.... and is really pleased with the result.

So far, I continue using A2010 using he old formats because I don't
see any benefit of using Sharepoint, just additional steps that I
don't need.  It would be a different story if I had to exchange data
over the web, but I don't see it for our company and we already use
Remote Desktop massively.

I'd like to hear experiences, positive or negative, because deploying
Sharepoint is tough sell to me - and it has not-negligible costs and
requires more resources.

?wrote in message=20
news:08f828b5-cde1-4bf5-b2fd-9c9e87bc339b@f36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...=


>... and is really pleased with the result.

>So far, I continue using A2010 using he old formats because I don't
>see any benefit of using Sharepoint, just additional steps that I
>don't need.  It would be a different story if I had to exchange data
>over the web, but I don't see it for our company and we already use
>Remote Desktop massively.

>I'd like to hear experiences, positive or negative, because deploying
>Sharepoint is tough sell to me - and it has not-negligible costs and
>requires more resources.

I do not think in most cases where you have a good working Access=20
application one would suggest purchasing a database server like oracle.
So you are not really being asked to sell Oracle or in this case =
SharePoint.

In fact, quite much the same goes for using something like SQL server.  =
So=20
it not a question of giving up the Access back end based on your =
suggestion=20
to purchase Oracle.

On the other hand it's amazingly popular to see organizations use Access =
as=20
a front end to data sitting on some database server like Oracle.

Often in the case of these server based systems, it's a question if your =

organization already has purchased and has that infrastructure in place.
So this kind of goes both ways. If you organization has invested and is=20
utilizing SharePoint, then it doesn't cost you anything to start using =
it=20
with Access does it? And you do not need to sell them on it either, do =
you?

This is same case for when organizations already have SQL server or =
whatever=20
popular server system.

So, if you can use these server based systems, then you simply should =
when=20
you can realize benefits.

On the other hand I think some now new opportunities are going to open =
up=20
for businesses to start using SharePoint at very reasonable costs.

The reason for this of course is the increasing hosting choices for=20
SharePoint and the new office 365.

The real big news here is that Office 365 will have options that offers=20
Access Web services. In effect, you not really purchasing SharePoint at =
all.

Office 365 is the new cloud based edition of word,  excel, PowerPoint =
etc.=20
Keep in mind that much of the document handling and how office 365 works =
is=20
really based on SharePoint.  I think this combination is a real winner =
and=20
will result in some great competition to Google Docs.

In other words, you can have a small 3 or 4 employee business and your=20
monthly hosting costs will be less then $30.  In other words, you now=20
offering SharePoint and web stuff in addition to some great uses with=20
Access.  All of sudden this becomes a great sales pitch. All that =
document=20
stuff can be used by most small business these days, and you get all =
kinds=20
of other things like shared calendars etc..

In other words why would a company purchase SQL server or oracle or=20
SharePoint along with all the support costs to maintain and run such a=20
server?

A lot of companies and especially small businesses are really tired of=20
paying expensive IT guys to come in to do simple maintenance tasks like=20
installing some upgrade or some update to software. When you take in the =

cost of running a server based system vs. a low-cost monthly fee, this =
whole=20
scenario starts to make a lot of sense. And they do not have to come up =
with=20
money up front.

So now you not just selling access web services, but all of the =
incredible=20
document collaboration and SharePoint stuff. Since SharePoint works =
though a=20
very nice web based portal then you get really much of the office parts =
like=20
outlook for meetings, scheduling etc, and you get even more such as=20
management of documents etc.  And in the case of people on the road or =
being=20
away from the office, then emailing a bunch of documents between 3 or 4=20
people becomes near impossible to know who has the latest copy of word =
and=20
who is working on 3 spreadsheets that need to be emailed to me? And =
people=20
can do this at home or anywhere because it's a web based interface to =
all=20
those documents. So those documents will typically be edited on your =
desktop=20
with office, but the docs can be saved on SharePoint. And on top of this =
the=20
the web based version of office can also be used on those documents.

So now was making a better sales pitch? You coming in with an access=20
application with some type of server based system, or me for the same =
price=20
will all those extra  incredible features and trimmings of Sharepoint?

So I never thought or have been under the impression that I would try =
and=20
sell SharePoint to be used ONLY for Access. On the other hand, one does =
not=20
ask a company these days to purchase a computer for JUST Access either, =
do=20
they?  Since that computer can also do email, word processing etc, then=20
using Access  becomes a easy sell.

One other interesting aspect of adopting Sharepoint for the small=20
businesses, is often you get some part time or employee that has =
experience=20
with larger organizations, be this  government or some part of the =
corporate=20
world. Now when I see some of these people go to work for smaller=20
businesses, they now expect that smaller business to utilize some type =
of=20
document management and collaboration system.

So, if you have an customer that can utilize and use Sharepoint, you =
should=20
be able to sell SharePoint to them on it's merits ALONE regardless if =
you=20
plan to use access with Sharepoint.  And that selling also will be based =
on=20
benefits for the cost.

In effect I can not imagine a scenario where it's feasible to sell the=20
benefits of SharePoint for use with access, on the other hand because of =

office 365, this position may very well change for us. And if we can =
sell=20
office 365 + Access Services on JUST your application, then you are in a =

most sweet position, because you get to toss in all that extra stuff and =

possibilities they can now use in regards to SharePoint.

With office 365 it now conceivable that a business with three or four=20
employees will pay 3 to 5 dollars per employee per month to use that =
system.=20
That not a lot of money, no server need be purchased, and it less then =
the=20
cost of one IT person to come in an fix that dumb server that needs some =

upgrade that the company has no clue about. So less then one server call =
in=20
a month is not too bad at all.

At the end of the day we NEED to plan and have some type of path for us=20
developers to move into cloud based systems. I been preaching this here =
and=20
the cloud is coming and it going to change our industry. I am seeing =
this=20
occur right before my eyes, and MORE amazing is this occurring for NEW=20
business and startups. These new organizations are choosing things like=20
Google docs for example. They are doing so because they don't have to =
build=20
and maintain and setup the IT infrastructure with things like servers =
etc.=20
Often that small businesses can bring on a second part time employee and =

again in minutes they are up and running and sharing documents that they =

need to work on. They often do not even need to spend money on setting =
up=20
the computer for that employee to use (let alone if they even supply one =
for=20
the employee).

In fact the way this whole thing is going right now, you soon be trying =
to=20
justify the costs of setting up a stupid server in the office. I mean if =
you=20
have 2 or 3 people that want to use Access in a multiuser environment, =
then=20
your clients will be asking why do they have to go out and purchase a =
server=20
when all their friends and other businesses don't need one?

Now my posts is getting a little bit long, and I have to run. I did want =
to=20
talk about some of the business scenarios in which access with =
Sharepoint=20
makes a lot of sense (such as off line mode etc.).

Suffice to say I cannot say that one is required or it has even has ever =

been suggested to try and sell Sharepoint for just use with Access. =
However=20
the way things are going right now, it is becoming significantly easier =
to=20
sell a business on Sharepoint because of the cost benefits. And the =
low-cost=20
affordable hosting plans that appear via office 365 makes this case even =

stronger.

Regardless of what cloud system you choose to adopt, NOW is the time to=20
start learning and becoming familiar with the possibilities they offer.=20
Cloud systems will not be adopted by everyone, but we are seeing Cities =
and=20
municipalities and small business (all of which are tight for money)=20
adopting these types of systems.

The business pitch as to why small businesses love and use access so =
much is=20
due to it being affordable, easy to use, and no need for expensive =
server,=20
no maintains etc.
So Access is great for small business because is more affordable for the =

benefits it offers as compared to other solutions.

Business tends towards these lower cost systems much like water tends to =

flow down to the lowest spot it can find. As business gets larger, then=20
often the case for Access often becomes weaker.

In a funny way the same pitch about cloud computing and what it offers =
to=20
small businesses is rather much the same pitch as to why Access been so=20
popular with those small business.

