosystem, or browser-based, which is simply a different animal from
desktop software (though AJAX is making that somewhat less of an
issue). 

> I did not think the obvious needed to be pointed out, so I
> concentrated on NON MS products since anyone up to date on windows
> don't need to be told what is obvious and occurring.

MS products are irrelevant to your point, as they don't show
anything about the actual MERIT of the interface -- all they show is
that MS is uniformly implementing it in all their apps. 

> I thus on purpose took time to show non ms products to demonstrate
> they ALSO exhibit this same UI trend.

Non-MS apps are the only ones that will tell you anything about the
actual merit of the ribbon, but you haven't, so far as I can tell,
provided any examples of actual UIs that are truly like the ribbon
-- the similarities are only superficial, so far as I can tell (but
since I couldn't see your screenshots, I may be missing something). 

>>You seem to be claiming that all apps need and benefit from the
>>exact same UI.
> 
> No claim being made either way.
> The claim and statement being made is Salad claims no one is
> adopting the ribbon or ribbon like UI.
> I see clearly this trend and I see this trend in all sectors from
> desktop to tablet to web to smart phones.

Aside from MS apps, what desktop software is using true ribbon-like
UI? 

I don't think tablet, web or phone UIs really have all that much to
do with what's appropriate for a desktop app. And I'm also not
convinced that you've even provided examples from that realm that
are anything other than superficially similar in appearance to the
ribbon. 

>>It's also important not to be so free with claiming that any old
>>interface with big, friendly toolbar buttons is similar to the
>>ribbon. Most of them aren't at all -- the ribbon is substantially
>>more sophisticated than many of the icon-based interfaces.
> 
> Well, yes, in it basic form, I do make that claim. 

Then the UI you're making the claim for pre-dated the ribbon itself,
so the adoption of that UI has nothing at all to do with the UI. 

> No question that there
> many other parts to ribbon, say such as the image gallery used in
> access 2010 to insert an image. This feature of the ribbon is
> called a gallery and it very nice (and saved some real nice
> development dollars to allow this UI in access since the display
> was a standard ribbon UI feature). 
> 
> So, the ribbon has a lot of very rich type of features, even
> things like combo boxes with images. However, at the end of the
> day, in it most basic form, it is a simple row of buttons
> (graphics) beside each other, and that is fundamental difference
> then a menu bar. 

!!!!

That's just a blatantly wrong claim. MS implemented toolbars and
ribbons with the identical interface a long time ago, and long ago
expanded toolbar items to allow them to cascade in certain
circumstances (not exactly the way the ribbon does, but moving in
that direction). 

> Ribbons can cascade, but
> for the most part they do not. Menus don't have to cascade, but
> for the most part they do, or at least they drop down.

As I suspected, your definition of "similarity to the ribbon" is
completely superficial, and really doesn't tell us anything at all. 

You could have had big friendly icons in Office 2003 if you just set
your icon size large enough. 

>>> As I mentioned, I am not here to tell someone to like the ribbon
>>> or promote it. However, I just showing what is occurring in our
>>> industry.  We are seeing an era of natural interfaces, and a
>>> general move away from menu bars.
> 
>>I think you're using as your models applications that are not
>>applicable to database applications.
> 
> Never made any claim either way as such. However, if you include
> applications that edit data on the web, then this is not such a
> simple answer one way or another.

I would say that the very limited interfaces available in web apps
are a really poor model for any app that isn't browser-based. 

>>> As noted a ribbon works really great on my iPad. And, as noted,
>>> those screen shots, MOST of them were from FireFox add-ins, and
>>> they ALL look like ribbons. And a further bunch more where from
>>> Apple products.
> 
>>I didn't see any screen shots, Albert. You posted in a text-only
>>newsgroup, and attachments are not supported for the vast majority
>>of compliant newsreaders. If you need to post graphics, put them
>>on a website and cite a URL.
> 
> Actually,  it was HTML markup (so you need a reader that supports
> HTML). 

The NNTP standards do not support HTML. A newsreader that renders
HTML is non-compliant with the basic fundamental standards for
Usenet. 

> In respect of bandwidth, no images where included or attached.
> However while the HTML keeps text/bandwidth small, I do believe as
> a general rule HTML should not be posted here - so, my sorry.
> 
> I did not want to loose the context (and to save time), so I just
> cut+pasted that text here intact:
> 
> http://www.kallal.ca/test/rib1.htm
> 
> (above is faster then have to click on 15 links while reading
> anyway). 
> 
> Do take note of the 1st two images in above, the ribbon and the
> access form with buttons - they are very similar.

Only at the most superficial level in that they use large icons to
swap out different content in the main pane. Those examples are just
the Outlook view rotated 90 degrees. And that wasn't even new in
Outlook (Eudora had it years before that). 

I could do that interface in Access 2003 without ribbons by using a
tab control and some icons. Indeed, this is exactly that, just with
text buttons instead of icons (and rectangular instead of lacking a
border): 

  http://dfenton.com/DFA/examples/assignment.gif

That design is from early 1998, and the only difference between that
and the examples you post is that instead of rectangular text
buttons (that are implemented with labels instead of as command
buttons, but that's irrelevant), they use non-rectangular icons. 

