Access or Visual Studio?

[Jerome]

Hi, I'm a bit confused ... when would I rather write an database
application using MS Access and Visual Basic and when (and why) would I
rather write it using Visual Studio .Net?

Is it as easy in Visual Studio to create reports and labels as it's in
Access?`

The advantage of VS.net is that not every user needs Access, right? And
that would eliminate the Access version problem as well I guess.

I've both done stuff in Access as well as asp.net

Thanks!

 

[Brian]

Hi, I'm a bit confused ... when would I rather write an database
application using MS Access and Visual Basic and when (and why) would I
rather write it using Visual Studio .Net?

Is it as easy in Visual Studio to create reports and labels as it's in
Access?`

The advantage of VS.net is that not every user needs Access, right? And
that would eliminate the Access version problem as well I guess.

I've both done stuff in Access as well as asp.net

Thanks!

Access is a vastly superior development platform for database applications:
the cost of development is far lower, and it has wonderful database-centric
features like linked subforms and continuous forms. The only reason to use
anything other than Access to build a database application is if you want it
on the internet, which is something that you just can't do with Access.
Even if you have a large user population or demanding security/resilience
requirements, it's still best to use Access, linked to a sever database
engine such as SQL Server.

If you buy the Office Developer Edition, or whatever Microsoft is calling it
these days, you can freely distribute a run-time version of Access so that
you don't need to buy Access for all your users.

 

[Dave]

Access should be used as a portible database where large amounts of data is not expected.
SQL Server (Oracle, etc.) should be used for rooted databases where potentially large amounts of data will be used.

VS.NET is not a database. It can connect to an instance of any ODBC database, and I believe that some (maybe all) versions of
VS.NET ship with MSDE version of SQL Server. This is a desktop engine which allows developers to develop database code without
having to purchase full versions of the software.

If your planning on using the database for a website, Access is viable if there will not be large amounts of data, high performance
is not expected in a stressful environment, security roles are not required and the benefits of T-SQL, DTC and Extended Stored Procs
are not required.

Otherwise, think about purchasing a more robust database server.

For the time being, I believe you can use the MSDE version that shipped with VS.NET for development purposes.

Hope it helps.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Brian,

Access is a vastly superior development platform for database
applications:
the cost of development is far lower, and it has wonderful
database-centric
features like linked subforms and continuous forms. The only reason to
use
anything other than Access to build a database application is if you want
it
on the internet, which is something that you just can't do with Access.
Even if you have a large user population or demanding security/resilience
requirements, it's still best to use Access, linked to a sever database
engine such as SQL Server.

How large is your team to build simultanisly applications with?

And how you have reusability implemented with that?

Cor

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

Access is a monolithic approach. There are many good apps written in Access.
But, once you start including forms, queries, etc., it is hard to divorce
yourself from Access and move up to another backend database, like SQL
Server, as you end up rewriting all of your code.

If you opt for an external solution, using Access as the backend only, you
can switch to another database without much pain.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

***********************************************
Think outside the box!
***********************************************

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

I would disagree with you on many points.

1. Access is a horrible platform for large databases. While it can get to a
rather large size, it is a file based DB, which means perf degrades
horribly. I would say 50MB is a good theoretical max, although I have seen
Access DBs in the ridiculous range.

2. Access is great for single developers, but bad for team development. It
is difficult to impossible to get a team working on the same solution,
unless Access is merely a data repository.

3. Access creates monolithic applications, which means there is little
flexibility in distributing the work as your company grows.

Access certainly fits a niche. It has a wonderful designer and allows you to
leverage your work with forms, queries, reports, etc. Much of the work can
be done without a huge amount of code. But, you pay a price, as you lock
yourself into the Access solution. If you later outgrow, you end up
rewriting everything.

I am not knocking Access, as it is a great product, but it definitely has
its limitations. Whether Jerome should use Access or not depends on his
final goal.

Lots of growth - Access as a backend only. Not wise to lock into to Access
forms.
Speed of getting product to market - Access may be the best option, if
Jerome is an Access developer
Application needs to scale - Access as backend, with plans on scaling data
up later (or MSDE from start)

There are other items to consider, of course.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

***********************************************
Think outside the box!
***********************************************

 

[Brian]

I would disagree with you on many points.

1. Access is a horrible platform for large databases. While it can get to a
rather large size, it is a file based DB, which means perf degrades
horribly. I would say 50MB is a good theoretical max, although I have seen
Access DBs in the ridiculous range.