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

On Feb 26, 8:08=A0am, "saint...@hotmail.com" <saint...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> ... and is really pleased with the result.
>
> So far, I continue using A2010 using he old formats because I don't
> see any benefit of using Sharepoint, just additional steps that I
> don't need. =A0It would be a different story if I had to exchange data
> over the web, but I don't see it for our company and we already use
> Remote Desktop massively.
>
> I'd like to hear experiences, positive or negative, because deploying
> Sharepoint is tough sell to me - and it has not-negligible costs and
> requires more resources.

We have SharePoint 2007 where I work.  They got it so that they could
have workflows.  Even with SharePoint, they don't know how to do
workflows yet and haven't asked me to help them create them.  They
were shocked that I talked about implementing workflows because they
thought their secret plans to introduce workflows would surprise
everyone when they arrive on the scene.  I only wanted to ensure that
the workflows they came up with would be compatible with .NET
workflows.  Even with SharePoint here, and after using it some, it
really didn't help much, if any.  Its only real purpose here is to
provide workflow capability without having to learn a .NET language.
Personally, that's not much of a selling point.

As far as Office 365 and cloud based computing is concerned, the same
super budget cutters that really go for those innovations are not
usually the kind of customers I want.  Some will want lots of services
based software and others will not.  Those who choose more services
based software might also want Microsoft to recommend developers, who
can be based anywhere because of the cloud nature of the services.
Again, I expect most of my potential customers to gravitate to the
lower end of the software services spectrum.

Where I work is difficult to judge right now.  They love budget
cutting, but rarely cut from IT's portion, and in many cases increase
IT's portion at the expense of other departments.  If they happen to
ask my opinion on Office 365, which I doubt they would until after
implementation so they can blindly save some short term cash, I would
bring up the necessity of having to deal with SharePoint more
extensively from a developer standpoint.  I'm starting to get their
ear now.  Moving just one portion of one of the "legacy" Access
databases into SAP will mean adding a module to the tune of $170,000.
They're finally seeing where everything is headed and don't seem
anxious to add $500,000 to $1,000,000 to the IT budget each year for a
few years to obtain all the necessary modules, not to mention future
customization.  But they might anyway.

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:8Wbap.11592$mE7.6371@newsfe08.iad: 

> In other words, you can have a small 3 or 4 employee business and
> your monthly hosting costs will be less then $30.  In other words,
> you now offering SharePoint and web stuff in addition to some
> great uses with Access.  All of sudden this becomes a great sales
> pitch. All that document stuff can be used by most small business
> these days, and you get all kinds of other things like shared
> calendars etc.. 
> 
> In other words why would a company purchase SQL server or oracle
> or SharePoint along with all the support costs to maintain and run
> such a server?

Er, for an office of 3 or 4 employees, why would anybody PURCHASE
SQL Server, as upposed to simply using SQL Server Express? 

Also, you're talking about hosted services, and I can't convince my
clients that it's safe to have their data in the cloud (I don't
believe it myself, actually). 

-- 
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:8Wbap.11592$mE7.6371@newsfe08.iad: 

> At the end of the day we NEED to plan and have some type of path
> for us developers to move into cloud based systems. I been
> preaching this here and the cloud is coming and it going to change
> our industry. 

I think the cloud is going to play a role, but not as primary data
store. I can't even get some of my clients to consider using
cloud-based services for BACKUPS, let alone for anything else! 

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

?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message=20
news:Xns9E99E9DAA6F5Ef99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.81...

>> In other words why would a company purchase SQL server or oracle
>> or SharePoint along with all the support costs to maintain and run
>> such a server?

>Er, for an office of 3 or 4 employees, why would anybody PURCHASE
>SQL Server, as upposed to simply using SQL Server Express?

Well, in fact I was also just talking about purchasing a server. You =
might=20
not even want sql server or need it. So, I was more pointing out that in =

regards to sql server, they might not need it, but they ALSO do not even =

need to purchase and setup a server either.

I done some work from some new startups in a business incubator. They =
now=20
have a second person but have no money or desire to setup and install =
some=20
file server for both people to use. And, with Google docs etc, they can=20
share documents and files anyway, and they can do so when they walk out =
the=20
door with their laptops. And they not in the office a whole lot of the =
time=20
anyway.

And, with my reservation software, they can install it on their two=20
computers and instantly they are sharing the same back end, and are =
doing so=20
because I hosting the sql server data part for them. They are tight for=20
money, and not having to purchase a server or another computer to run my =

application is a real nice selling point. And even better is they can go =
out=20
of the office and still use the application as long as they have =
internet.=20
So, they are multi user and connected at all times in and out of the =
office.

>Also, you're talking about hosted services, and I can't convince my
>clients that it's safe to have their data in the cloud (I don't
>believe it myself, actually).

For the most part I agree. However, those just starting out already have =

tons of stuff on ebay and tons of documents and stuff on Google docs. =
They=20
have a hard time understanding why they need to go out and purchase a=20
computer for their office that just sits  there to share a few files. =
They=20
don't see the point and all that box does is cost expensive service =
calls=20
for some guy to come in and install software. Then the guy tells them =
they=20
also need to purchase some type tape or external hard drive backup =
system.=20
They the guy comes in and says they need virus software, and then the =
guy=20
comes in and this just goes on and on. Who is going to pay for all of =
that?=20
As I noted, for some of these people they even have difficulty =
understanding=20
why they should even bother with that server.

As I said, this is a often low cost issue, but often it also an issue of =
how=20
easy the connectivity and how easy the new systems can get them up and=20
running to share data. And more important, it often that they don't have =
to=20
pick up the phone and start spending money to EVEN JUST talk to someone=20
about how to get some computer stuff done.

They simply do not care about computers. If someone gives them free =
office=20
or free document sharing with a few mouse clicks, then a big portion of=20
users will go down this road because this is the path of least =
resistance=20
and least hassle. They will spend money, but only when they have to. As =
I=20
said, this is often why Access is a choice for these smaller business=20
anyway.

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

>
> > In other words why would a company purchase SQL server or oracle
> > or SharePoint along with all the support costs to maintain and run
> > such a server?
>
> Er, for an office of 3 or 4 employees, why would anybody PURCHASE
> SQL Server, as upposed to simply using SQL Server Express?

The budget estimates we got to implement Sharepoint are insane.   I
don't see much interest from an Access perspective or even general
developpers, but I might be wrong.

I really like the idea of SQL Server Express 2008.   I tried MSDE a
few years ago but dismissed it.   It now has a capacity of 10Gb and
more visual tools.... I'll certainly revisit it.

I wonder about speed.... is anybody aware if dealing with a SQL db on
a server is *really faster*?    I have no complaint with ACC2010 with
recent hardware.    I haven't seen much comparo except this one;
http://blog.nkadesign.com/2009/access-vs-sql-server-some-stats-part-1/

Do I understand that Access is quicker to insert 1000000 records?

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:l2Pap.20585$YL7.2652@newsfe03.iad: 

> For the most part I agree. However, those just starting out
> already have tons of stuff on ebay and tons of documents and stuff
> on Google docs. They have a hard time understanding why they need
> to go out and purchase a computer for their office that just sits 
> there to share a few files. 

These people are clearly idiots and badly in need of education. I'd
be happy to help them learn, but I'd fire them as clients if they
refused to be educated. 

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

"saintor1@hotmail.com" <saintor1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:02432093-4e7e-4ea1-923c-bca0c2ac1005@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.co
m: 

> I really like the idea of SQL Server Express 2008.   I tried MSDE
> a few years ago but dismissed it.   It now has a capacity of 10Gb
> and more visual tools.... I'll certainly revisit it.

I'm using it at one site -- upsized last September, and the new
native ODBC client vastly improved performance for them (over an MDB
back end). I had never seen anything like that in any previous
upsizing project. 

But I do worry about the 1GB memory limitation. This seems like it
would mean that you can really only run relatively small databases
on it. 

> I wonder about speed.... is anybody aware if dealing with a SQL db
> on a server is *really faster*? 

This is a question that cannot be answered in the absence of
specifics about the environment, the data schema and the
application. 

My experience is that upsizing to SQL Server speeds up some things,
badly bogs down certain others and has no effect on most parts of an
app. 

In short, there is no magic bullet.

And performance is usually the least reason to upsize, because most
performance problems are going to be due to bad design, rather than
to performance of the datebase engine. 

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

?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message=20
news:Xns9E9BD7102EF1Af99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.91...

