Isn't the future supposed to be in front of us?

Now I'm mad.Until now, the changes from "upgrading" to Office 2007 were merely annoying. And even there, I have to admit to one advantage. So far as I can tell, the Ribbon is hard-coded, and while that eliminates customization, it does result in a much snappier interface than one where every mouse click triggers interpreted VBA code.At IT Catalysts we use an application we call our "Engagement Management System"

Now I'm mad.

Until now, the changes from "upgrading" to Office 2007 were merely annoying. And even there, I have to admit to one advantage. So far as I can tell, the Ribbon is hard-coded, and while that eliminates customization, it does result in a much snappier interface than one where every mouse click triggers interpreted VBA code.

At IT Catalysts we use an application we call our "Engagement Management System" (EMS). It's a place to log all interview notes, process parameters and characteristics, hypotheses, and possible recommendations.

It's how we operate.

It relies on one of the best-designed features of Microsoft Access - its database replication and synchronization feature. It lets us operate independently as we enter our notes in airplanes, hotel rooms and other disconnected locales, merging our entries later on when we're plugged into the same network again.

Now that we've moved to Office 2007 we figured it was time to migrate the application to the new Access database format.

That's when I discovered: Access no longer supports database replication and synchronization. Or rather, it does so long as you don't convert a database to the new format.

Who makes these design decisions? Doesn't anyone at Microsoft understand anymore that when you go forward, you're supposed to end up ahead of where you started?

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.