[PLUG] MS Access Equivalent

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:28 AM, Cliff Wells 
[SMTP:logiplex at qwest.net] wrote:
...
> That sounds more like "systems you *don't* know".  If other systems take
> you that much longer, it's most likely because you aren't familiar with
> those systems.
>
> > There are a lot of database situations with less than 5 users.
>
> True.  And more than 1 user is a problem for Access (using JET).

That's simply a load of hooey.  I've run several systems with 10 or 20 
users, and they all worked fine.  Occasional corruption was always 
repairable except in one case, and that's what backups are for.  Of course, 
if the loss of a 1/2 days work is costy, then I agree, JET/MDB is not the 
right database engine, though at least for reporting, Access is still 
definitely the best front-end I know of.

...
> > Years ago I built an ERP/sales tool with
> > Access and sold it to companies with 2~15 users. I moved away and on,
> > don't support it any more but they still use it as the main tool for
> > bidding, ordering and invoicing, warehouse management and stuff.
>
> And have you actually followed up to see these user's experiences?  I'm
> aware of plenty of systems where users have simply become used to the
> flaws and don't complain about having to restore data, getting locked
> out, crashes, having to avoid certain features, etc, etc.  They consider
> it a basic cost of using computers.  It doesn't mean that there's
> nothing wrong with the application, just that the users have figured out
> how to live with it.

I'm an Access developer, and I support the systems I create.  Right now, 
I'm helping a client update a system that's been running 'til now in Access 
2.0 (16-bit).

> > If we want to compete against an established monopoly it doesn't help 
to
> > ignore its strengths.
>
> Not competing.  Simply using the best tools.

Well, best depends on what you're trying to accomplish, and in how much 
time.  it also depends on whether you want your client to be able to do 
basic maintenance themselves without having to learn a programming 
language.

> 1. Gleefully ignoring reality since 1994.

Or simply working on projects with different priorities.