>"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
>news:l2Pap.20585$YL7.2652@newsfe03.iad:
>
>> For the most part I agree. However, those just starting out
>> already have tons of stuff on ebay and tons of documents and stuff
>> on Google docs. They have a hard time understanding why they need
>> to go out and purchase a computer for their office that just sits
>> there to share a few files.
>
>These people are clearly idiots and badly in need of education. I'd
>be happy to help them learn, but I'd fire them as clients if they
>refused to be educated.
>
>--=20
>David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/
>contact via website only     http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

I have to much agree, but those web based email systems are becoming =
better=20
and better all the time. With the new web standards, they are even going =
to=20
get better.

I mean, just look at how popular Gmail etc. is. They are now taking =
those=20
users and offering them more and more features. So, throw in web =
calendars,=20
file sharing, document sharing and editing, and users become quite =
happy.

I really do like Outlook and use it all day long. However, with my win 7 =

phone, I would say half of my emails in a day are now read + deleted on =
my=20
phone. And, between phones and web, this means that for so many these =
days=20
the web based email systems are more then enough for most users during =
the=20
day. (so less overall time is now spent by me in Outlook, and thus it=20
becomes that much less valuable).

Again, this is the same old story just like we have for Access. No =
special=20
server or special setup needed. The low cost of running + using Access =
is=20
why Access is so popular. Now talk to some .net folks and sql server =
folks=20
and they state that we are the ones that need some education and are =
need of=20
learning what a real database or server is.

Unfortunately, those silly consumers do not listen to us IT folk much=20
anymore. These new consumers are the ones now going off to work or =
starting=20
new business.

In fact, for the first time in our industry, many of the trends in IT =
are=20
now being driving by consumers. Just look at how many companies are =
being=20
forced to adopt + deal with the iPhone, or even users all of a sudden =
asking=20
how they can use their iPad tablets at work.  So, many trends in our IT=20
industry are now driven by users, and not necessary what the traditional =
IT=20
vendors and people like me recommend to these people.

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

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:gyybp.32529$TU.15161@newsfe01.iad: 

> In fact, for the first time in our industry, many of the trends in
> IT are now being driving by consumers. 

I don't really know what this means. My clients are all consumers.
But they have IT needs, too. The fact is, if you're willing to twist
your business needs to fit the available "consumer" software
products, you can save a lot of money (it's what I've recommended as
long as I've been a consultant: http://dfenton.com/DFA/credo.html ;
that article hasn't been updated since 2000, and is 99% the same as
it was since it was written c. 1996-97). The clients that I have all
decided that the shrinkwrap products didn't serve their needs
sufficiently well, so they paid for custom development. I don't
think this is going to change, ever. If these startups you describe
succeed, they are going to outgrow the consumer products and that
will lead to custom development, in my opinion. The ones that refuse
to entertain that possibility I forecast will fail, so I wouldn't
accept work from them of any kind. 

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

?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message=20
news:Xns9E9DE519CC5BCf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.95...

>"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
>news:gyybp.32529$TU.15161@newsfe01.iad:

>> In fact, for the first time in our industry, many of the trends in
>> IT are now being driving by consumers.

>I don't really know what this means. My clients are all consumers.

Ok, I expand on this.

The difference here I speak of is a fundamental basic change in our=20
industry.
Today, much of the change in our IT industry is being driven by =
consumers=20
who are using technology OUTSIDE of the work place.

So change we see today is occurring at the consumer level (not at the=20
workplace or office level)

In a traditional computer environment it would be the Accountant, or IT=20
department or developers that made most decisions as to what kind of=20
technology is going to be adopted within an organization. The general =
work=20
force was NOT using computers outside of the work place. Computers were =
for=20
work.

15 years ago when I walked into a computer store there was few consumers =
or=20
people buying computers. In other words, back then you were using =
computer=20
for Accounting, or work.

Joe consumer was not walking into that store.

So the general population (consumers) were not purchasing computers back =

then. Today, grandparents, mothers children, virtually everyone is now =
using=20
computers.

And HOW they use computers OUTSIDE of work is now spilling into the work =

force.

So, when I say consumers are a huge driving force today, it simply now =
that=20
they are all on the internet and they all are adopting technology. The=20
result is now those people take these consumer trends  (such as iPhone =
or=20
Facebook or Gmail) and bring that stuff to work. So now it is the rank =
and=20
file and general employees that are demanding that things work with =
their=20
iPhone or iPad or whatever.  And when they need to organize an event or=20
meeting, they use Facebook.

So the key point in this concept is that change in our industry is being =

driven by consumer trends outside of the workplace.
This changes are thus coming from outside of the traditional IT =
industry.

It was never the business community or IT workforce that was purchasing =
all=20
those iPhones or Facebook, but now so many companies are having to deal =
with=20
these new trends, especially when they all show up with iPhones at work =
and=20
are organizing meetings and company events with social media sites.

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

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote

 > 15 years ago when I walked into a computer
 > store there was few consumers or people
 > buying computers. In other words, back then
 > you were using computer for Accounting, or work.

When I walked into a computer store, looking for my first personal computer 
(that would have been 1977 or 1978), _everyone_ looking at and buying 
computers were individuals or consumers.  I spent my workday working with 
mainframes in the business world, but the people buying TRS-80s and Apple 
IIs were individuals, consumers, and hobbyists.

Near the customer location where I worked most of the time, there was a 
little "mom and pop shop" that sold Apple IIs, and a Radio Shack store with 
TRS-80 Model I, Level I and II.  By the time I purchased my TRS 80, Model I, 
Level II, in 1979, the mom-and-pop-Apple-shop had gone out of business.

I'd hoped to be able to rig that TRS-80 up with a modem (probably at a 
blinding-fast 300 or 600 bits per second) to use as a remote terminal to 
access our customer's mainframe, but they were very security-conscious and 
wouldn't let _anyone_ dial in. They gathered busines data from member 
institutions, but they dialed _out_ to call those members (from a 
minicomputer: first a DEC PDP and later, an IBM Series I)

 > Joe consumer was not walking into that store.

In the area within lunchtime walking distance of my office in San Francisco, 
there were several shops, in one of which I saw one of the original Apple 
I's, with a big round display in a cabinet that looked, for all the world, 
like an old tabletop early-model television.

A little later, when Radio Shack brought out its Model II, which they 
intended to be a business machine, you saw a _few_ more businesspeople, but 
the bulk of the lookers and buyers were still "Joe Consumers".

The business community did not start using personal computers until IBM 
brought out their PC (1981-1982) and "legitimized" the genre... and they did 
not _really_ start using them in business until some successful IBM PC 
clones became available.

 Larry 

?A wonderful story and from a time I look back so fondly of

My first computer was an Apple II+ I just Loved that computer.

The Model II was a great business computer at its time.

>I spent my workday working with mainframes in the business world, but =
the
>people buying TRS-80s and Apple IIs were individuals, consumers, and
>hobbyists.

Ah, ok, I see what people are saying here.

I was using the term consumer in the sense of a mass consumer market
trends. When I speak of or say consumer trends, I talking about consumer
trends here as a whole group.

I mean sure, consumers purchase ham radio equipment, but you would not =
say
that consumers purchase of ham radios is having a large impact on =
business
trends or choice of technology at work. Cell phones used to be business =
only
tools and now children in school have them. (and the auto industry now
offers Bluetooth on so many cars today as an result).  And many a =
schools
are now having to ban cell phone use (texting) during tests. And the =
auto
industry is not offering ham radio equipment or supporting systems for =
ham
radio equipment as an option today in their cars, but they are for cell
phones!

So, I would not say consumers purchasing ham radios today or even 8
years ago is driving change in the auto industry or any other industry
in any significant way today. They simply are not a driving force in the
workplace. The reason for this is of course that purchase of ham
radios are not a mass consumer market nor a consumer trend that
effecting anything much here in our society.

So, when I said decisions today in our computer industry are being
being driven by consumers, we taking about the fact that computers
have become a mainstream product.

Sure in all cases consumers are purchasing something here.
However, in regards to computers we are seeing consumer
trends drive computer trends since everyone
has an computer now.

Those consumer (non work related) trends were not effecting
our computer industry much in the past.