This is not by any means what I consider to be the structure and
content of the ribbon, which is far richer than that (and defines
the hierarchy completely differently, as well as providing far more
variety of controls). 

>>> I am just making the observation that we see less and less
>>> emphasis on menu bars. We clearly see MORE ribbon like UI
>>> occurring. I further make the case this UI trend is occurring in
>>> Browser, desktop and touch/pen based devices. (all 3 areas).
> 
>>I don't think Apple's UIs have much in common with the ribbon,
>>except the generalized goal of surfacing more of the useful
>>features of the application.
> 
> Well, if you agree that a set of buttons beside each other
> constitutes the ribbon in it basic form, 

I dispute that assertion vigorously. It reduces the term "ribbon" to
meaninglessness, as the prior art for your definition goes back way
more than a decade, but the ribbon involves a helluva lot more than
that. 

> then yes, I do see this issue in this light. There
> is a lot of apple shots in the above link, and they look ribbon
> like. 

They look no more ribbonlike to me than any two things that have the
same surface, but completely different innards. 

> It is simply a UI trend that I see in our industry, and I think it
> is quite hard to to make the claim that this type of UI is not
> gaining traction in the computer industry.

The UI trend you're describing has no significant connection to the
ribbon. 

And you're a decade late in noticing the trend.

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:hjito.5575$c94.1437@newsfe07.iad: 

By the way, Albert, thanks for changing your quoting to use Usenet
standard. It makes it vastly easier to read and respond to your
posts. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"paii, Ron" <none@no.com> wrote in
news:i92g47$7gt$1@news.eternal-september.org: 

> 
> "David-W-Fenton" <NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9E0FA040079D5f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.90...
>> "paii, Ron" <none@no.com> wrote in
>> news:i91r8a$4hb$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > My only wish is that they could be generated on the fly instead
>> > of requiring a restart like I can do in AutoLisp.
>>
>> I think it's criminal there is no ribbon creator tool for
>> developers. That right there would end a huge amount of the
>> resistance to them.
> 
> I Agree
> 
> Currently I use the modify ribbon tool, export customization,
> edit, import into the USysRibbons table. All Microsoft would need
> to do is allow me to edit a blank ribbon or an existing ribbon
> stored in the USysRibbons table. That and include the USysRibbons
> table as a default system table. 

A drag-and-drop editor (like every other toolbar in the universe) to
choose from predefined icons/commands would help a lot, too. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Wayne <cqdigital@volcanomail.com> wrote in
news:4733f824-0fa3-41d6-a390-b5a5a2b590f4@n41g2000prb.googlegroups.co
m: 

> On Oct 13, 5:45�am, "David-W-Fenton"
> <NoEm...@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> I think it's criminal there is no ribbon creator tool for
>> developers. That right there would end a huge amount of the
>> resistance to them.
> 
> +1. I was hoping for a native Ribbon creator in A2010, but it
> didn't appear.
> 
> The tool developed by Avenius Gunter works well and is reasonably
> priced.

But MS is shooting itself in the foot by not giving developers these
tools out of the box. There is no software company in the world that
knows the lesson of capturing the mindshare of developers. Office
developers (and power users) would be great advocates of the ribbon
if they had easy-to-use tools for editing ribbons built into the
applications at no additional fees. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

PW <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote in
news:ju4ab69dlhjnt0p2vm6a2f98ggj198o773@4ax.com: 

> "Are desktop applications
> getting obsolete?

Absolutely not. Anyone who thinks so, must use only really trivial
desktop apps. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"Access Developer" <accdevel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8hkvt4Fte1U1@mid.individual.net: 

> Most organizations, however, are reluctant 
> to entrust their data/information to someone else.  Some of them
> remember that some Application Service Providers (ASP) in the
> DotComBubble timeframe disappeared, and so did all their clients'
> data. 

You don't have to go back that far. It was just last Spring (or
maybe it was a year ago) that SideKick users potentially lost data
because of a screwup by a cloud provider that was owned by
Microsoft. It was never clear to me if all the data was recovered or
not, but it was several weeks during which there was a real question
in that regard. 

That situation taught me everything I needed to know about storing
data in the "cloud." 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:ZKfto.2762$hb.636@newsfe12.iad: 

><quote>
> I don't want to use 2010 to create a 2003 MDE. I have no idea how
> that subject got brought up.
></quote>
> 
> The poster asked how I could see this wrong and thus I answered
> the above question as to how I could and read this wrong.

