Talk:Microsoft Access

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Microsoft Access talk page...

FOLDOC article:Microsoft Access
1. <database> A relational database running under Microsoft Windows. Data is stored as a number of "tables", e.g. "Stock". Each table consists of a number of "records" (e.g. for different items) and each record contains a number of "fields", e.g. "Product code", "Supplier", "Quantity in stock". Access allows the user to create "forms" and "reports". A form shows one record in a user-designed format and allows the user to step through records one at a time. A report shows selected records in a user-designed format, possibly grouped into sections with different kinds of total (including sum, minimum, maximum, average).
There are also facilities to use links ("joins") between tables which share a common field and to filter records according to certain criteria or search for particular field values.
Version: 2 (date?).
Usenet newsgroup: comp.databases.ms-access.

What kind of licensing is needed to be able to use the Microsoft Access product and distribute the applications? In other words, what version of Microsoft Access does a developer need to buy in order to allow distribution of the runtime components without incurring any additional license fees per installation of the runtime? Bevo 22:56, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lost link: The mvps link about access is dead... 404... :( Pfortuny 18:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sales pitch?

This article seems a little biased towards the product "Skilled software developers and data architects use it to develop powerful, complex application software. " does not match my experience - very few "Skilled software developers and data architects" of my aacquaintance would use Access for critical or complex applications preferring the flexibility, openness and robustness of other tool, in fact power and complexity are where Access falls down its strengths are relative ease of use and shallow learning curve

[edit] rebuttal

I create very large Access apps because it is flexible and I can produce an database app in a signicantly shorter period of time than any other tool. If robustness is required then I can use a database engine for the data such as SQL Server or others. I assure you my apps have lots of power and are quite complex. Tony Toews, tony@granite.ab.ca

[edit] second rebuttal

I agree wholeheartedly with Tony. We have built a number of software products for Fortune 500 companies using MS Access. We have worked with Honeywell and they use MS Access to build software front ends to either Jet 4.0, SQL Server or Oracle backends data table schemas... As do a lot of large companies that want very creative flexible software applications that they cannot buy off the shelf...since most will not fit or do exactly what they want...

MS Access is extrememly powerful in what it can accomplish as a front end software programming toolkit (its also nice that MS Access also gives away a small but powerful database engine too... Jet 4.0... in its tools too)... support@enflow.com

[edit] Ease of Use?

This is claimed a few times in this article, though at one place the comment is made that "ease of use can be misleading". I have worked with computers for years and there is nothing "easy" about using Microsoft Access. I know several other people in the same boat. A secretary where I used to work had problems with it; she even went to a class and still had trouble with it. I have a book on Access, it, too, says Access is not an easy program to use. So far, the only Access file I have "sucessfully" created, was nothing more than a list of CDs I own, and I could have done that much more easily on Word! My point with this ranting? Is it correct POV to state the program is easy, when many people routinely avoid it because of its complexity?

--Rt66lt, August 22, 2005

In comparison to larger, enterprise level databases (MySQL, MS SQL, Oracle) which usually require writing your own front end, Access is much easier.--LucidGA 06:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, my limited use of Access finds Base easier to use. ~Linuxerist L / T 01:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Not if you're used to doing it by writting your own frontend! gorffy 05:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Access and Java?

This section seems misplaced in terms of its technical detail, and as obvious bit of product placement as Pepsi in "the Goonies". I'd suggest either a generic section about interfacing with MS Access or getting rid.194.152.93.186 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that code snippet is really technical and seems out of place. An everyman user isn't likely to understand a word of that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.154.130.112 (talk • contribs) .
I'd like to see that moved into a page of it's own. Perhaps Microsoft_Access_ConnectionData or some other name indicating that it contains deeper technical details.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.177.235.245 (talk • contribs) .
I agree that it's really out of place and non-encyclopedic - the associated links are a little too esoteric and out of place for the rest of the article as well. Since no one has said anything in favor of the section over the last 45 days, I'm just going to drop the section. If you want to add a sub-page, you can grab the section back from history. Kuru talk 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] field properties

[edit] microsoft access

putting hyperlinks in memo fields

[edit] Screenshot

I think a better screenshot would be ideal as the current one doesn't appear to show much Medscin 17:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What really is access?