At the end of the day this is a fundamental change in our industry.
Facebook is being adopted by the general public as a consumer trend
and THEN AS A RESULT being  brought to work. People are using Facebook
at work since that is what everyone knows and that how they interact and
how they learned to put together events or parties in their social life.

I certainly agree it was hobbyists and consumers purchasing those =
original
computers. In fact we owe much of the personal computer industry to =
those
pioneers, but in the above context I used, consumers are driving our
industry in a different way then in the past.

Until very recent it was the business community trends and choices
that were deciding what computers and systems would be used in the
workplace. MOST people did not have nor purchase a computer for their =
home.
If most people do not have a computer, then as a result consumer =
preferences
and trends had little impact on our industry and what computers etc. are
being used at work.

Consumers now use computers for just about everything BUT for work.
So music, talking with friends. Today, Netflix movie rentals has become
among the top internet users in terms of bandwidth. (again, social and
entertainment use of computer, not work related).

Everyone now has a computer, and everyone needs one much like a TV or
microwave. In fact, many are now dumping cable and even not wanting an
TV. They just have a computer. I even seen some people dumping home
internet and going with a $15 per month wiFi hotspot plan from Bell.

So the computer has become a true consumer product. And as a result
consumers are now bringing their choices and preference to our industry
and into the work place.

The simple result of above is these consumer trends are now
effecting technology choices in our industry like they never did before.

The above does not mean the traditional issues that drive most of the
computer industry is gone, but it does point towards a new source of =
change
in our industry.

And, oh, how I miss that Apple II+.

I do have a Apple II emulator running on my laptop, and I still often =
fire=20
up that emulator up to play a few old apple II games.

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

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:CpAcp.52726$195.49067@newsfe05.iad: 

> ?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9E9DE519CC5BCf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.95...
> 
>>"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
>>news:gyybp.32529$TU.15161@newsfe01.iad:
> 
>>> In fact, for the first time in our industry, many of the trends
>>> in IT are now being driving by consumers.
> 
>>I don't really know what this means. My clients are all consumers.
> 
> Ok, I expand on this.
> 
> The difference here I speak of is a fundamental basic change in
> our industry.
> Today, much of the change in our IT industry is being driven by
> consumers who are using technology OUTSIDE of the work place.
> 
> So change we see today is occurring at the consumer level (not at
> the workplace or office level)

This is new? It doesn't seem so to me! I support both business and
home users, and when purchasing computers, the ones that are loaded
up with memory and features are the ones for the home users, since
they require lots more power to do the things they want to do
(music, video, etc.), while for office users, the needs are much
more limited (running MS Office and their web browser is just about
it, though, of course, as you say, the consumer-level features of
audio and video are gradually being used by businesses for business
purposes, e.g., Skype). This has been the case for most of my
professional PC consulting life (I started as a freelancer in late
1994). 

> In a traditional computer environment it would be the Accountant,
> or IT department or developers that made most decisions as to what
> kind of technology is going to be adopted within an organization.
> The general work force was NOT using computers outside of the work
> place. Computers were for work.

???

This has not been the case for 15 years, so far as my experience
goes. 

> 15 years ago when I walked into a computer store there was few
> consumers or people buying computers. In other words, back then
> you were using computer for Accounting, or work.

Fifteen years ago 1996. That's the point at which the Internet was
first coming online. Lots of people had home computers and were
using AOL and Compuserve and such (they hadn't yet gotten directly
to the Internet, though). And people brought work home -- I remember
writing batch files to copy files to floppy disks, and trying to
figure out whether the Win95 Briefcase was usable or not (in most
cases, it wasnt). 

> Joe consumer was not walking into that store.

I don't know which store you mean, but 1996 was not at all the very
beginning of people having computers at home. 

> So the general population (consumers) were not purchasing
> computers back then. Today, grandparents, mothers children,
> virtually everyone is now using computers.

I think you're wrong here. You'd have to go back to 1990 or before
for this to be the case. 

> And HOW they use computers OUTSIDE of work is now spilling into
> the work force.

But this is not new! It's always been that way!

> So, when I say consumers are a huge driving force today, it simply
> now that they are all on the internet and they all are adopting
> technology. The result is now those people take these consumer
> trends  (such as iPhone or Facebook or Gmail) and bring that stuff
> to work. 

I think the problem here is that you're defining your terms too
broadly. It's not "consumer" that's the issue, but social
networking, Web 2 and mobile applications (from their
phones/iPhones). 

But it's been that way for a long time -- i.e., as long as I've been
in the business, things that started for home usage have gradually
encroached on the workplace (though, of course, the Internet is an
example that may go in the other direction for certain people). 

> So now it is the rank and 
> file and general employees that are demanding that things work
> with their iPhone or iPad or whatever.  And when they need to
> organize an event or meeting, they use Facebook.

But it's been that way for a long time. PDAs caused the same thing,
and that dates back to the late 90s (I was first asked about
integrating an Access database with Palm Pilot c. 1998). Now, the
PDA was not exactly a home device, but the point is that it was
coming from outside the business's collective priorities, from
PERSONAL priorities. 

> So the key point in this concept is that change in our industry is
> being driven by consumer trends outside of the workplace.
> This changes are thus coming from outside of the traditional IT
> industry. 

I don't see this as any kind of change in kind, just of degree. Most
of it is driven by mobile devices (the social networking issue is, I
think, not at all important and businesses are adapting to it quite
easily, much moreso than they adapted to the Web in general), and is
caused by the fact that there's been a new level of capability
reached by mobile devices since the introduction of the iPhone.
Businesses will adapt just like they have in the past, just like
they did with PDAs and Blackberry's. 

> It was never the business community or IT workforce that was
> purchasing all those iPhones or Facebook, but now so many
> companies are having to deal with these new trends, especially
> when they all show up with iPhones at work and are organizing
> meetings and company events with social media sites. 

I just don't see this as the sea change that you describe it as.

And none of what you describe above is the kind of business you were
outlining before, i.e., a startup where they wanted to get along
with nothing but their mobile devices and websites (i.e., no IT
infrastructure). This latter is not something I've seen and strikes
me as characteristic of people who shouldn't be running a business
without guidance from people with broader experience. 

-- 
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:NWYcp.11975$1a1.2918@newsfe07.iad: 

> Until very recent it was the business community trends and choices
> that were deciding what computers and systems would be used in the
> workplace.

This is where I think you are wrong. I think there's always been an
interplay between the two groups, sometimes running more strongly in
one direction (as it is today) and sometimes in the other (as was
the case with the Internet in the 90s). 

I really don't think any of it justifies the type of business
practice you described where there's a willful effort to avoid
having any actual computing infrastructure in the office. 

-- 
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:NWYcp.11975$1a1.2918@newsfe07.iad: 

> The simple result of above is these consumer trends are now
> effecting technology choices in our industry like they never did
> before. 

DISAGREE.

I think the main issue here is not consumer usage, but the fact that
the new leap in technology (high-powered mobile devices like the
iPhone) has been most often adopted first by individuals. Blackberry
was the previous case of that, and that was almost entirely driven
by businesses. The iPhone is a quantum leap beyond that, but was
marketed to individuals, not to businesses, so that's where the push
is coming from, i.e., from the first users of the new technology. 

The key to me is truly mobile computing in a handheld form factor.
That will be huge for business, and five years from now, it will be
fully integrated, in my opinion, but not in the way you outlined
(i.e., with businesses completely abandoning office computing
infrastructure in favor of the cloud, hosted applications and mobile
devices). 

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

?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message=20
news:Xns9EA1954929B0Bf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.82...

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:NWYcp.11975$1a1.2918@newsfe07.iad:

>> Until very recent it was the business community trends and choices
>> that were deciding what computers and systems would be used in the
>> workplace.

>This is where I think you are wrong. I think there's always been an
>interplay between the two groups, sometimes running more strongly in
>one direction (as it is today) and sometimes in the other (as was
>the case with the Internet in the 90s).

Well you are going to have to give me some examples of consumers giving =
up=20
bowling and then adopting tennis and how this is effecting our computer=20
industry then?