The quoted text above clearly implied the context in which you
answered. I saw nothing wrong with your answer there (except for
your erroneous assertion that you couldn't create an MDE in
A2007/2010). 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"David-W-Fenton" <NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9E11A45EB65B1f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.99...
> "paii, Ron" <none@no.com> wrote in
> news:i92g47$7gt$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> >
> > "David-W-Fenton" <NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9E0FA040079D5f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.90...
> >> "paii, Ron" <none@no.com> wrote in
> >> news:i91r8a$4hb$1@news.eternal-september.org:
> >>
> >> > My only wish is that they could be generated on the fly instead
> >> > of requiring a restart like I can do in AutoLisp.
> >>
> >> I think it's criminal there is no ribbon creator tool for
> >> developers. That right there would end a huge amount of the
> >> resistance to them.
> >
> > I Agree
> >
> > Currently I use the modify ribbon tool, export customization,
> > edit, import into the USysRibbons table. All Microsoft would need
> > to do is allow me to edit a blank ribbon or an existing ribbon
> > stored in the USysRibbons table. That and include the USysRibbons
> > table as a default system table.
>
> A drag-and-drop editor (like every other toolbar in the universe) to
> choose from predefined icons/commands would help a lot, too.
>
> -- 
> David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/
> contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

The Modify Ribbon tool, is drag-and-drop; but it only allows you to edit the
default ribbon on the current version of Access.

"David-W-Fenton" <NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9E11A49D4181Ff99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.99...
> Wayne <cqdigital@volcanomail.com> wrote in
> news:4733f824-0fa3-41d6-a390-b5a5a2b590f4@n41g2000prb.googlegroups.co
> m:
>
> > On Oct 13, 5:45 am, "David-W-Fenton"
> > <NoEm...@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> I think it's criminal there is no ribbon creator tool for
> >> developers. That right there would end a huge amount of the
> >> resistance to them.
> >
> > +1. I was hoping for a native Ribbon creator in A2010, but it
> > didn't appear.
> >
> > The tool developed by Avenius Gunter works well and is reasonably
> > priced.
>
> But MS is shooting itself in the foot by not giving developers these
> tools out of the box. There is no software company in the world that
> knows the lesson of capturing the mindshare of developers. Office
> developers (and power users) would be great advocates of the ribbon
> if they had easy-to-use tools for editing ribbons built into the
> applications at no additional fees.
>
> -- 
> David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/
> contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

We all know what a good shot MS is when shooting in that direction ;)

On 12 Oct 2010 19:34:28 GMT, "David-W-Fenton"
<NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote:
  
>[Albert, you really do need to fix your reply settings. Your
>messages are not formatted like anybody else's that is posting
>either via plain old Usenet or in the MS Forums via one of the NNTP
>bridges. Your news client just isn't doing reply quoting correctly,
>and it makes it difficult to reply to your posts in turn] 

I see he is using Windows Live Mail.  I think the problem is the
setting which is mentioned in the header
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have a vague memory of this causing problems.  But no idea as I
ignored those postings as I've never run OE or it's successors and
never will.

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:21:49 -0600, PW
<emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote:
  
>Is the Ribbon mandatory in distributable applications with 2007 and
>2010?  

No.  You can still use the menu bar.   

>I can no longer create a basic menu bar as we do now?

I have no idea as I continue to work in A2003 and distribute my apps
as A2003 MDEs.

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 07:04:32 -0500, "paii, Ron" <none@no.com> wrote:
  
>You can import custom toolbars into 2010 and they appear behind the "Add-On"
>button on the main ribbon. I have found no way to edit them in 2010 and a
>simple thing like changing a forms toolbar using VBA does not work. So in my
>case the ribbon is mandatory.

There is a simple method of removing the ribbon completely in
A2007/2010 MDEs so only your old style menu bar appears.    

See Jeff Conrad's page How do I get my existing legacy menu bars and
toolbars to work in Access 2007? Right now they all show up on the
Add-Ins tab.  http://accessjunkie.com/faq_31.aspx

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:adghb6144km1sm56pm5ddvniugmmeg1p3u@4ax.com: 

> On 12 Oct 2010 19:34:28 GMT, "David-W-Fenton"
><NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote:
>   
>>[Albert, you really do need to fix your reply settings. Your
>>messages are not formatted like anybody else's that is posting
>>either via plain old Usenet or in the MS Forums via one of the
>>NNTP bridges. Your news client just isn't doing reply quoting
>>correctly, and it makes it difficult to reply to your posts in
>>turn] 
> 
> I see he is using Windows Live Mail.  I think the problem is the
> setting which is mentioned in the header
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> I have a vague memory of this causing problems.  But no idea as I
> ignored those postings as I've never run OE or it's successors and
> never will.

Microsoft never got email clients right, always using default
settings that were at variance with the Internet conventions
established long before MS ever created an email client. Why? I call
it the "dogs-pissing-on-trees" syndrome -- they want to mark their
territory. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:okghb6p88u4bb2g7t0gcqemi6v4ja6n53t@4ax.com: 

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:21:49 -0600, PW
><emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote:
>   
>>Is the Ribbon mandatory in distributable applications with 2007
>>and 2010?  
> 
> No.  You can still use the menu bar.   

But menu bars/toolbars are rendered within the ribbon and not as
accessible as in previous versions of Access. 

>>I can no longer create a basic menu bar as we do now?
> 
> I have no idea as I continue to work in A2003 and distribute my
> apps as A2003 MDEs.

