Michael Adams wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:47:06 +0000
Came this utterance formulated by jonathon to my mailbox:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:25, AG wrote:
The dB will be for field studies of fungi and I am conscious that
should I wish to share these data with anyone from the mycology
field, it is probable that they will be using MS Access.
* Microsoft has been trying to end of life Access for at least five
years, and probably longer;
[snip]
If you have it, i'd love to see some evidence in support of this
statement.
Well, it is fairly well known that there has been a good bit of
in-fighting between the SQL Server and Access projects within MS over
the years - and some in the SQL group would IMO have liked to kill it
off...as would some of MS's largest corporate clients. (Just as some
enterprise customers are asking for a version of OO.o sans Base..and for
the same reasons in both cases.)
Meanwhile, it is the case that the MS Jet database engine is being
retired. A lot of folks mistakingly equate Acess and Jet as being one
and the same - they are not. I was looking over the some of MS Access
blogs just today and reading about what is coming in Access 2010 - so
guess the application isn't dead quite yet.
Another parallel there also - many seem to equate Base with the embedded
HSQLdb database engine. In the case of MS Access pre-2007 the Jet engine
was always used, even when connecting external databases, it acted as a
type of intermediary for the data.
For Bases this is totally different - when you connect to dBase files,
or a SQLite file (via ODBC), or MySQL, or even an MS Jet file there is
*no* use of HSQLdb at all - it is completely dropped from within the
actual .odb file and there is no intermediary engine - the front end is
connected directly to the chosen backend. [Note that there may be a
transport layer - ODBC, JDBC or ADO)
Drew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