The fact is that the community and society in general is now using =
computers=20
for non computing work. They are growing up in a society in which they =
use=20
Computer Technology to organize their lives and interact with other =
people.=20
These trends and how they interact with people are now becoming part of =
the=20
social fabric of society, and those social fabrics are being brought to=20
work.

I fail to see how a society trend of people giving up drive in theators =
and=20
then adopting television as a social trend was going to effect the =
computer=20
industry in any significant way?

How consumers meet and setup and interact with each other outside of =
work is=20
now being brought into work. That is a big change here.

>I really don't think any of it justifies the type of business
>practice you described where there's a willful effort to avoid
>having any actual computing infrastructure in the office.

Well it might not be justified to you, but that's what people are doing=20
anyway. It's not your choice to make and the consumers are not listening =
to=20
you. When a company starts selling a bunch of products (even brick and=20
mortar companies) on Ebay, then a larger portion of their business has =
just=20
shifted into a cloud or hosted type environment  That means their stock=20
control, payment transactions,  and even parts of marketing (email and=20
follow up) are now occurring in a hosted (cloud) environment. The fact =
of=20
shifting more of their daily COMPUTER work and using less data from =
their=20
desktop computer means that more of the "value" of what they do in a day =
has=20
shifted away from the desktop to a hosted environment,. This is a choice =

that you can't stop and you don't have control over. So you might not =
think=20
it's justified, but is occurring anyway.

It's extremely important to keep in mind that as a percentage of your=20
computer use changes from desktop and files sitting on that local =
computer=20
network, then this is where the shift in value of Computer Resources =
that=20
you utilize in a given day changes.

A really fantastic example of the above shift concept is since I had a=20
windows seven phone, I have not even turned on my iPad on in 3 weeks. In =

fact I have no desire to use the product anymore, and I have little use =
for=20
it since when I need to look something up I just use my phone. This is =
an=20
hardware example of something becoming less valuable to me due to a =
shift in=20
my computer usage patterns during the day. So in some cases when an =
shift=20
occurs in what hardware you depend on during the day, then a shift in =
the=20
value of what your utilizing during the day also occurs.  This also =
means I=20
spend far less time in outlook on my laptop.

Now if more users can get through their day by utilizing cloud software =
such=20
as Gmail, or running their businesses on eBay, then more of what they =
are=20
using is being shifted away from your desktop or server in your office =
and=20
into the cloud. As I stated, this is just not our choice we can make for =

these people anymore.

I should also point out that in the smartphone area, they are trending=20
toward putting the files and things you save on the phone up into a =
cloud=20
and an hosted environment (just look at how so many iPhone applications =
work=20
and need a data connection).  My windows seven phone does not sync =
directly=20
with outlook, but syncs to the cloud first. We see the same trend with=20
android, and integration of their phones with Google documents. So once=20
again we see that trend towards an hosted environment for saving stuff =
with=20
ones phone.

I'm in no way saying this is the absolute end all trend that everybody's =

going to store everything in the cloud. That not a claim I am making =
here.

The simple claim I am making here is we are seeing more and more the=20
computing landscape and more more of the users time spent on a computer =
that=20
is utilizing resources that are hosted in the cloud.

The additional claim I'm pointing out is that as a general rule in our=20
society those consumer trends and consumer preferences are spilling over =

into the computing industry. In the past how consumers organize their =
social=20
lives and interact with each other as a general rule did not effect what =

technologies and how computers were going to be used in the workplace.

As for things like PDA and palm pilots? Once again I can recall 10 years =
ago=20
being at meetings were out of five people,  four of us had a palm pilot. =

They were all business people - general consumers using a palm pilot for =
non=20
work was rare. In fact, I cannot recall anyone I know using a palm for =
just=20
personal use.  So the PDA was a real business status tool back then much =

like the cell phone was.

In fact today I'm still caring my palm based PDA since I still utilize =
some=20
applications during my daily operations. I hope to get that stuff over =
to my=20
WP7 phone soon. In fact, I going to write a billing application for my =
phone=20
and integrate it with Access. I am picking up c# along the way to boot =
and=20
finding I really like the language.

In fact just reasoning out the above, not only are a lot of consumers =
and=20
users of computers utilizing more hosted computing resources, but those=20
resources are becoming better all the time, and therefore the =
requirement=20
and need for some type of server the office is constantly being reduced.

I am now constantly deploying copies and versions of my software=20
applications to businesses.  I am also hosting the data for them. You =
cannot=20
imagine how delightful and how easy it is to deploy software to these =
people=20
people when I don't have to worry about or even ask for some type of =
control=20
over their server based infrastructure that they may, or may not have or =

even exist within those businesses. I simply deploy software to their=20
computers. Off they go without the need for phone calls to some IT =
personnel=20
within their organization and off I go with their money. I love this =
setup!

These people don't care about computers, and they see little difference=20
between consuming coffee or computer resources.


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

On Mar 7, 2:35=A0pm, "David-W-Fenton" <NoEm...@SeeSignature.invalid>
wrote:

> Fifteen years ago 1996. That's the point at which the Internet was
> first coming online.

Maybe better to say:

That's the point at which HTML, making the internet so much more
attractive to the general public, caused internet usage to skyrocket.

In 1996, the internet had been around for decades.  In 1986, a decade
earlier, the internet was mostly in the hands of the government (often
national labs), universities and large corporations, running on
mainframes.  Right about then, Harvard took the novel step of
connecting a room full of Macintoshes to the internet.  CEO's would
even answer emails because it was a novelty to many of them.  At the
time, HTML was still only a fraction of all internet traffic.  I
remember that year well because I recommended to Oakland University
about that year that they get on the internet (and they did) because I
needed to send the contents of a 5 1/4" floppy to Boston and the
fastest way turned out to be to use Kermit over a phone line.  I
remembered about the internet because I had been a "tourist" on some
mainframes while living in Boston, which was someone given guest
privileges to "surf" the internet, usually using telnet or ftp.  There
was a writeup in a Boston Computer User Society magazine about SQL in
the early 80's, but didn't take notice of it until I started using
Access.

The internet is certainly here to stay :-).  The number of internet
users is becoming so vast that it is not unusual that internet usage
trends are being pulled in unexpected directions.  There's no doubt
that cell phone internet usage is going to have a huge impact on the
future of the internet.  BTW, I noticed that the new iPad will run
under Android.  I am so impressed that I might go get one.  I think
the Android OS has a lot of potential.  Apple was wise to expand into
Android.  Will these internet trends affect how databases are used?
Without a doubt.  Will I consider using the cloud for an application?
Yes, if a proposed application involves enough storage capacity or
connectivity.  I try to use the best tools available for the job at
hand.  Phone interfaces and cloud storage are all part of what's
available and can't be ignored.  I expect that the number of cell
phone internet users will dwarf the number of "normal" internet users
soon.  Just as it is prudent not to ignore either Microsoft or non-
Microsoft software technologies, it would be prudent to be ready to
program phone applications (Windows or not) and cloud applications
(Microsoft or not).  I don't want to sit in an Access ivory tower.
Microsoft, with a painful, massive organizational effort, decided to
go after those trends.  I expect to also.

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com

James A. Fortune wrote:
> BTW, I noticed that the new iPad will run
> under Android.  I am so impressed that I might go get one.  I think
> the Android OS has a lot of potential.  Apple was wise to expand into
> Android.  

Excuse me?  Where on earth did you hear this?

On Mar 8, 7:18=A0pm, Rick Brandt <rickbran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> James A. Fortune wrote:
> > BTW, I noticed that the new iPad will run
> > under Android. =A0I am so impressed that I might go get one. =A0I think
> > the Android OS has a lot of potential. =A0Apple was wise to expand into
> > Android. =A0
>
> Excuse me? =A0Where on earth did you hear this?

It was from the announcement (yesterday?) by Steve Jobs about the iPad
2.  It's possible I misunderstood what I read.  Maybe someone can
verify?