2. Access is great for single developers, but bad for team development. It
is difficult to impossible to get a team working on the same solution,
unless Access is merely a data repository.

3. Access creates monolithic applications, which means there is little
flexibility in distributing the work as your company grows.

Access certainly fits a niche. It has a wonderful designer and allows you to
leverage your work with forms, queries, reports, etc. Much of the work can
be done without a huge amount of code. But, you pay a price, as you lock
yourself into the Access solution. If you later outgrow, you end up
rewriting everything.

I am not knocking Access, as it is a great product, but it definitely has
its limitations. Whether Jerome should use Access or not depends on his
final goal.

Lots of growth - Access as a backend only. Not wise to lock into to Access
forms.
Speed of getting product to market - Access may be the best option, if
Jerome is an Access developer
Application needs to scale - Access as backend, with plans on scaling data
up later (or MSDE from start)

There are other items to consider, of course.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

***********************************************
Think outside the box!
***********************************************

1. "it is a file based DB"

You are talking specifically here about Jet databases. What you say is not
correct, I have live Access/Jet applications running just fine for years at
database sizes approaching 1Gb. Not a problem at all, you just need to
design 'em right. What IS ridiculous is your suggestion of a theoretical
maximum of 50Mb, and I cannot imagine what you base such a silly claim on.

Nonetheless, if you do expect to exceed the capabilities of a Jet database
(which is possible in many ways, not just in terms of size e.g. you may have
security/resilience requirements which Jet simply can't meet) then (as I
believe I mentioned) Access makes an excellent client to server database
engines such as SQL Server or Oracle.

2. "Access is great for single developers, but bad for team development.
It
is difficult to impossible to get a team working on the same solution,
unless Access is merely a data repository.

Sorry, you lost me here, it's perfectly straightforward to have different
people working on different front-end areas and then to integrate them.

3. "Access creates monolithic applications, which means there is little
flexibility in distributing the work as your company grows."

You are going to have to explain that one a bit better. Access as a client
to a server database engine is every bit as scalable as any two-tier
client-server architecture using the same database engine. You seem to be
stuck on Jet again.

4. "But, you pay a price, as you lock
yourself into the Access solution. If you later outgrow, you end up
rewriting everything."

See above re Access as a client to server database engines.

5. "I am not knocking Access, as it is a great product, but it definitely
has
its limitations. Whether Jerome should use Access or not depends on his
final goal"

Jet, whilst an excellent product for the right purpose, certainly does have
limitations. Access as a client to a server database engine is limited only
by the server (unless you are big enough to need a three-or-more-tier
architecture, or you are looking to distribute your app across the internet
which I already said Access is no good at).

6. "Not wise to lock into to Access forms."

How is that any less wise than locking in to, say, dotnet Windows Forms?
You've got to build your clients in something, and, as soon as you make that
decision, hey presto, you are locked in.

7. "Speed of getting product to market"

What's your point here? All other things being equal, a database
application will take, quite literally, a fraction of the time to develop in
Access as compared to Windows Forms in dotnet.

 

[Brian]

Access is a monolithic approach. There are many good apps written in Access.
But, once you start including forms, queries, etc., it is hard to divorce
yourself from Access and move up to another backend database, like SQL
Server, as you end up rewriting all of your code.

If you opt for an external solution, using Access as the backend only, you
can switch to another database without much pain.

See my other reply, that is just so not true.

 

[Ken Snell [MVP]]

I would disagree with you on many points.

1. Access is a horrible platform for large databases. While it can get to
a rather large size, it is a file based DB, which means perf degrades
horribly. I would say 50MB is a good theoretical max, although I have seen
Access DBs in the ridiculous range.

Depends upon how you design it. I currently have a client running a split
ACCESS database product over a LAN, where the backend file is almost 100MB,
with up to 15 concurrent users.

 

[Arvin Meyer]

Access is a monolithic approach. There are many good apps written in Access.
But, once you start including forms, queries, etc., it is hard to divorce
yourself from Access and move up to another backend database, like SQL
Server, as you end up rewriting all of your code.

If you opt for an external solution, using Access as the backend only, you
can switch to another database without much pain.

