Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: bill
Microsoft officials are well aware that its biggest Windows 7 and Office 2010 competitors are its own previous product iterations (Windows XP and Office XP/2003). To try and wean users away from older, “good-enough” releases, Microsoft is introducing a new licensing promotion.
The revamped “Up to Date Discount” program is targeted at small/mid-size business (SMB) customers running older versions of Windows and Office. Between January 1 and June 30 of this year, Microsoft is enabling users running Windows XP or Vista (on the operating system side) and Office XP, Office 2003 or Office 2007 (on the productivity suite side) to receive a discount of 50 percent on the cost of their licenses for Windows 7 and Office 2007 (or Office 2010, once it is released by June 2010).
Unless I can find XP drivers for the new computer...
I would have gone for Windows 7 had there been backwards compatibility.
Can't call the company that I purchased it from they closed down in 2000. I spent a day trying to figure a work around and just had to walk away for now.
I also had the office sofware issue but was able to work around it.
Having recently used a computer (one I don't own) with Vista and Office 2008 on it: I can now see why people hate upgrading Office. That version is utterly useless if you're used to the Mac versions ad/or the older version.
It even lacks basic menus like File, Edit etc.
But IMHO there is no excuse to not upgrade the software of the vendor you chose. If you disagree with the new versions: then switch to another vendor. By running ancient unsupported version you endanger not just yourself, but all the rest of us as well.
Honestly: I'm sick of legacy IE versions.
[edited by: swa66 at 6:45 pm (utc) on Jan. 4, 2010]
Office 2007 violated a fundamental law of software design, don't "fix" what ain't broke.
If Microsoft wanted my money they should have made Windows 7 include the successful features of Windows XP. Newer is not always better and Microsoft made that devastatingly clear with both Vista and 7.
I also very much like Vista, once you figure out how to turn off the annoying UAC.
I think the problem a lot of people running XP will have to wrestle with in deciding whether or not to upgrade is whether or not their hardware will run Windows 7 well. Although 7 isn't the memory hog that Vista is, most people running XP probably still do not have the hardware needed to run Windows 7. Despite the improvements, Windows is still likely to choke with only 1-2 GB of memory and an older, slower processor.
It's funny how people view software differently. KenB hates Office 2007, yet I love it. I guess that is because I use Word 2007 and Excel 2007 exclusively - I don't need all the other stuff in it. I swore off Outlook ages ago and my databases are far simpler than what many people here use.
By default I like my databases to open with the object browser hidden as end users don't need it and hiding it removes clutter. When I'm working on a database, however, I need to unhide the objects so that I can work on them. Prior to Access 2007 I could set the object browser to be hidden by default in the database start up options and then when I needed to access it I would unhide it, the next time someone opened the database it would still be hidden. Now I have to open a database, dig deep through several layers of menus/popup windows to find the option to show the object browser, change the setting and then restart the database. Once I've completed my work I have to remember to repeat the process to hide the object browser again before I build a encrypted production version of the database that end users actually use. Something that was simple and automatic before is now complex and requires a checklist to make sure I don't forget the extra steps.
Then there is the issue with the way MSSQL 2008 and Access 2007 play with each other via Access database projects. Lots of really stupid stuff that works just fine under Access 2000/2003 get broken in really stupid ways under Access 2007. For instance, as a programming practice if I'm going to reuse a SQL statement in different objects (e.g. a form and report) I generally save as a SQL view. If I'm going to use a SQL statement once and only once for a specific object (e.g. a form) I place it directly in that object's record source. The beauty of this is that if I ever need to change a SQL statement for a specific object I know that if it is in the record source it is safe to change as needed, but if it is stored as a view other things might be depending upon it.
The problem is that now under Access 2007 if a subform (a form nested in another form) contains a SQL statement in the record source that references multiple tables and/or views, records in that subform can no longer be edited or added to. To get around this problem I have to save the SQL statement as a view on the SQL server and reference the view in the record source for the subform. The catch is that sorting instructions in a stored view are ignored by Access 2007, as a result the output to the subform is not properly sorted. To get around this issue I now have to take the newly created view and create a select statement from it in the subform's record source that includes the necessary sorting instructions.
So in short:
In Access 200/2003:
Create select statement in subform's data source and everything works just fine. No worries.
In Access 2007:
One must create a view on the MSSQL server using a naming scheme that denotes the view is only to be used for a specific subform. Said view must then be referenced from the subform in the record source. If the data needs to be sorted, one must create a select statement in the subform's record source referencing the new view with the sorting instructions in this new select statement.
FLY IN THE OINTMENT:
Sometimes in Access 2007 creating a select statement with sorting instructions off of a view in a subform's record source will still make it impossible to edit data in that subform. To get around this you have to reference the view directly from the record source sans any select statement and then add sorting instructions to the subform's "order by" field. The catch is that users can override these instructions so to make sure it always works right I must put the sorting instructions into the order by field via a VBA function when the subform is opened.
Oddly enough, Access 2000 & 2003 do not have this subform record source issue when running on a MSSQL 2008 backend and Access 2007 does not have this issue when it is running on a MSSQL 2000 backend this problem only seems to crop up for me when Access 2007 is running on a MSSQL 2008 backend. Tell me that this isn't messed up.
I've been running into all kinds of similar odd behaviors like above with Access 2007, which has required me to spend many hours fixing what shouldn't have broken for one of my clients since they migrated to MSSQL 2008 & Access 2007. Sure it has given me a lot of billable hours, but it still really irks me to have to fix, what was working just fine before. Of all of Microsoft's Office applications, MS-Access has always been my favorite since I started using it with Office 95. In general I really enjoy building Access databases and find Access Database Projects to be a great development platform. Access 2007, however, is that it is an abomination and Microsoft should be ashamed of it. With Access 2007, Microsoft has butchered what was one of the jewels of Microsoft Office.
Boy sometimes it just feels good to vent! ;-)
Unless 'math' changes, I have no reason to upgrade to new, bloated versions.
For an OS, I still run Win2K on a lot of machines - nice that they left that out of the 'upgrade' option....then again, those machines aren't being used for DRM'd media (needing XP) or gaming, so still not a lot of incentive to upgrade.