I was at a client today and had to work in A2007. It was AWFUL. I
had to Google repeatedly to find out where basic functionality is
located. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:54:55 -0500, "Access Developer"
<accdevel@gmail.com> wrote:

>"PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote
>
> > Any way, is there a "toolkit" or something
> > I need with 2010 to distribute a setup program
> > on a CD to install our application?  Sorry
> > about the terminology as my wife does all the installations ;-)
>>
>> We did have one client ( a fishing guide for one of our ex-clients)
>> "steal" our idea but I see he is somehow doing a web based service
>> now.  I've never tried it.
>
> > Which brings me to another question that I
> > should most likely start a new thread here
> > "Are desktop applications getting obsolete?
> >  Is the future or today now SaaS and .NET only?"
>
>There are those who would benefit from SaaS and cloud computing -- they are 
>pushing the idea as hard as they can and trying to get everyone to follow 
>along.  There are some enterprise organizations which are moving in that 
>direction for some applications.  Most organizations, however, are reluctant 
>to entrust their data/information to someone else.  Some of them remember 
>that some Application Service Providers (ASP) in the DotComBubble timeframe 
>disappeared, and so did all their clients' data.
>
>None of my current/probable clients are developing applications extensive 
>enough to need cloud computing -- they are all small to modest-sized 
>organizations.
>

>There's a runtime that is available for free download from Microsoft for 
>Access 2010.  I don't know that it has been available long enough for good 
>feedback on its quality and stability.  Most developers of my acquaintance 
>go with one of the commercial distribution and installation products to 
>create the actual installation CD/DVD.  I wouldn't venture to recommend one, 
>because the last time I had any contact with them was back in the 1990s, but 
>almost all seem to use Sagekey scripts.
>
>Best of luck with your application.
>
> Larry Linson
> Microsoft Office Access MVP 
>

Hi Larry,

I have been considering purchasing FMS-Inc's Total Access Emailer to
improve our product as some clients don't use Outlook and have trouble
sending emails from our product.  Any way, it looks very powerful but
it is sort of a bummer that their user interface can not be
distributed with an MDE.  Maybe we can offer our own service.

Which leads me to the SaaS and Cloud stuff.  They came out with their
first SaaS product and discuss the Cloud on their website.  I saw
mostly negative things about it (like you said - security and hosting
client data) but they are still going ahead with it.  It is way too
expensive for my wife and I to come up with and host a product like
that, and to have it converted.

Thanks so much!

-paulw

On 14 Oct 2010 20:16:52 GMT, "David-W-Fenton"
<NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote:

>PW <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote in
>news:ju4ab69dlhjnt0p2vm6a2f98ggj198o773@4ax.com: 
>
>> "Are desktop applications
>> getting obsolete?
>
>Absolutely not. Anyone who thinks so, must use only really trivial
>desktop apps. 

Thanks for your replies David!  Good to hear that.

-paulw

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 07:04:32 -0500, "paii, Ron" <none@no.com> wrote:

>
>"PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote in message
>news:sr5ab65193dvseq8acqajdkptoe13vf6uv@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:26:23 -0600, Tony Toews
>> <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 22:21:40 -0500, "Access Developer"
>> ><accdevel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>My "issues" are that I find the "Ribbon" interface and the
>> >>Development/Design Environment clumsy and user-UNfriendly... and that
>was
>> >>not "fixed", nor do I expect it to be drastically changed in future
>> >>versions. But, for developing the individual, LAN-based, or WAN-based
>> >>applications for which Access is suited, there is no real competitor -- 
>if
>> >>you do the same application in DotNet languages or other, development
>will
>> >>be more time-consuming, more difficult, and, thus, more expensive.
>> >
>> >I'm still not comfortable with them in Access 2007 but then I haven't
>> >done much work in A2007.
>> >
>> >However I very much like them in Word and Excel which I seldom use.
>> >It's much easier for me to find something that in the past was hidden
>> >away and that I only used once a year or so.
>> >
>> >An Excel MVP once stated that with the ribbon he was no longer the
>> >Excel expert in the office because now everyone could find the
>> >"hidden" items.
>> >
>> >Someone at MS once stated that one third of the feature requests they
>> >got were for features already in the product that the users couldn't
>> >find.
>> >
>> >Tony
>>
>>
>> Is the Ribbon mandatory in distributable applications with 2007 and
>> 2010?  I can no longer create a basic menu bar as we do now?
>>
>> -paulw
>
>You can import custom toolbars into 2010 and they appear behind the "Add-On"
>button on the main ribbon. I have found no way to edit them in 2010 and a
>simple thing like changing a forms toolbar using VBA does not work. So in my
>case the ribbon is mandatory.
>

Cr*p.  For my security module, I either hide, remove, or disable menu
picks depending on what group the user is a part of.

I use CommandBars("Lodge-ical
MainMenu").Controls(strMenuName).Controls(strMenuItem).Enabled = True

I hope that is still doable or we will be staying with Access 2003!

Thanks again,

-paulw

> But, for developing the individual, LAN-based, or WAN-based 
>applications for which Access is suited, there is no real competitor -- if 
>you do the same application in DotNet languages or other, development will 
>be more time-consuming, more difficult, and, thus, more expensive.