Not true at all. I have several apps that made the move from Access to
SQL-Server with only a few hours of testing. Some of my apps have required
no code changes at all, others benefited from using some pass-through
queries to stored procedures. Still others were written with adp code and
used SQL-Server views and stored procs directly. Larry Linson, one of the
Access MVPs has worked almost exclusively on Access front-ends to Server
based back-ends. Unless there are a large number of users or a need to use a
web app, there is no reason to ever use anything but Access as a front-end.
Most database apps are small and never need anything but Access as a
back-end either. Anyone who uses anything other than Access to write
thick-client front ends is wasting his time and his client's money. I
suspect that there are some who may argue with this, but they probably
haven't been working for the kind of clients that Access benefits most, nor
do they have significant business process experience to go with their coding
skills.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access downloads:
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

 

[Arvin Meyer]

I've worked with teams of as many as 6 developers building large
applications for small numbers of users. With competent project management
there were no problems at all. With incompetence, even 2 developers is 2 too
many. As far as reuseability goes, I can't speak for others, but most of my
code (maybe 75 to 80%) is reuseable.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access downloads:
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

 

[JiangZemin]

Hi,

I disagree with the idea that once you start developing forms in Access, its
difficult to move the backend up to SQL. Depending on how the app is build,
its not very difficult at all to upsize an Access application from using JET
to SQL.

If youre talking about completely moving away from Access front-end
development, yeah, then youd have to rewrite a lot of your code. But its
the same situation if you were to abandon .NET forms as your front end too.
However, one advantage of using .NET approach is you can properly layer your
application so that if you do decide to change the front end, it can be a
lot easier to handle situations where the front-end changes. Access doesnt
easily allow you to structure your projects to promote reuse. But in a
smaller, ad-hoc database project its probably fastest to develop.

My biggest hassle with Access development involve handling deployments of
front-end and Office versioning issues. As far as how easy it is to do
reports, look into Sql Reporting Services, it can import existing Access
reports. Its pretty easy to use (dont know about labels tho). But theres
nothing stopping you from building your database app using .NET, and having
an Access db solely for queries/reports/labels.

I think anyone who would use Access/JET as backend DB engine for multiuser
app in business setting has to be stopped ASAP. I read recently that
electronic voting machines used JET, and almost fell out of my chair...

HTH,
Premier JiangZemin

 

[Arvin Meyer]

I would disagree with you on many points.

1. Access is a horrible platform for large databases. While it can get to a
rather large size, it is a file based DB, which means perf degrades
horribly. I would say 50MB is a good theoretical max, although I have seen
Access DBs in the ridiculous range.

I have seen them in the ridiculous range too, and they run fine if well
designed. I had a client several years ago that experienced her first
corruption of one of the 80 Access 2.0 databases she had hung off a single
front end. Once I fixed it she went happily on. Size: 30GB

2. Access is great for single developers, but bad for team development. It
is difficult to impossible to get a team working on the same solution,
unless Access is merely a data repository.

As I said elsewhere, I've worked with a team of 6. I know of other
developers that use Source-safe, but I've never found it necessary.

3. Access creates monolithic applications, which means there is little
flexibility in distributing the work as your company grows.

I've not had any problems, my databases are distributed by the server. As a
user logs on he gets the front-ends he needs.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access downloads:
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

 

[SusanV]

You wrote:
<q>
I think anyone who would use Access/JET as backend DB engine for multiuser
app in business setting has to be stopped ASAP. I read recently that
electronic voting machines used JET, and almost fell out of my chair...
</q>

Why?

Susan

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Here's my recommendation. Everybody who has participated in this thread
except for Greg should be using Access,
and understand that Access development is not programming. It uses VBA,
which is a macro language, not a real programming language, with all the
capabilities and complexities that real programming entails. Access has its
place - Microsoft Office. It's an office application, for office
users/devlopers. It was developed specifically with office users/developers
in mind, and is nearly perfect for such users/developers.

While Greg's estimation of Access's limitations was somewhat out-of-date (I
can remember when 50MB was the limit), he is essentially correct in all that
he has said. There are certainly places where an Access database can be used
to great efficacy in a LAN or Desktop application. There is no licensing fee
for an .mdb file, which can be distributed legally with the app. The Jet
engine is fast and clean. but it does have limitations that are based upon
the intended use of Access, which is NOT for Internet databases, or
databases which require a large concurrent number of users.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

 

[Brian]

Here's my recommendation. Everybody who has participated in this thread
except for Greg should be using Access,
and understand that Access development is not programming. It uses VBA,
which is a macro language, not a real programming language, with all the
capabilities and complexities that real programming entails. Access has its
place - Microsoft Office. It's an office application, for office
users/devlopers. It was developed specifically with office users/developers
in mind, and is nearly perfect for such users/developers.