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com

On Mar 8, 7:34=A0pm, "James A. Fortune" <CDMAPos...@FortuneJames.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 8, 7:18=A0pm, Rick Brandt <rickbran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > James A. Fortune wrote:
> > > BTW, I noticed that the new iPad will run
> > > under Android. =A0I am so impressed that I might go get one. =A0I thi=
nk
> > > the Android OS has a lot of potential. =A0Apple was wise to expand in=
to
> > > Android. =A0
>
> > Excuse me? =A0Where on earth did you hear this?
>
> It was from the announcement (yesterday?) by Steve Jobs about the iPad
> 2. =A0It's possible I misunderstood what I read. =A0Maybe someone can
> verify?
>

I just Googled for the OS and one site said iOS 4.3.  There was
nothing stated there about any kind of Android OS possibility.  It
WOULD have been a great move though.  Without the Android OS I
wouldn't think of buying an iPad 2.  Thanks for the reality check
Rick.

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com

"James A. Fortune" <CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com> wrote in
news:af37f3fe-3571-425b-bf17-b22e0579a7c3@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.co
m: 

> I just Googled for the OS and one site said iOS 4.3.  There was
> nothing stated there about any kind of Android OS possibility.  It
> WOULD have been a great move though.  Without the Android OS I
> wouldn't think of buying an iPad 2.

That will happen about the same time Apple offers Windows
pre-installed on its Macs. 

-- 
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:rdddp.28310$5v7.15032@newsfe11.iad: 

> The fact is that the community and society in general is now using
> computers for non computing work.

In the late 80s I had a friend who ran up huge Compuserve bills
chatting online. 

Video games on computers run back about that far, at least, too.

There is nothing at all new about computers being used for
"non-computing work," as you so charmingly put it. 

-- 
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:rdddp.28310$5v7.15032@newsfe11.iad: 

> The additional claim I'm pointing out is that as a general rule in
> our society those consumer trends and consumer preferences are
> spilling over into the computing industry. In the past how
> consumers organize their social lives and interact with each other
> as a general rule did not effect what technologies and how
> computers were going to be used in the workplace. 

And you are simply wrong on this. This kind of interplay between the
two realms of computing has been going on as long as there have been
personal computers in businesses (as Larry pointed out, personal
computers at home predated personal computers in businesses, for the
most part).

I think the key issue you're identifying as a personal vs. business
computing issue is really a technology issue, i.e., that a quantum
boundary has been crossed in miniaturization and mobile devices so
that they are usable for mainline computing tasks. These devices
were first adopted for personal use, so they are coming into
businesses from the personal realm, but the key issue is not
personal/business, but the new level of functionality found in
mobile devices. 

Cloud availability is another issue, and really seems to be entirely
secondary to the mobile device revolution. That is, without fast
networks (both cell phone and broadband), the mobile devices
wouldn't work, because the local storage needs would make it
impossible. So, availability of apps/storage in the cloud enables
these new mobile devices at the most basic level. But the existence
of the cloud predated the mobile devices. It's not a driving force
here -- it's a follower, one of the results of the quantum leap in
mobile device functionality (although also one of the necessary
building blocks before the mobile devices could make that leap). 

Something of a chicken/egg issue, true, but its importance seems to
me to be enhanced by the mobile revolution, so that the cloud could
also make a quantum leap on the coattails of the mobile computing
revolution. 

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

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

 > There is nothing at all new about
 > computers being used for "non-
 > computing work," as you so
 > charmingly put it.

Maybe he meant "non-work computing".  But I seem to remember a lot of that 
going on over the years, too, even when computing machines cost multiples of 
millions of dollars.

 Larry 

On Mar 9, 12:53=A0pm, "David-W-Fenton" <NoEm...@SeeSignature.invalid>
wrote:
> "James A. Fortune" <CDMAPos...@FortuneJames.com> wrote innews:af37f3fe-35=
71-425b-bf17-b22e0579a7c3@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.co
> m:
>
> > I just Googled for the OS and one site said iOS 4.3. =A0There was
> > nothing stated there about any kind of Android OS possibility. =A0It
> > WOULD have been a great move though. =A0Without the Android OS I
> > wouldn't think of buying an iPad 2.
>
> That will happen about the same time Apple offers Windows
> pre-installed on its Macs.
>
> --
> David W. Fenton =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.dfenton.com=
/
> contact via website only =A0 =A0http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.  Perhaps a warning should have gone
off in my head about the improbability of them switching OS's, but as
iPad's market share drops relative to Android devices maybe making
such a switch will not seem so improbable soon.  Apple should at least
change the developer experience.  They started with such a huge lead
and are losing it fast.

From:

http://www.bgr.com/2011/01/31/android-tablets-finally-dent-ipad-market-shar=
e/

"The iPad=92s share of the market dropped from 96% to 75% in the fourth
quarter last year, according to the report."

It reminds me of a concept I learned in a math course on Matrices
called a Markov Chain.  Every effort made by every competitor has an
effect on final market share.  The corollary as far as Microsoft was
concerned was that in the absence of competition in a relatively new
market, sales will rise exponentially.  Furthermore, in such an
environment, anything short of that exponential growth is a direct
result of some action by a competitor :-).

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com

?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message=20
news:Xns9EA3835783B7f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.97...

>"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
>news:rdddp.28310$5v7.15032@newsfe11.iad:

>> The fact is that the community and society in general is now using
>> computers for non computing work.

>In the late 80s I had a friend who ran up huge Compuserve bills
>chatting online.

>Video games on computers run back about that far, at least, too.

>There is nothing at all new about computers being used for
>"non-computing work," as you so charmingly put it.

But the above is nothing new and is not my point.

My point is we now seeing consumer trends and preferences as to how they =
use=20
computers outside of work now effecting how and even what technology and =

software they will use in the workplace.

That secutary playing Atari pong did not change what software or what=20
computers or even how they were going use computers to get their work =
done=20
come Monday morning.  There might be some rare exception, but some race=20
exception is not a trend we need to worry nor care about.

The issue isn't about computers being used for non work, the issue is =
that=20
non work use is now effecting how they use computers at work.

Today consumers are growing up in an society and using computers outside =
of=20
work to accomplish basic human tasks such as setting up meetings and=20
interacting with each other. Those trends and how those consumers have =
been=20
utilizing computers outside of workplace are now spilling back over into =
the=20
workplace.

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

?"Access Developer"  wrote in message=20
news:8tq1sdF3npU1@mid.individual.net...

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

>> There is nothing at all new about
>> computers being used for "non-
>> computing work," as you so
>> charmingly put it.

>Maybe he meant "non-work computing".  But I seem to remember a lot of =
that=20
>going on over the years, too, even when computing machines cost =
multiples=20
>of millions of dollars.
>
>Larry

You can see my other response, but the trend I am pointing out is not =
that=20
people were using computers outside of the workplace for non work use, =
but=20
what is occurring is that non work computer use is now spilling back =
into=20
the workplace, and that is a significant a new trend.

In early days, there is no question that a few Pioneers' brought their =
home=20
computers into the workplace. However, as a general rule you could not =
say=20
that everybody in the building was being affected by their consumer or=20
personal use of computers and bringing to work how they been using their =

computers outside of workplace (and few people had computers to make =
enough=20
difference anyway).

Today what these people grew up using with and what they are familiar =
with=20
outside of work is now being brought into the workplace. I really cannot =

think of a past period in computing where general consumer trends in =
terms=20
of computers outside of work has such an large impact in the work place.

There also the issue now that the tables are reversed - consumer =
computing=20
is more valuable then business computing (if you assume phones are now=20
computers). Apple is the #2 market cap company in the world.  That means =

they surpassed Wal Mart and they even passed Petro China!

The ONLY larger market cap company is Exxon.

To me this statistic is just mind boggling.  They are #2 market cap =
company=20
in the world! In fact they are 100 billion ahead of Microsoft. Yes you =
read=20
this correct 100 billion more then Microsoft (I mean most companies =
would be=20
happy to have that "difference" between the two as a market value!).

So the consumer side of computing is now driving trends in the business =
and=20
work side of our industry.  Now of course these consumers are NOT able =
make=20
all decisions for what they can and want to use in the work place, but =
as=20
Apple shows and products like Facebook, those consumers and their trends =
are=20
now a force to be reckoned with in the workplace.

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

Albert, we obviously have a chronological "disconnect" here -- in the days 
of computer "pioneers", there _were no_ home computers for anyone to bring 
into the workplace.