Yes there was, but Microsoft killed it (and my "job"). It is called
Microsoft Visual FoxPro.  Not to start anything here, but VFP kicks
the pants off of Access for developing "real" software.  I could had
never used Access for what I have developed with VFP.  Access works
fine for what our product is though but it's sort of looking like we
are going to be forced to stick with 2003.  Or port it to C#.Net and
SQL Server but I doubt we will do that.  I am not sure how .NET is for
desktop apps.

>
>One other "issue" -- Microsoft does NOT consider Access to be a development 
>tool, but an end-user tool that is just part of Office. This means that 
>"developer issues" may not get the emphasis and attention that we Access 
>developers would like.

I have had that feeling for years!

Well, if it wasn't for Getz or Balter and participants in this
newsgroup (and in the Compuserve Access forums), I am not sure we
would have gotten this far with Access!

-pw

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:06:05 -0600, "Albert D. Kallal"
<PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote:

>?"PW"  wrote in message news:vr04b6t430qf95gou8m0ri1fnh59ee9qnu@4ax.com...
>
>>I don't want to use 2010 to create a 2003 MDE. I have no idea how that
>subject got brought up.
>
>Well, you asked:
>
>>What do I need to use Access 2010 (or perhaps 2007) to port our 2003
>>application and create an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?
>
>The above sent acne says:
>
>"and create an executable (MDE in Access 2003)?"

How's this:" LIKE an MDE in Access 2003".  My bad.


-pw

"David-W-Fenton" <NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote

 >> "Are desktop applications
 >> getting obsolete?
 >
 > Absolutely not. Anyone who thinks so,
 > must use only really trivial
 > desktop apps.

I've dealt with some not exactly "trivial" in complexity, but "very simple" 
desktop apps that were absolutely vital to the clients' businesses.  Maybe 
it isn't application complexity to which you are referring, David, but to 
importance to the business.

I've long said, for example, "there are far more web applications than 
_requirements_ for web apps."  It was hard for the 
medium-sized-organizations' IT departments to resist the "buzz" for fear 
they'd appear obsolete.

I don't think any of the LAN / WAN based client-server applications on which 
I've worked since the mid-1990s would have benefitted then, nor would 
benefit now, from being moved to the web. (But <SIGH>, several of them were 
moved, at significant cost, and sometimes with spectacular project failures. 
I'm not enough of a business analyst to say whether or not that _caused_ the 
failure of some firms, but I don't doubt that the cost and interference with 
business processes/practices _contributed_.)

 Larry 

?>"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message=20
news:Xns9E12DCC9FD51Cf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.92...

>>Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote in
>>news:adghb6144km1sm56pm5ddvniugmmeg1p3u@4ax.com:

>>
>> I see he is using Windows Live Mail.  I think the problem is the
>> setting which is mentioned in the header
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> I have a vague memory of this causing problems.  But no idea as I
>> ignored those postings as I've never run OE or it's successors and
..> never will.

>Microsoft never got email clients right, always using default
>settings that were at variance with the Internet conventions

Actually, the problem is I am using live mail 2011, and it is beta. =
There=20
are some things that are broken (such as the quoting, and there even =
some=20
re-plot errors).
However, it does have some nice settings that allows threads posted to =
be=20
bumped to the top, but remain as a thread view.
And, live mail works with what I used to (Outlook express, and my =
settings=20
transferred over)
So, this product is beta, but for the most part it was this or setup + =
use a=20
new NNTP client.  I even like the word red underline for miss-spelled =
words.

BTW, there is some threads here I want to answer to, and hopefully I get =

around to this in the next 24 hours, but sometimes this stuff like=20
perishable fruit, if I can't respond in a short time, it becomes a bit =
late=20
to do so.


--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com=20

"PW" <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote

 >> But, for developing the individual, LAN-based,
 >> or WAN-based applications for which Access is
 >> suited, there is no real competitor -- if you do the
 >> same application in DotNet languages or other,
 >> development will be more time-consuming, more
 >> difficult, and, thus, more expensive.
 >
 > Yes there was, but Microsoft killed it (and my "job").
 > It is called Microsoft Visual FoxPro.  Not to start
 > anything here, but VFP kicks the pants off of Access
 > for developing "real" software.

I don't know what that means. I'd have sworn I've developed some "real" 
software since I started using Access in 1993 -- a couple of hundred users, 
with a server back end (that one happened to use Informix) for example. 
I've also used Microsoft SQL Server as a back end, and a couple of Sybase 
products.  IBM bought Informix and I don't know what its eventual fate was / 
is to be -- there was speculation that they wanted to acquire the customer 
base and convert those customers to DB2.

 > I could had never used Access for what I have
 > developed with VFP.  Access works fine for
 > what our product is though but it's sort of
 > looking like we are going to be forced to stick
 > with 2003.  Or port it to C#.Net and SQL Server
 > but I doubt we will do that. I am not sure how
 > .NET is for desktop apps.

"Slow and, thus, expensive to develop compared to what you are accustomed 
to" is probably a fair evaluation.  And, many things that you expect (and 
have every right to expect) the product itself to do will require you to 
purchase third-party add-ins... and I'm not aware of any _inexpensive_ 
third-party .NET add-ins / add-ons.