While Greg's estimation of Access's limitations was somewhat out-of-date (I
can remember when 50MB was the limit), he is essentially correct in all that
he has said. There are certainly places where an Access database can be used
to great efficacy in a LAN or Desktop application. There is no licensing fee
for an .mdb file, which can be distributed legally with the app. The Jet
engine is fast and clean. but it does have limitations that are based upon
the intended use of Access, which is NOT for Internet databases, or
databases which require a large concurrent number of users.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

You'd have thought that an MVP, of any flavour, would be above trolling
newsgroups. Hey ho, you live and learn.

 

[Brian]

I think anyone who would use Access/JET as backend DB engine for multiuser
app in business setting has to be stopped ASAP.

That's going to come as a big surprise for those millions of competent and
knowledgeable people worldwide who are happily doing exactly that.

As with any endeavour, you need to know what you are doing. You need to
know how to design your application and it's environment to minimise the
potential problems. You need to understand that some risks will remain, and
you need to decide whether they are acceptable for your application.
Multiple intra-day backups are quite possible, so that the risk of data loss
through database corruption can be reduced to a very short time span indeed.
Security is a big issue: it's not good enough in Access, so if that's a
problem for you, then use a server backend.

I'm astonished at the number of people prepared to pontificate here about
the limitations of Access when clearly they don't know the first thing about
it.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Kevin,

Here's my recommendation. Everybody who has participated in this thread
except for Greg should be using Access,

What do you mean with that sentence above? Do you mean that Greg is not
allowed to give comments?

and understand that Access development is not programming. It uses VBA,
which is a macro language, not a real programming language, with all the
capabilities and complexities that real programming entails.

This give me the idea that you probably never made an ASP page?

I can assure you that using VBS is the same programming or whatever other
kind of programming (In my opinion is VBA not that different from VBS, it
has some additions)..

This discussion goes the same as we have seen in a discussion a month ago
about Delphi and .Net programming. We see people stating things who probably
have forever only used one of both.

Access is a widely and too full statifaction used development tool. I have
not used it enough to give any comment on it what is "better".

In my opinion will it depend on the situation where it has to be used and
the knowledge of the ones who use the tools.

Just my thought,

Cor

 

[Jerome]

Hi, I'm a bit confused ... when would I rather write an database
application using MS Access and Visual Basic and when (and why) would I
rather write it using Visual Studio .Net?

Is it as easy in Visual Studio to create reports and labels as it's in
Access?`

The advantage of VS.net is that not every user needs Access, right? And
that would eliminate the Access version problem as well I guess.

I've both done stuff in Access as well as asp.net

Thanks!

Thanks everybody for the information! Even though the debate got a
little heated it seems ...

I'm still not entirely sure but I think I'll stay with Access as a
front-end to my SQL Server DB since it has so many useful report and
label wizards (which are a pain to emulate in Visual Studio?).

I'd thought about Visual Studio because I had to code some ASP.NET web
pages and thought that if the data connection is the same in Visual
Studio I could use that new-gained knowledge and 'be free' of Access and
its version 'problem' since I would be creating independent applications.

Hm, I'm gonna read some more first about Visual Studio and where it
really fits in!

Thanks again.

 

[Guest]

Hi, let me clarify what i mean by "multiuser", i mean several dozen
concurrent users and up. This assumes that the Access application is
designed correctly of course. Which i think maybe the root of a lot of
conflicting opinions here. Even more than .NET development, theres a very
wide range of skill among Access developers. Just as an inexperienced
ASP.NET programmer might build a horrible web application and then blame
ASP.NET itself for its failings, the same thing is even more prone to happen
in Access, precisely because its so easy to slap together a form that can do
something useful. Unfortunately this leads to a lot of terribly designed
Access apps which many of us have had to deal with, because the guy in
Accounting who put this neat database together probably didnt care too much
about relational table design, security, handling ongoing deployments, code
reuse, backups, transactions, or concurrency.

In other words it probably takes as much skill and effort to build a
properly designed Access application as it does a properly designed .NET
application. In fact it might be easier to write a .NET/SQL application
which includes those items just mentioned, except for Access experts who have
learned how to address those issues. The problem is one of perception
because with Access its so much easier to build horrible database
applications that seem to work, and thus there are a lot more of them around.

JMHO,
idi_amin/Premier JiangZemin
-.NET guy who uses Access all the time, enduring the laughter of Oracle and
SQL DBAs