Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Access on the new Intel Macs?
- Thread starter czarjosh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
NO.
MS Access is written for Windows. Just because OSX is running on an Intel CPU does not make it Windows.
MS Access is written for Windows. Just because OSX is running on an Intel CPU does not make it Windows.
Trying looking for a WINE port for Mac OS X. Then you can run Access without Windows (maybe).
I believe Access is popular because you can work with ODBC databases without any knowledge of SQL, all the code and data is in a single file to keep things simple, and that is good for small personal databases, its fast, nothing exists like it for the Mac. You can create your own apps like with Hypercard. You can do a lot with the reports and forms with no programming plus you have the programming capability if you need it.
I tried File Maker Pro and it seemed like a toy. It reminds me of Apple Works. Maybe version 8 is better. Access is the only app that the open source Office programs don't have a comparable app. Everyone focuses on spreadsheets, word processing, and presentations. Databases are not even on the radar.
I believe Access is popular because you can work with ODBC databases without any knowledge of SQL, all the code and data is in a single file to keep things simple, and that is good for small personal databases, its fast, nothing exists like it for the Mac. You can create your own apps like with Hypercard. You can do a lot with the reports and forms with no programming plus you have the programming capability if you need it.
I tried File Maker Pro and it seemed like a toy. It reminds me of Apple Works. Maybe version 8 is better. Access is the only app that the open source Office programs don't have a comparable app. Everyone focuses on spreadsheets, word processing, and presentations. Databases are not even on the radar.
BornAgainMac said:
If not WINE, VirtualPC is another possibility. As it'll be running on Intel CPUs, the performance is likely to be very good.
Thanks to this company, you can at least suck data out of your Access database. Not as good (or bad) as being able to open/use it as normal on a Mac, but it's another step.
http://www.actualtechnologies.com/product_access.php
http://www.actualtechnologies.com/product_access.php
Microsoft Access is probably the one good thing they make.
It's really great, very powerful, and actually works nicely.
All kinds of business and corporations use Access databases and programs for all sorts of things.
In Michigan, all of student data is kept within Access databases - every school in Michigan, all their students, their performance, curriculum, courses, and a whole plethora of other data is stored in these databases.
The office where I work compiles this data, runs programs (written in Access) to analyze them, and then generates reports on the results. Although I deal with our website, I've had to fill in from time to time and write some of the algorithms to compile this data, and I have absolutely no complaints about Access.
You can manipulate your database without knowing a drop of SQL; but if you do know SQL, that's a plus since you can also write the SQL directly rather than using Access's default process.
It's amazing that MS isn't trying to get it on the Mac, as it is terribly needed. Its uses are limitless.
There is a lot of OS-specifc code that makes Access work on Windows, so a complete re-write would probably be needed, but I think it would be worth it.
It's really great, very powerful, and actually works nicely.
All kinds of business and corporations use Access databases and programs for all sorts of things.
In Michigan, all of student data is kept within Access databases - every school in Michigan, all their students, their performance, curriculum, courses, and a whole plethora of other data is stored in these databases.
The office where I work compiles this data, runs programs (written in Access) to analyze them, and then generates reports on the results. Although I deal with our website, I've had to fill in from time to time and write some of the algorithms to compile this data, and I have absolutely no complaints about Access.
You can manipulate your database without knowing a drop of SQL; but if you do know SQL, that's a plus since you can also write the SQL directly rather than using Access's default process.
It's amazing that MS isn't trying to get it on the Mac, as it is terribly needed. Its uses are limitless.
There is a lot of OS-specifc code that makes Access work on Windows, so a complete re-write would probably be needed, but I think it would be worth it.
czarjosh said:
Did you notice that screen shot of Windows XP running on an iMac? Yes it's real.
This implies that you could run Access on an Intel Mac but most Mac users would not want to jump through the hoops required o make it work.
Basically they installed Linux on the iMac and then ran VMware and then Ran Windows on the VMware virtual machine. The neat thing is that you can run multiple instances of VMware at once and run three diffetent OSes at once. The limit is just how much RAM you can put on the host machine
THis is in effect the "dual boot" option people have been wanting, they are really just usiong linux and vmware as a kind og boot loader.
Now before people say but "it must be slow because vmware is an emulator". No, VMware runs the host OS using _mostly_ native instructions. A very few Windows apps actualy run faster.
Codeweaver's "Wine" is available too but in eary test stages right now. You can go get it and try it. When it's done it should run Access. Acces is on their short list of "gold" apps.
Microsoft access bull mega big chunks, for a database it real is badly writen, and has hugh problems dealing with multiply people accessing it. At work I am responisble to support one such database, used buy maybe 3 people at a time, and what a royal pain. There are much better choices than access.
But i will give microsoft credit for excel, that is one very good program, and it is very sweet on the mac, in fact i like the mac version much better. You can use excel to do all what access does. In fact alot of corporation use excel for just that database, and that because acess blows. To do good database on a windows platform you need to SPEND big dollars and get SQL server + windows Server + tons of other server things so you can have a good solution.
On a Mac on the other hand you can run PHP or mysql, easy to configure setup and does not require a server to run it. It support mutlipy interfaces into them, including web, which is why there are used so much on the web.