 >> One other "issue" -- Microsoft does NOT consider
 >> Access to be a development tool, but an end-user
 >> tool that is just part of Office. This means that
 >>"developer issues" may not get the emphasis and
 >> attention that we Access developers would like.
 >
 > I have had that feeling for years!
 >
 > Well, if it wasn't for Getz or Balter and participants
 > in this newsgroup (and in the Compuserve Access
 > forums), I am not sure we would have gotten this
 > far with Access!

There's no question that developers have discovered some "unadvertised 
features" of Access -- but someone on the product team had to build those 
features in.  In more recent times, I fear the product development team is 
more bound by the marching orders from The Mighty Microsoft Marketing and 
Management Machine, so some nice developer features are likely to fall by 
the wayside. 

On 10/15/2010 9:43 PM, David-W-Fenton wrote:

> Tony Toews<ttoews@telusplanet.net>  wrote in
> news:okghb6p88u4bb2g7t0gcqemi6v4ja6n53t@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:21:49 -0600, PW
>> <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Is the Ribbon mandatory in distributable applications with 2007
>>> and 2010?
>>
>> No.  You can still use the menu bar.
>
> But menu bars/toolbars are rendered within the ribbon and not as
> accessible as in previous versions of Access.
>

In Access 2007, custom menus and toolbars are displayed just like in 
Access 2003, i.e. with NO ribbon visible and the menu at the top, as 
long as you assign the startup menu and disable the built-in menus and 
toolbars in the database properties.

As long as you have completely custom menus and toolbars, you are not 
forced to view the ribbon at all in Access 2007. And your VBA code can 
control the visibility of the menus just like in Access 2003.

Steve

Sounds like good old days of comp.databases.ms-access is back -  which
is very pleasing.
Thanks Guys

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:Rzbuo.1382$jw4.1319@newsfe21.iad: 

> ?>"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9E12DCC9FD51Cf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.92...
> 
>>>Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote in
>>>news:adghb6144km1sm56pm5ddvniugmmeg1p3u@4ax.com:
> 
>>>
>>> I see he is using Windows Live Mail.  I think the problem is the
>>> setting which is mentioned in the header
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>> I have a vague memory of this causing problems.  But no idea as
>>> I ignored those postings as I've never run OE or it's successors
>>> and 
> .> never will.
> 
>>Microsoft never got email clients right, always using default
>>settings that were at variance with the Internet conventions
> 
> Actually, the problem is I am using live mail 2011, and it is
> beta. There are some things that are broken (such as the quoting,
> and there even some re-plot errors).

But implementing default quoting the is not in line with Internet
conventions is something that MS email clients have been doing since
it first introduced an Internet email client (well, I must admit I
don't know what the client for MS Mail was back in the Win3.x days,
but that wasn't Internet mail). 

> However, it does have some nice settings that allows threads
> posted to be bumped to the top, but remain as a thread view.

An advantage for you, the user, but not for those who are reading
you. 

> And, live mail works with what I used to (Outlook express, and my
> settings transferred over)

Every version I of OE I ever saw came with non-conformant default
settings for quoting. 

> So, this product is beta, but for the most part it was this or
> setup + use a new NNTP client.  I even like the word red underline
> for miss-spelled words. 

Again, nice for you, but if people can't read your posts, kind of a
waste of time. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Sky <Sky@NoSpam.com> wrote in
news:i9crq9$890$1@news.eternal-september.org: 

> On 10/15/2010 9:43 PM, David-W-Fenton wrote:
> 
>> Tony Toews<ttoews@telusplanet.net>  wrote in
>> news:okghb6p88u4bb2g7t0gcqemi6v4ja6n53t@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:21:49 -0600, PW
>>> <emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is the Ribbon mandatory in distributable applications with 2007
>>>> and 2010?
>>>
>>> No.  You can still use the menu bar.
>>
>> But menu bars/toolbars are rendered within the ribbon and not as
>> accessible as in previous versions of Access.
> 
> In Access 2007, custom menus and toolbars are displayed just like
> in Access 2003, i.e. with NO ribbon visible and the menu at the
> top, as long as you assign the startup menu and disable the
> built-in menus and toolbars in the database properties.
> 
> As long as you have completely custom menus and toolbars, you are
> not forced to view the ribbon at all in Access 2007. And your VBA
> code can control the visibility of the menus just like in Access
> 2003. 

I guess the reason I can't get it to work is because my apps never
have a complete set of menus/toolbars. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"Access Developer" <accdevel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8hstu7Fc5kU1@mid.individual.net: 

> "David-W-Fenton" <NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote
> 
> >> "Are desktop applications
> >> getting obsolete?
> >
> > Absolutely not. Anyone who thinks so,
> > must use only really trivial
> > desktop apps.
> 
> I've dealt with some not exactly "trivial" in complexity, but
> "very simple" desktop apps that were absolutely vital to the
> clients' businesses.  Maybe it isn't application complexity to
> which you are referring, David, but to importance to the business.