But, I understand what you are saying: the incredible timewasting of social 
networking is finding its way back into the workplace... thank goodness for 
technological progress; we need it just to overcome the new and ingenious 
ways people will invent to waste time.  (Do any offices, these days, have a 
"watercooler" for people to stand around and chat?)

 Larry

"James A. Fortune" <CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com> wrote in
news:fc24bba3-621e-4558-9e29-a920fe76b92a@i35g2000prd.googlegroups.co
m: 

> "The iPad's share of the market dropped from 96% to 75% in the
> fourth quarter last year, according to the report."

This puzzles me. Apple has basically invented a new product class,
so they have virtually 100% of the market share. That they now have
competitors doesn't really mean that they will feel any pressure
whatsoever to open up their platform. For pity's sake, their
flagship Macs have what, 5% or 10% of the market? And that hasn't
resulted in their opening up the platform, so I think there's a long
way to go before any competitive pressure on the iPad could cause
them to open it up. 

And I doubt they'd do it even if they dropped to 1% of the market,
because it's simply completely inconsistent with the entire
technological philosophy behind all Apple products. 

In other words, it's never going to happen. Ever.

-- 
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:7Ojep.8$yb7.7@newsfe11.iad: 

> You can see my other response, but the trend I am pointing out is
> not that people were using computers outside of the workplace for
> non work use, but what is occurring is that non work computer use
> is now spilling back into the workplace, and that is a significant
> a new trend. 

I think you're mistaking correlation for causation. The innovation
here is the quantum leap in mobile computing functionality. It just
so happens this took off in what you call the consumer market, but
the issue is not that consumers are wanting their business computer
use to be like their home use, but that they want to use the same
devices and technologies at work that they use at home. The issue is
the technology. That it took off first in the consumer market is a
result of the fact that the innovation was first introduced in
devices that are generally purchased more by individuals than by
businesses (cell phones). The Internet was another huge
technological quantum leap and it ran in the opposite direction. 

But the main driving force is the technological innnovation. Where
it was adopted first is really incidental. 

-- 
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:7Ojep.8$yb7.7@newsfe11.iad: 

> Apple is the #2 market cap company in the world.

Market capitalization really means nothing. The stock market is a
gambling casino and largely run by stupid trading computers and
stupid uneducated people (I know, because I've worked for them!).
Making conclusions about real-world value from examining results in
Las Vegas or Atlantic City would not be something anybody with any
sense would do, and using the stock markets in the same way is
equally ill-advised. Just consider how many former leading
market-capitalization companies are no longer even in existence, let
alone traded. 

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

?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message=20
news:Xns9EA5BBFCE2D7Bf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.91...


>But the main driving force is the technological innnovation. Where
>it was adopted first is really incidental.

Well it is not incidental in in the context of my whole point.

My WHOLE point is that those consumers are bringing those trends to the =
work=20
place. You see, we work in this industry and those employees are now =
asking=20
me if my software will work on their Mac computer. Those employees are =
now=20
asking if they can use my software on their iPhone. Those employees now =
ask=20
me if my booking calendar can be used just like the Google docs one in=20
different locations. In fact to these new users, even the concept of =
desktop=20
and web based system is something they do not understand (or care =
about).=20
They just do not get why when they bring their laptop home that they =
cannot=20
share the Access application data like everything else they are using.

So, yes, those expectations and what they asking their employer to =
provide=20
for them to get their work done is spilling into their work place. In =
case=20
you missed the point, we are the ones building and meeting the demands =
of=20
what those companies are asking me to build for them. And those =
employees go=20
their boss to get approval and ask for what they need and want to get =
the=20
job done. And they ask for things in the context of what they been using =

outside of work.

The company might issue Exchange for use with Outlook, and then =
employees=20
are still using Facebook to organize company events. In fact, in some=20
companies, the IT department is having to deal with people not even =
wanting=20
to use the systems being issued to them, and are even having ban use of=20
alternative systems. Some I know just like they ban Access, are also =
having=20
to do the same with some of these alternative systems they use outside =
of=20
work.

In the past, you were issued outlook or some email account, and did not=20
start using your own email account or some other software system for =
work,=20
and yet we see this occurring to day.

As I said, it is a new trend that we in the IT industry will have to be=20
aware of and often have to deal with.

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

?"Access Developer"  wrote in message=20
news:8tvkajF7eiU1@mid.individual.net...

>Albert, we obviously have a chronological "disconnect" here -- in the =
days=20
>of computer "pioneers", there _were no_ home computers for anyone to =
bring=20
>into the workplace.

Right, but my point was is today that is a very large and influential =
group=20
of people now.

>But, I understand what you are saying: the incredible timewasting of =
social=20
>networking is finding its way back into the workplace... thank goodness =
for=20
>technological progress; we need it just to overcome the new and =
ingenious=20
>ways people will invent to waste time.  (Do any offices, these days, =
have a=20
>"watercooler" for people to stand around and chat?)
>
> Larry

I 100% agree that social media stuff is a waste of time. I so often =
point=20
out to people when I point out the sky is blue, I not telling people to =
like=20
the color blue or even go out and purchase blue clothing!

So I just do not give one care about two people making a date on a =
computer=20
or using Facebook to tell all their friends they just bought a new =
dress.

However, I do care when customers ask me why my booking software does =
not=20
work when they take their lap top home

my old answer: well the old back end mdb file share is sitting on a =
shared=20
folder at work (on the other end of the phone I hear crickets, as they =
have=20
no clue what I just said).

New answer:
I am hosting the sql back end in the cloud (I been doing this for about =
5+=20
years now), and they NEVER call me to ask why the application works, it =
just=20
does work and they do not care despite me thinking this is oh so very =
cool.=20
I have customers that have NEVER even asked where the data is!

The IT department cares when they issued outlook + exchange and =
employees=20
are setting up events and forums to deal with customers on those social=20
media systems.  Going back to the original point here the point here is =
that=20
these consumers and what systems they use are now effecting how those =
same=20
people will get productive work done in the work place. And MORE =
important=20
it is effecting their expectations and even what kinds of software =
systems=20
they will use in the workplace to accomplish their work goals.

So, at the end of the day here, my point is not earth shattering or some =
big=20
huge deal. It also not the end all either.

It is a very simple statement I made that consumer computer use is now=20
spilling over into the workplace and effecting our industry we work in. =
And=20
I am finding that even their choices and what they are asking me to =
deliver=20
is being effected by those trends.

And while we at this: if we really honest, the idea that hosted servers =
is=20
some new big next thing is a cruel joke. When I started out in this=20
industry, few had computers and the ones that did where using time share =

systems and connecting up to a large server that had a funny name back =
then=20
(it was called a mainframe).

If there is any egg on our industry and some humor here? It seems our=20
industry is moving back to its original layout of large shared =
resources.=20
About the only difference is we now have smarter clients that are not =
really=20
dumb terminals, but other then that?

I cannot say the trend in terms of shared resources and the march =
towards=20
having some really big computer box in some huge special computer room =
is=20
anything new at all!

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

On Mar 11, 7:25=A0pm, "David-W-Fenton" <NoEm...@SeeSignature.invalid>
wrote:
> "James A. Fortune" <CDMAPos...@FortuneJames.com> wrote innews:fc24bba3-62=
1e-4558-9e29-a920fe76b92a@i35g2000prd.googlegroups.co
> m:
>
> > "The iPad's share of the market dropped from 96% to 75% in the
> > fourth quarter last year, according to the report."
>
> This puzzles me. Apple has basically invented a new product class,
> so they have virtually 100% of the market share. That they now have
> competitors doesn't really mean that they will feel any pressure
> whatsoever to open up their platform. For pity's sake, their
> flagship Macs have what, 5% or 10% of the market? And that hasn't
> resulted in their opening up the platform, so I think there's a long
> way to go before any competitive pressure on the iPad could cause
> them to open it up.
>
> And I doubt they'd do it even if they dropped to 1% of the market,
> because it's simply completely inconsistent with the entire
> technological philosophy behind all Apple products.
>
> In other words, it's never going to happen. Ever.
>
> --
> David W. Fenton =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.dfenton.com=
/
> contact via website only =A0 =A0http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

David,

The points you make, make a lot of sense - i.e., the points
themselves, not the logic of Apple's choices.  Although I tend overall
to favor early adopters, especially originators, I think that the
Android OS along with it's development model will relegate all MacOS
based phones to that of just another competitor, if that.  An addition
of a separate Android OS based iPad, together with the kind of
innovative push that got them their original lead would be tough to
beat.  But I suspect that you're correct that they will cling doggedly
to the MacOS.