But i will give microsoft credit for excel, that is one very good program, and it is very sweet on the mac, in fact i like the mac version much better. You can use excel to do all what access does. In fact alot of corporation use excel for just that database, and that because acess blows. To do good database on a windows platform you need to SPEND big dollars and get SQL server + windows Server + tons of other server things so you can have a good solution.
On a Mac on the other hand you can run PHP or mysql, easy to configure setup and does not require a server to run it. It support mutlipy interfaces into them, including web, which is why there are used so much on the web.
Nope, that would be ExcelJosh said:
My god, that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. They keep that much data in an Access database? They really should be using a proper DB for something like that.
I use Access at work, and for small stand alone databases with easy front ends its fine, but anything bigger than that and its really not appropriate.
It's entirely appropriate - large-scale applications is what Access was designed for, and works incredibly well at.dr_lha said:
Sure, small businesses and personal users can make simple front-ends to things, but there is a whole other side to Access that makes it ideal for corporate and large-scale projects.
State gov't databases aren't something they just let anone create; we've got computer scientists in here doing crazy things with Access. This would sound very silly to someone who thinks Access is for simple projects, but once you've seen the scope of features and implimentations Access has, it's astonishing.
Access isn't just for storing/retreiving data. You can create limitlessly complex applications with Access. Everything from employee data collection, payroll, to as we do - educational and student data.
The only pitfall of Access, where something like Oracle would be better, is in a web-based environment. But because state gov't data is private, there is absolutely no need or desire for this to be on the web, which makes Access not only ideal, but the absolute best choice.
Access is very well-suited for high-end programming and development of complex projects. At the same time, it is very easy for average Joe to use these complex databases, and even edit minor parts of them. Something like Oracle on the other hand, is a disaster for the end user to work with should they need to change anything.
I am willing to bet nearly *anything* that 95% of gov't, federal, and education offices use Access for their data.
Josh said:
I didn't see the sarcasm tags here...you really can't be serious? First, Access only supports 255 users - I would hardly consider this large-scale. Second, Access has a 2GB limit on database size, again barely scratching the large - scale surface - not to mention data security, transactional auditing - the list goes on....and on....and on. Even MS has a paper that tells you when to use Access and when to use an Enterpise level database such as MS SQL Server or some other...
Anyways, I'll politely disagree and would take that wager of yours in a heartbeat...Now how do we prove who's right?
The number of users varies with what the users are doing.kingjr3 said:
Very, very, few databases reach that limit. And, once the limit is reached, Access databases, like most in gov't offices, can be linked indefinitely. You could link two 2gb databases, 3 of them, 10 of them, etc. Individual db size limit means nothing if db's can be linked.kingjr3 said:
Very true - good link, btw. Have you read it?kingjr3 said:
If so, you'd see that the article strongly suggests Access in scenarios such as state/federal gov't offices.
kingjr3 said:
heh..if you figure out how to find out, let me know.
But considering MS Access is the most popular database software in the world, I'm still betting on it.
Josh said:
I'd be careful making a statement like that. I think a lot of databases reach and exceed 2GB in size.
dejo said:
What I mean by that is not that because it is popular, it must be good.
I mean, because it is the most popular, you're going to see it in more places - namely, state/federal offices.
kingjr3 said:
I work in a job where we write database backed applications in a large bank (the apps are for internal use only). We use real databases. Access is not a real database. It's a joke. Within the bank there are a load of cobbled together apps in various countries that are written in Access. They are difficult to support, do not scale and are all being replaced over time with apps running on real databases.
In our case we use Sybase which is very similar to SQL Server (they were once the same product). We have databases that are quite small for our field, so only 10s of Gbs in size!
Access is OK for small time desktop use, a few tens of thousands of rows at most. For anything more do it properly.
Josh said:
I didn't see any mention about recommending Access for state/fed government, perhaps I'm missing it...
But this statement would tell me that if the gov't gave two hoots about security, they probably shouldn't be using Access for sensitive information.
^^
It doesn't specifically say "state/federal office" nor any other office for that matter, but w/ the pyramid of uses they provide, it's easy to see where state/federal offices would fall (ie departmental).
Besides, it's not my choice that they use Acces, they just do, I can't help that
All I'm saying is that they do use it.
It doesn't specifically say "state/federal office" nor any other office for that matter, but w/ the pyramid of uses they provide, it's easy to see where state/federal offices would fall (ie departmental).
Besides, it's not my choice that they use Acces, they just do, I can't help that
All I'm saying is that they do use it.
The same is true for all the people who have large "databases" in Excel, just do it right. And given that SQL Server Express is currently free, why would you even consider using Access with a JET database even for the smaller desktop/workgroup setting?robbieduncan said:
B
Not to mention MySQL and PostgreSQL, which are both way more suitable for larger databases than Access and free.balamw said:
I've seen the consequences of Access over-use first hand, inappropriate use of Access for large databases caused an IT nightmare that a friend of mine was personally hired to fix, and it kept him in employment for about 3 years before he couldn't stand it any more.
Access is fine and dandy, as long as all your users are in the same room or perhaps building. Any more than that you shouldn't be using it.