My point is that people who claim that browser-based apps (and other
next-big-thing innovations) can replace desktop apps is usually not
looking at apps of any degree of complexity in regard to UI. 

My point has nothing at all to do with importance to the business,
only with the fact that desktop apps can still do plenty of things
that the alternatives cannot do well at all. 

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message=20
news:Xns9E13C7F6F5FD0f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.94...

>"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
>news:Rzbuo.1382$jw4.1319@newsfe21.iad:

>> Actually, the problem is I am using live mail 2011, and it is
>> beta. There are some things that are broken (such as the quoting,
>> and there even some re-plot errors).

>But implementing default quoting the is not in line with Internet
>conventions is something that MS email clients have been doing since
>it first introduced an Internet email client (well, I must admit I
>don't know what the client for MS Mail was back in the Win3.x days,
>but that wasn't Internet mail).

It is not too bad. Remember a very high proportion of the posters here =
for=20
years and years have used outlook express.
Quite sure most people from me to Larry and others and really never had =
an=20
issue or problem here.

>> However, it does have some nice settings that allows threads
>> posted to be bumped to the top, but remain as a thread view.

>An advantage for you, the user, but not for those who are reading
>you.

The above is something that the users here never see, it just how the =
reader=20
displays messages to me (I well understand your above is in the context =
of=20
how things are being posted here, not how my reader works internally for =

me). Having a new post bubble up (like most web based forums) is now =
become=20
a preference for me (and this preference change of mine is likely due to =

spending time in web forums). I now prefer this type of setting for =
posts to=20
bump to the top. I am finding out that I was missing a lot of responses =
and=20
posts to older threads that have scrolled well off the screen.
So, live mail allows those new posts to pull the thread back up to the =
top=20
of the reader (but display remains as a thread)

>Every version I of OE I ever saw came with non-conformant default
>settings for quoting.

I never really noticed this as an issue. As noted, a lot of regulars and =

people have used OE for many years in this group without an issue.

The main issue here is this is in beta, and NONE of the quoting options=20
works for plain text work. They simply are not working. However like=20
everything in life, I take certain compromises, but find that other=20
advantages and other features currently outweigh the shortcomings for =
me.=20
So, I working on the posts to make them more readable.

I noted the thread bumping, spell checking and several other features =
are=20
simply better in live mail for me. Windows 7 voice dictation behaves =
VERY=20
well with this new product. In fact, it was Windows voice dictation that =

finally got me off of outlook 2003, and moved me up to outlook 2010 (the =

voice system was hanging and not at all liking outlook 2003 - it worked, =
but=20
just not great).

The same issues and problems were also occurring with outlook express=20
compared to a live mail in regards to voice dictation. Voice just works =
so=20
much better in the new products (The new code is written to newer =
standards,=20
and things such as the voice system looking ahead and learning of words =
in=20
the document work far better in new products with voice) I found in =
older=20
products, when voice looks at existing text, it can often hang up - I =
can=20
disable some of these options in voice, but then the overall dictation=20
system doesn't work as well).

However at the end of the day, as you note not having readable posts =
rather=20
puts a damper on every other issue at stake here anyway.

Regardless, I am working on the post formatting issue(s).

--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com=20

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:qDvuo.3212$NO2.2799@newsfe08.iad: 

> ?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9E13C7F6F5FD0f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.94...
> 
>>"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
>>news:Rzbuo.1382$jw4.1319@newsfe21.iad:
> 
>>> Actually, the problem is I am using live mail 2011, and it is
>>> beta. There are some things that are broken (such as the
>>> quoting, and there even some re-plot errors).
> 
>>But implementing default quoting the is not in line with Internet
>>conventions is something that MS email clients have been doing
>>since it first introduced an Internet email client (well, I must
>>admit I don't know what the client for MS Mail was back in the
>>Win3.x days, but that wasn't Internet mail).
> 
> It is not too bad. Remember a very high proportion of the posters
> here for years and years have used outlook express.

Yes, and it's been a terrible problem all that time.

> Quite sure most people from me to Larry and others and really
> never had an issue or problem here.

The whole top- vs. bottom-posting thing is one that comes up
frequently, and it's basically an offshoot of OE's bad design (i.e.,
top-posting by default, in other words, ignoring Internet
conventions established long before OE was created). 

Don't get me wrong, top-posting has it's place (in some kinds of
email contexts), but Usenet is not one of them. 

>>> However, it does have some nice settings that allows threads
>>> posted to be bumped to the top, but remain as a thread view.
> 
>>An advantage for you, the user, but not for those who are reading
>>you.
> 
> The above is something that the users here never see, it just how
> the reader displays messages to me (I well understand your above
> is in the context of how things are being posted here, not how my
> reader works internally for me). Having a new post bubble up (like
> most web based forums) is now become a preference for me (and this
> preference change of mine is likely due to spending time in web
> forums). I now prefer this type of setting for posts to bump to
> the top. I am finding out that I was missing a lot of responses
> and posts to older threads that have scrolled well off the screen.
> So, live mail allows those new posts to pull the thread back up to
> the top of the reader (but display remains as a thread)

So Live Mail is implementing a feature that tin and rn had 20 years
ago. 