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote

 > So I just do not give one care about two
 > people making a date on a computer
 > or using Facebook to tell all their friends
 > they just bought a new dress.

Albert, I make you this promise:  I won't use Facebook to tell you and all 
my other friends that I just bought a new dress.  <GRIN> 

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in
news:zmafp.14513$r31.14250@newsfe08.iad: 

> ?"David-W-Fenton"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9EA5BBFCE2D7Bf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.91...
> 
>>But the main driving force is the technological innnovation. Where
>>it was adopted first is really incidental.
> 
> Well it is not incidental in in the context of my whole point.
> 
> My WHOLE point is that those consumers are bringing those trends
> to the work place. You see, we work in this industry and those
> employees are now asking me if my software will work on their Mac
> computer. Those employees are now asking if they can use my
> software on their iPhone. Those employees now ask me if my booking
> calendar can be used just like the Google docs one in different
> locations. In fact to these new users, even the concept of desktop
> and web based system is something they do not understand (or care
> about). They just do not get why when they bring their laptop home
> that they cannot share the Access application data like everything
> else they are using. 

This is new to you? I've had people asking me about running on their
Macs for as long as I've been using Access (since 1996), running on
their PDAs since PDAs became widely used (in the 1998-2000 time
frame) and running on their smart phones for the last 3 or 4 years.
I don't see anything new here at all. 

And my answer to this is Windows Terminal Server. There's a Remote
Desktop client for iPhone, so it is possible, though certainly I
doubt that an app designed to run full-screen in Windows is going to
work very well on RDP on an iPhone screen, but it would surely work
decently on an iPad. 

Now, I also remember back c. 1991 when I was programming in
character-based Paradox (with absolutely no mouse support) and had
several people who were Mac users before they got their jobs there
and just couldn't get used to it. Funny, though, how much of the
Internet a few years later was originally character-based (my first
web browsing was in Lynx, and it was AMAZING to me, even if it was
in a text-based terminal window over a 2400-baud modem). 

Certain kinds of users were never exposed to that, of course, but
many were. My point is simply that we keep having this same thing
happen over and over again, and it's just not that big an issue from
my point of view. 

> So, yes, those expectations and what they asking their employer to
> provide for them to get their work done is spilling into their
> work place. In case you missed the point, we are the ones building
> and meeting the demands of what those companies are asking me to
> build for them. And those employees go their boss to get approval
> and ask for what they need and want to get the job done. And they
> ask for things in the context of what they been using outside of
> work. 

I still don't see the issue here. But maybe this is because my
clients are all OLD FARTS just like me. 

> The company might issue Exchange for use with Outlook, and then
> employees are still using Facebook to organize company events. In
> fact, in some companies, the IT department is having to deal with
> people not even wanting to use the systems being issued to them,
> and are even having ban use of alternative systems. Some I know
> just like they ban Access, are also having to do the same with
> some of these alternative systems they use outside of work.

There are really good reasons, LEGAL reasons for corporate IT not
wanting email and other functions going through outside websites
that are beyond their control. They are COMPLETELY reasonable in
laying down that restriction (in contrast to the ban on Access,
which is really not reasonable at all). 

> In the past, you were issued outlook or some email account, and
> did not start using your own email account or some other software
> system for work, and yet we see this occurring to day.

I have a new client and have yet to communicate with anyone in their
office through anything but a Gmail account. Half my phone
conversations with them are over their cell phones. 

I consider this bad management, not the future.

> As I said, it is a new trend that we in the IT industry will have
> to be aware of and often have to deal with.

I think it's something that will settle down and get properly
managed in a few years, just like Blackberry did. 

-- 
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:oYufp.26872$FA.8421@newsfe15.iad: 

> I 100% agree that social media stuff is a waste of time.

I completely disagree. One could say TV is 100% waste of time, but
it's not. There are valuable things on TV -- it all depends on what
you watch. Likewise, with social media, it depends on how you use
it. Many businesses are doing a good job of using it to penetrate
markets that they might otherwise be closed out of. I think it's
also a necessity for all sorts of purposes. 

For me, it mostly replaces older social forums (Usenet), but also
allows wider connections. For instance, a friend recently moved to
Prague, and it certainly makes it easier for me to keep up with
what's going on with her as she adjusts to a new job in a new city
in a new country. That's purely a social relationship, but it's a
function that is translatable for business purposes. 

I see nothing wrong there at all.

It's just going to take some time for it to become clear how it all
works. 

And I highly recommend that anybody who scoffs at Twitter and
Facebook should really try it. You can't dismiss it if you don't
know what it is. However, it's social networking, so if you don't
network socially, you'll never get the point. 

For Access developers, LinkedIn.com might be a better place to
start. That's not really "social" networking, it's just networking,
but many of the basic concepts and functions are exposed there. 

I didn't want to try FaceBook, but when I did, I liked it. On the
other hand, Twitter didn't hold my interest after a couple of weeks
-- too much noise with too little content. But maybe I didn't give
it sufficient time, or follow the right people, or whatever. Or
maybe I just didn't get a Twitter client that made it easy to use it
the way I would have liked. 

I do know that many other people find Twitter useful, and I'm not
going to tell them they don't just because it's not useful to me. 

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

"James A. Fortune" <CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com> wrote in
news:fccae451-0ca3-4cb5-b633-a0240d36d55e@o30g2000pra.googlegroups.co
m: 

> The points you make, make a lot of sense - i.e., the points
> themselves, not the logic of Apple's choices.  Although I tend
> overall to favor early adopters, especially originators, I think
> that the Android OS along with it's development model will
> relegate all MacOS based phones to that of just another
> competitor, if that. 

To me, the question about Android is:

Which is it?

Betamax or Windows?

(i.e., base of class, but loses out to something else, or just good
enough and beats the "superior" competitors) 

>  An addition
> of a separate Android OS based iPad, together with the kind of
> innovative push that got them their original lead would be tough
> to beat.  But I suspect that you're correct that they will cling
> doggedly to the MacOS.

The iPad does not use MacOS. It uses iOS, the mobile OS first
developed for the iPhone. 

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

On Mar 15, 3:34=A0pm, "David-W-Fenton" <NoEm...@SeeSignature.invalid>
wrote:
> "James A. Fortune" <CDMAPos...@FortuneJames.com> wrote innews:fccae451-0c=
a3-4cb5-b633-a0240d36d55e@o30g2000pra.googlegroups.co
> m:
>
> > The points you make, make a lot of sense - i.e., the points
> > themselves, not the logic of Apple's choices. =A0Although I tend
> > overall to favor early adopters, especially originators, I think
> > that the Android OS along with it's development model will
> > relegate all MacOS based phones to that of just another
> > competitor, if that.
>
> To me, the question about Android is:
>
> Which is it?
>
> Betamax or Windows?
>
> (i.e., base of class, but loses out to something else, or just good
> enough and beats the "superior" competitors)

According to Wikipedia, Android is based on a modified linux kernel,
perhaps to make it fit.  That bodes well for openness, but doesn't
guarantee superiority.  Microsoft is coming in a little late to the
game, but have the capability of producing something better, the
historic stability of linux compared to Windows notwithstanding.
Microsoft will be a viable competitor if they make it easy to program
apps, even if the OS is not superior if history is any indicator :-).
As I said in one of the Access NG's a while back, the phone OS's are
going to parallel those used by Apple, linux and Windows.

>
> > =A0An addition
> > of a separate Android OS based iPad, together with the kind of
> > innovative push that got them their original lead would be tough
> > to beat. =A0But I suspect that you're correct that they will cling
> > doggedly to the MacOS.
>
> The iPad does not use MacOS. It uses iOS, the mobile OS first
> developed for the iPhone.

Right.  I quoted that iOS 4.3 is to be used for the iPad 2 above in
this thread.  I stand corrected.  I confused the computer OS with the
phone OS.

James A. Fortune
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com