Access是Microsoft开发吗？ [英] Is Access a Microsoft development?

问题描述

嗨

最近的线程（例如访问的未来及其成功）让我想知道

Access是否是原始的MS开发或是否是

最初是像SQL服务器一样买的。


我怀疑的一个原因是一些原始功能（例如

关系窗口 - 很多其他系统仍然只加入表格而不是
字段 - 尝试自己编程！ - 以及MS花了多长时间才能理解如何打印它。）


但是我不知道之前存在的任何类似产品

Access 1，这是一个MS产品。


我从未使用过Access1，虽然我的第一个Access作业是在Access 2

程序中，它仍然有一些Access 1语法。虽然

欢迎许多新增功能，但对现有

功能的大部分更改都是为了更糟糕的恕我直言。

David

Hi
Recent threads (eg future of access and its success) got me wondering
whether Access was an original MS development or whether it was
originally bought-in like SQL-server.

One reason I am suspicious is some of the original features (eg the
relationships window - many other systems still only join tables not
fields - try programming this yourself! - and how long it took MS to
understand how it could be printed.)

However I don''t know of any similar product which existed before
Access 1, which was an MS product.

I never used Access1 though my first Access job was on an Access 2
program which still had bits of Access 1 syntax still in it. Though
the many additions are welcome, most of the changes to existing
features have been for the worse IMHO.
David

推荐答案

David Schofield写道：

David Schofield wrote:

嗨
最近的线程（例如访问的未来和它的成功让我想知道Access是否是一个原始的MS开发，或者它是否最初是像SQL服务器那样买的。

我怀疑的一个原因是原始功能（例如
关系窗口 - 许多其他系统仍然只加入表格而不是字段 - 尝试自己编程！ - 以及MS花了多长时间才能理解如何打印它。）

然而，我不知道之前存在的任何类似产品
Access 1，这是一个MS产品。

我从未使用过Access1我的第一个Access作业是在一个Access 2
程序上，它仍然有一些Access 1语法还在其中。虽然欢迎许多新增内容，但对现有
功能的大部分更改都是为了更糟糕的恕我直言。
大卫

Hi
Recent threads (eg future of access and its success) got me wondering
whether Access was an original MS development or whether it was
originally bought-in like SQL-server.

One reason I am suspicious is some of the original features (eg the
relationships window - many other systems still only join tables not
fields - try programming this yourself! - and how long it took MS to
understand how it could be printed.)

However I don''t know of any similar product which existed before
Access 1, which was an MS product.

I never used Access1 though my first Access job was on an Access 2
program which still had bits of Access 1 syntax still in it. Though
the many additions are welcome, most of the changes to existing
features have been for the worse IMHO.
David

早在90年代初，当Windows 3.1问世时，第一个

版本的Access就到了。当时，MS有2个数据库产品，用于桌面上的
;他们已经购买的FoxPro和他们为Windows开发的Access
。

Back in the very early 90''s, when Windows 3.1 came out, the first
version of Access arrived. At that time, MS had 2 database products for
the desktop; FoxPro that they had purchased and Access that they had
developed for Windows.

微软收购FoxPro，因为他们自己的桌面数据库产品Access wasn'感觉

准备好部署。


他们购买FoxPro后不久，Access1迅速出现，然后是

Access1 .1然后当然是最好的16位版本Access2。


我在培训课程中查看了Access1但是有些东西

错了（这让我的记忆力下降了，这使我无法使用，而且我最终使用了dBase作为课程。


32位Windows带给我们（诅咒）Access95跟随IMO

最佳32位版本Access97。 Access2000，AccessXP和Access2003然后

跟随。

-

Terry Kreft

MVP Microsoft Access
" David Schofield" < d *************** @ blueyonder.co.uk>在消息中写道

news：41eff3f7.426731227@localhost ...

Microsoft bought FoxPro, as their own desktop db product Access wasn''t felt
to be ready for deployment.

Shortly after they bought FoxPro, Access1 came out rapidly followed by
Access1.1 and then of course the best 16 bit version Access2.

I looked at Access1 during a training course but there were some things
wrong with it (which have slipped my memory) which precluded it''s use and I
ended up using dBase for the course.

32 bit Windows brought us (the much cursed) Access95 followed by IMO the
best 32bit version Access97. Access2000, AccessXP and Access2003 then
followed.
--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access
"David Schofield" <d.***************@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41eff3f7.426731227@localhost...

嗨
最近的线程（例如访问的未来及其成功）让我感到疑惑Access是否是原始的MS开发，或者它是否最初是像SQL-server一样购买的。

我怀疑的一个原因是一些原始功能（例如
关系窗口 - 许多其他系统仍然只加入表格而不是字段 - 尝试自己编程！ - 以及MS花了多长时间才能理解如何打印它。）

虽然我的第一个Access作业是在Access上，但我从未使用过Access1 2
程序仍然有一些Access 1语法仍在其中。虽然欢迎许多新增功能，但对现有
功能的大部分修改都变得更糟糕恕我直言。
David

Hi
Recent threads (eg future of access and its success) got me wondering
whether Access was an original MS development or whether it was
originally bought-in like SQL-server.

One reason I am suspicious is some of the original features (eg the
relationships window - many other systems still only join tables not
fields - try programming this yourself! - and how long it took MS to
understand how it could be printed.)

However I don''t know of any similar product which existed before
Access 1, which was an MS product.

I never used Access1 though my first Access job was on an Access 2
program which still had bits of Access 1 syntax still in it. Though
the many additions are welcome, most of the changes to existing
features have been for the worse IMHO.
David

On Fri，2005年1月21日12:41:11 -0000，Terry Kreft

< te ********* @ mps.co.uk>写道：


（snip）

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:11 -0000, "Terry Kreft"
<te*********@mps.co.uk> wrote:

(snip)

32位Windows带给我们（被诅咒的）Access95跟随IMO
最佳32bit版本Access97。接下来是Access2000，AccessXP和Access2003。
-
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access

32 bit Windows brought us (the much cursed) Access95 followed by IMO the
best 32bit version Access97. Access2000, AccessXP and Access2003 then
followed.
--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access

谢谢，


我记得Access 95，我得到了一个免费的Office Professional 95副本

参加了Windows 95的推出（在英国）而Access 95并没有/>
及时准备就绪，所以我们都拿到了一张优惠券，然后拿到了CD

。


也许Access团队是总是有点不合时宜，这可能解释为什么他们似乎一直在吮吸背部山雀，就办公室

而言 - 或者可能是另一个圆形。


David

Thanks,

I remember Access 95, I got a free copy of Office Professional 95 by
attending the launch of Windows 95 (in the UK) and Access 95 wasn''t
ready in time for that either, so we all got a voucher and got the CD
later.

Maybe the Access team was always a bit out of step, which may explain
why they seem to have been sucking on the back tit as far as office
was concerned - or maybe it was the other way round.

David

这篇关于Access是Microsoft开发吗？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！