Access Version to Install

[matrixindicator]

We have a client who need an order application. We choose ms access. The customer need to buy from scratch his hardware. The question is now, witch version of access to install ?
Access 2000 : + well-know development environnement, + Bugs are know, + interchangeable with other pc's, because access 2000 is available on many pc's.
Access 2007 : - not all pc's have this (not interchangeable). + free runtime version to create.

Does microsoft not deliver for free earlier versions and can you still buy them ?

 

[JoeAtWork]

First of all, I'm curious why you choose Access over other more robust, scaleable architectures?

That said, if you don't go with the newest version of Access, I would say use Access2003. Access2000 seemed one of the bugiest versions to me.

I haven't built anything with Access2007 yet, so I can't comment on that.

 

[JerryKlmns]

matrixindicator

When my company ordered VB6 we paid VB.Net and also got VB6
That was ~5 years ago...

 

[Remou]

Why so hard on Access 2000, JoeAtWork? I have had more problems with Access 2003 than 2000.

 

[matrixindicator]

The ever ongoing discussion. Why Access, because its a nice environnement, flexible to develop in, his possibilities are underestimated. The application to develop is rather "small" and can run on desktop PC's. We don't need a truck to deliver a parcel (or in the future it can expand to two parcels).
VB.Net You need to develop in 00 and it is more expensive then an access licence. VB6, I read microsoft stops to support VB6.

An Access Believer

 

[Ed2020]

I'll second JoeAtWork's recommendation for 2003 over 2000. I too have had a lot more problems with 2000 than any other version of MS Access.

I have no opinion on 2007 other than the lack of anything even approaching proper security. Until this issue is resolved (if it ever is) then I have no interest in it.

Ed Metcalfe.

Please do not feed the trolls.....

 

[JoeAtWork]

Remou - from my personal experience Access2000 was the version that gave me the most trouble, at least until a certain service pack became available (I forget which one, but I think it was higher than SP1). Also, if you are not going to use the latest version, I would think that at least using the 5-year-old version is better than the 8-year-old.

MatrixIndicator - my concern comes from the fact that pretty much every time I've worked with an Access system that some "consultant" had "recommended" to their client, it was without fail a sloppy, amateurish production. The reason is because of the "flexible to develop in" aspect you mentioned. This "flexibility" in fact makes it very easy to implement very poor design choices.

My current main set of tools I have to create a custom application include:

.NET (Windows or Web)
SQL Server (either full version or Express)
Visual Basic 6
Access

I very rarely recommend Access these days, and when I do it would be be for very specific reasons, which might include:
1. Need something ASAP for a one-time event (a "throw-away" application)
2. Client has some Access skills and would like to do their own custom development once I've done the "tricky" stuff

Other than that, I can't see why any consultant would not recommend a more robust solution. My suspicion is that such consultants have a very narrow skill-set as programmers and system analysts - they "recommend" Access because it's the only thing they know.

Your argument about building a "truck" doesn't hold water. If I needed to build a very simple application, a VB6 or .NET solution would be much lighter than any Access based system, because you are building into it the whole Access overhead (which you don't need) in order to host your simple application. Access is in fact the "truck".

And yes you need a licence to use Visual Studio (not VB.NET, which is part of the .NET platform which is free), but your clients don't need a licence to use the applications you build. It's certainly worth the cost so that I can build for my clients scaleable and robust systems.

 

[matrixindicator]

If Access is such a bad tool. Why is it not already skipped from the office tools by Microsoft, why are they still developing versions (Access 2007). Why are there so many books published on Access and Access VBA by MVP's.
I can show you a lot of applications developed in Access that are doing a great job with easy for the end user.

I know Access had some weaknesses, but it has also his strenghts.

 

[Remou]

I agree matrixindicator. For example, a very small business certainly does not need SQL Server or MySQL along with a person to maintain these programs or the learning necessary to maintain the database themselves. Consider also the cost of the developer, a well-made Access database can be got relatively cheaply, whereas a developer with multitudinous skills (or even a good knowledge of C) will be comparatively costly. Even a "sloppy, amateurish" database is probably better than a speadsheet and may have served its purpose until the business had grown to a sufficient size to employ a more highly skilled person. It is also necessary for the business to have learned how to identify a skilled person, a more difficult job than it should be.

 

[JoeAtWork]

I have absolutely no problem with a small business developing their systems in Access. It is after all still better than a paper based system or database-a-la-Excel. Even if the amateur user has no concept of RDMS design, at least certain structures are enforced (like having to choose a data type for a field). I view Access's place as an "in house" tool. That's why Access books outsell those of Oracle or SQL Server by probably ten-to-one - because of the legions of non-technical people who just need to get something up and running without great expense.

But I have seen too many "consultants", charging anywhere between $50 to $100 an hour for their assumed expertise, coming up with Access solutions with no discernable rationale as to why that is the best choice. I really don't think there is such a thing as a "cheap Access developer who creates well-designed databases". The cheap ones are hacks. The good ones are good because they have knowledge that goes way beyond being an Access guru.

Anyone who charges consultant rates for designing business software should be recommending platforms based on the client's needs, rather than choosing by default the one platform they are familiar with.

 

[matrixindicator]

In the programming world you have good, better, best programmers and the weapon to make the difference is not necessary programming knowledge but tools and thats the wrong discussion in my opinion. I know there is access, there is MySQL, there is Oracle, SQL Server ...
Its correct, to produce a "killer" applications in Access you need to have a lot of programming and database design knowledge because it use more or less the same principles of RDMS as any other larger database tool, and VBA has arrays, functions and from now on you can use OOP.
Ones I create an application. It saved the user every month again, days of manual labor. A part of it was that it makes a range of calculations in "real time" depending of a lot of changing conditions. Before he did it with a calculator. So this programme reduced tree days to one hour. At that time my charge was $40, but next time I ask $100