Whoopeee!!!!

My news reader, xNews, which is not quite as venerable as those
UNIX-based newsreaders, has always worked that way. 

You're crowing over a fix to a news reader that was substandard to
begin with. Microsoft never seems to have made any study of prior
art in creating it's mail clients and newsreaders, so they've made a
number of errors in areas that were solved problems, as well as
failing to implement UI innovations that would help people use their
products, innovations that were old when they got in the business in
the first place (mid-90s). 

>>Every version I of OE I ever saw came with non-conformant default
>>settings for quoting.
> 
> I never really noticed this as an issue. As noted, a lot of
> regulars and people have used OE for many years in this group
> without an issue. 

I was speaking more of email than Usenet, but the main thing is the
avoidance of standard Internet quoting style, in favor of block
quoting after an attribution block. 

> The main issue here is this is in beta, and NONE of the quoting
> options works for plain text work. They simply are not working.
> However like everything in life, I take certain compromises, but
> find that other advantages and other features currently outweigh
> the shortcomings for me. So, I working on the posts to make them
> more readable. 

You're compromises are are hurting everyone else -- that is, those
who want to read your posts are the ones having the problems. 

> I noted the thread bumping, spell checking and several other
> features are simply better in live mail for me. 

Welcome to 1985.

[]

> Regardless, I am working on the post formatting issue(s).

Get a proper newsreader.

-- 
David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/ 
contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

?"PW"  wrote in message =
news:n03ib699n0k02ettqgtp2sgfe1tva4j3o5@4ax.com...

>>You can import custom toolbars into 2010 and they appear behind the=20
>>"Add-On"
>>button on the main ribbon. I have found no way to edit them in 2010 =
and a
>>simple thing like changing a forms toolbar using VBA does not work. So =
in=20
>>my
>>case the ribbon is mandatory.
>>

>Cr*p.  For my security module, I either hide, remove, or disable menu
>picks depending on what group the user is a part of.

>I use CommandBars("Lodge-ical
>MainMenu").Controls(strMenuName).Controls(strMenuItem).Enabled =3D True

>I hope that is still doable or we will be staying with Access 2003!

Yes, it works for menu bars. For ribbons, you can hide + enable =
controls,=20
but the syntax is different. However, I built a ribbon class that allows =

near the same syntax as we had before.
You can find my article + ribbon class here:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/albertKallal/Ribbon/ribbon.htm

--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com=20

Just wanted to throw this into the mix, but the compiled binaries for
64bit and 32bit MDE / AccDE seem not to be the same. Do they need
separate runtimes? I am guessing yes but since I dont yet have 2007 /
2010 I just thought I'd ask for a little clarity here.

The Frog

?"The Frog"  wrote in message=20
news:0ab9f644-13a3-42fe-a391-0ba8b3ec6dc9@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

>Just wanted to throw this into the mix, but the compiled binaries for
>64bit and 32bit MDE / AccDE seem not to be the same. Do they need
>separate runtimes? I am guessing yes but since I dont yet have 2007 /
>2010 I just thought I'd ask for a little clarity here.

>The Frog


The way this works can be extremely confusing, however to make a very =
long=20
story very short, just keep in mind that the only issue that crops up is =
not=20
the OS (32 or 64).

However if a person adopts the 64 bit version of office (quite rare), =
then=20
yes you do have to compile accDE for that 64 bit edition. In other words =
an=20
mdb, or accDB should run fine on either addition (the source code is=20
available, so it can re-compile on demand as needed).

However when you create an accDE, then it must be compiled for the =
specific=20
version of office (as mentioned and noted it does not matter what os =
such as=20
32 or 64, but what what ONLY matters is the accDE match the version of=20
office that the accDE is going to run on.

So, you must compile a 64 bit accDE for 64 bit office.
So, you must compile a 32 bit accDE for 32 bit office.

Of course, the 64 or 32 bit of office can run on a 64 bit machine.

And of course the 64 bit version of office can't run on a 32 bit OS.=20
Regardless, in all cases, for an accDE, you must compile to the version =
of=20
access 32 or 64. You also can't mix parts of office such as 64 Excel and =
32=20
bit Word from the SAME version of office (in this case 2010).

--=20
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Pleasenospam_kallal@msn.com=20

On 16 Oct 2010 23:40:11 GMT, "David-W-Fenton"
<NoEmail@SeeSignature.invalid> wrote:
  
>I guess the reason I can't get it to work is because my apps never
>have a complete set of menus/toolbars. 

Whereas my apps ship with a very short set of menu bars.  Basically
File, print, exit, cut, copy and paste.

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:18:19 -0600, PW
<emailaddyinsig@ifIremember.com> wrote:
  
>I have been considering purchasing FMS-Inc's Total Access Emailer to
>improve our product as some clients don't use Outlook and have trouble
>sending emails from our product.  Any way, it looks very powerful but
>it is sort of a bummer that their user interface can not be
>distributed with an MDE.  Maybe we can offer our own service.

You should find a suitable answer at the Microsoft Access Email FAQ
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/email.htm

Tony
-- 
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files 
  updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/