While typically veiwed as a RDMS, Access would be better described as a generic database frontend. For example the mdb file format is more a part of JET than Access, although access does store the fron-end materials (Macros, forms, querys, and reports). Access actually supports using systems other than JET as the backend. It is true that Access was definately designed with JET in mind, but that does not mean it requires JET.

Unfortunately people seem to be confused by this. For eaxmple this quote in the article

Unlike complete RDBMSes, it lacks database triggers and stored procedures. It does allow forms to contain code that is
triggered as changes are made to the underlying table, and it is common to use pass-through queries and other techniques in
Access to run stored procedures in RDBMSs that support these.

That really is about JET. JET does appear to lack stored procedures and triggers. However, Access does have some limited support for those when using other database backends, and the second part of that quote does indicate that.

It is a shame that people are so confused about this. Tacvek 17:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's viewed that way because that is how it's marketed - as a single product, and that's how most users will use it. The compatibility with other relational back ends is noted several other times in the article, so it's not a relevation that changes the article. You're 100% right, though. If that one factiod is your only concern - change it to "Unlike complete RDBMSes, the default Jet backend lacks...". Kuru talk 00:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New Screenshot

I don't have a copy of Access (or Windows for that matter), so I cannot do this, but we need a new PNG screenshot. The JPEG one currently in use has too many artifacts. ~Linuxerist L / T 01:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removed Link

I have put a link in the external links area of MS Access http://www.enflow.com/WhyUseAccess.htm and it has been removed and i was wondering why my link was removed when it is non commercial and is a tutorial on Access.

Some, actually MANY of the other external links ARE commercial links but they persist yet mine was removed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FayssalF ...

i was wondering how do i contact him and ask him why ... thanks...

cj_008@comcast.net

cj...

It is a commercial website. -- Szvest 09:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

[edit] External links

The above user has left several messages on my talk page asking for more information on external linking at the Wikipedia. The applicable style guide is located at WP:EL; please read it. Here are my comments on the existing links:

Tutorials/tips:

Around 274 topically defined,very detailed and illustrated tutorials. Ads on tutorial pages are around 1-2% of content - not objectionable.
40-50 tutorials, sample databases, and exercises. Illustrated and detailed. Small ads on each page. Two line prompt near top of page for non-html version of same data.
Dev Ashish's help page; fixture in most Access circles. No ads I could see.
Simple no-frills tutorials with illustrations and sample dbs. Link to author's resume on main page - nothing intrusive.

Forums:

Heavy traffic forums. No real 3rd party ads I could see. Just got bookmarked.
Large set of forums. Seem to be named the same as the newsgroup forums - are these just an interface to newsgroups or original content?

Other:

Link directory of Access related topics. Most links seemed to be on topic.
Blog of access developer. Most entires are small; many are off-topic. Removed for now.
Short, one-page history of the Jet database from 1996. Probably more applicable to Microsoft Jet Database Engine. Added Jet to "See Also" and removed this link.
pointer to posting in google groups with more Jet history that is itself cribbed from "Jet DB Engine Programmer's Guide". Removed - should add to Microsoft Jet Database Engine if the content isn't covered there.
Link to site promoting a very specific add-on/tool. It's free, but I'm not sure what value it adds to the article - which is the point of any link. Removed for now.

Summary: I'd prefer to see only one tutorial site and maybe the link to the directory so people can add their links to that. Ads in a comprehensive guide or tutorial or forum with content that cannot be added here are fine as long as they are not out of control. Again, as editors we should be adding content to the article; not pitching our products. Please feel free to add to the comments above and correct my assumptions about the content of the links. Kuru talk 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Control needs focus for programmatic access

You can't reference a property or method for a control unless the control has the focus.

This makes programming inconvenient, and may be a deliberate strategem of Microsoft to 'force' upgrade to VB or Visual Studio. There is no particular reason for this restriction; nothing in the inherent functionality of a form (at the systems level) that would require this. --Uncle Ed 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMicrosoft_Access_85fa.html"