Good point, Ed. But it's fairly common that when a VB developer thinks an app is simple, he throws it into Access. Access has a strong following for that reason is not for that reason alone. Personally, I have used it as a prototyping tool and not much else. I have seen several apps that started in Access outgrow Access and I have seen Access apps that were "POS" because they never should have been put there in the first place.

My big, big problem is that you don't have fine-grain control over the data in Access. That is a critical, required component to any tool used to create or manipulate mission-critical data.



>It seems to me that Access (whatever the new version is) goes the same downhill road we are very familiar with :-). Most of VB people getting even slight familiarity with RDBMS consider detrimental to work with Access even if Access is right tool. The same marketing trap.
>
>>Hiya John ---
>>
>>Access2000 is really slick, but it's still Access. A Chevette with better tires still won't run races with a Corvette. Access is a great little app for very small databases with little or no validation or biz rules. Access2000 extends this functional integration to SQL Server 7.0. Access is a great power-user tool; it's not a developer tool. You run into walls with Access when you try to extend simple applications. The thought that you have VB/Access people out there getting ready to empower users to mess with legacy data via *Access2000* gives me the creeps.
>>
>>As to thinking out of the box, I agree. I wish Whil all the success in the world. But I do wish people would stop seeing careers defined as how many tools you know....a better way of thinking may be coder -> developer -> systems analyst -> consultant. Get to the point where you are making money selling a team of diverse developers than *being* a diverse developer. ;-D