|
| Microsoft Access 2003 [OLD VERSION] | ![Microsoft Access 2003 [OLD VERSION]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GTKR0DCNL._SL160_.jpg)
 enlarge | From: Microsoft Software
Category: Software
Buy New: $299.99
New (4) from $299.99
Avg. Customer Rating:  15 reviews
Sales Rank: 1506
Format: Cd-rom
Platforms: Windows 2000, Windows Xp
Media: CD-ROM
Edition: Full
Autographed: No
Memorabilia: No
Number Of Items: 1
Batteries Included: No
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 11.2 x 9.8 x 2
MPN: 077-02870
Model: 077-02870
UPC: 080552930543
EAN: 0659556878818
ASIN: B0000AZJV4
Release Date: October 21, 2003
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Access is a decent engine March 15, 2006
10 out of 11 found this review helpful
MS Access...well, I have been using Access since 2.0, so I know a LOT of the ins and outs.
I do NOT believe that Microsoft is banishing this in favor of SQL Server. First of all, SQL is not a front-end engine. It is a server/back-end one. Anyone who'd programmed SQL for more than 5 minutes would know that. I did and have and SQL, though terrific, is prohibitively costly and not for the local bookstore to develop with.
One user touts Macros. Do NOT NOT NOT use Macros. They are old school. I have not written a macro since version 2 (there was no choice back then). VBA is the way to go.
Many of the "wizards" do a halfway decent job building forms, reports, queries, etc. I actually turn OFF the wizards, but it is a matter of choice (for example, I can write a Command Button VBA code faster than I can wait for the wizard for simple things like Adding Records, Opening Reports, etc.) And I can customize it. I also am not a fan on some of the wizard's variable choices. stDocName drives me crazy.
Access DOES require some effort to learn and master. I do not consider myself a "master" but I am a developer. My employers like to know something about Access and I can tell them some suggestions. Access is great for:
- Small client-server companies
- Companies that require some degree of customization
- The flexibility of adding, configuring and maintaining databases.
- An App people are familiar with. (Personally I tried FileMaker Pro and hated it, it was very cludgy and could not be customized like Access).
You have to WANT to do some work in Access. Those that want a program that will read your mind and create a database with no effort, you ought to look elsewhere. However, if you can live with a small-to-steep learning curve (depends on how much you WANT to get into Access, I chose the steep path and I am still with it). Access is like Word or Excel. You can do some real rough stuff, but you can also fine tune it and get it running like a charm. I have never heard people complain about Excel having "formulas that were too difficult to master". Access is like that too, but you have to have some idea what a relational database IS and how it works. You are not creating spreadsheets here people.
Anyway, that is my opinion and it's a decent product and can make you some money if you learn it. DBA's get good wages and usually know their stuff in Access. Or else you can ignore it and try to convince someone to license something else, when they already use Word and Excel.
If you want no effort and little customization, try FileMaker Pro. (the last version I used had an awful user interface). If you want to move forwards and write some real stuff that REAL companies use, Access is a whole new world.
 Review from an Office developer August 26, 2005
21 out of 21 found this review helpful
I've had the pleasure of developing and maintaining a new database in Access 2003 over the past 6 months. The previous 3 years before that I had developed in Access 97 and migrated to Access XP. So, what are my impressions of 2003?
Overall, 2003 is the same great product that XP was with minimal additional features and some new annoying ones. Here is everything from the help file under the "what's new" section for your viewing pleasure:
* View information on object dependencies
* Error checking in forms and reports
* Propagating field properties
* Smart tags
* Back up a database or project
* Windows XP theme support
* Improved sorting in controls
* Autocorrect options
* Enhanced font capabilities in SQL views
* Context-based Help in SQL view
* Importing, exporting, and linking
* XML support
* Security enhancements
More new features...
* New look for Office
* Tablet PC support
* Microsoft Office Online
* Improving quality for the customer (This is a system tray icon that flashes a tool tip asking for feedback much like beta test software)
From this list, the only notable development improvement is the improved XML support, but unless this support is critical to your application development, I would stay far away from this version and stick with XP (which I rate as 5 stars).
I haven't found any improvements to the Visual Basic editor. There are a few new objects you can reference in VBA: dependency collections, smart tag collections, auto-correct, and sub form objects. Form design is mostly unchanged with no new controls to add to forms. They did improve the design interface with smart tags which helps messing around with controls a little. Propagating field properties sounds nice, but has limited use since it only propagates from table design view to all controls that are bound to it. That sounds dangerous. Are you sure you want to push that button not knowing exactly everything it will change?
The feature that I absolutely abhor in 2003 is the security enhancement. Unless you buy a digital certificate from an online authority like Verisign, the end user will be presented with THREE security warnings every time they open the database. This is absolutely ridiculous. There is a small utility that you can run to create a temporary "development" signature, but this only adds to the user confusion as installing this certificate on their machines will only present them with another security warning. Optionally, you can install a jet service pack and set each user's install to run in "sandbox" mode, but then you are limited in the code you can run on their machines which removes the entire purpose of running Access in the first place.
Nice August 22, 2005
It was easy to set up and works great. Consider getting it as part of the full office set, instead of seperately.
 Caveat Emptor June 16, 2005
71 out of 75 found this review helpful
If you're thinking of buying MS Access 2003 there are a few things you need to consider:
1) Microsoft's new licensing/activation requirement for Office products. Office is a serious cash cow and Microsoft are tired of letting people copy it and use it illegally/for free. Access 2003 has a few new features that Access 2000 and 2002 didn't offer, but for most of us they are not worth it - unless web services, xml, smart tags and wizards turn your crank. If you're anything but a developer, most of Access 2003's new features will not be relevant to you.
2) Access is in some respects a powerful database and client-server front-end program and it may be too much for your needs. Using Access can be as simple or complicated as you let it - and it can get very complicated. If you are a small-business owner trying to get organized, you should probably consider another tool like Filemaker. If, on the other hand, you really want to get a handle on things and are prepared to invest some significant time to learn Access and your business and your database needs are growing, then Access might be for you. It is not an easy tool to use, but it is pretty powerful and a lot more usable than middle-market desktop database development tools like FoxPro and Paradox.
3) If you are a small/mid business user and have heard that Access is a great front-end for the free MySQL server-based database engine, also caveat emptor. Access uses ODBC (Open Database Connectivity) to work with MySQL and the implementation is not great so you'll quickly run into some (though solvable) strange problems... and though you could never argue with the price, MySQL itself is a bit on the not-user-friendly side - and finding support when you have a problem is tough.
4) If you are a SQLServer user, or plan to be at some point and intend to use Access as a starter database that you'll eventually migrate to SQLServer (2000 or 2005) or SQLServer Express (2005), then caveat emptor. Microsoft is punting SQLServer Express as their new low-end database - a free version of the bigger SQLServer to compete with MySQL and replace the somewhat clunkily-named and clunkily-implemented MSDE (Microsoft Desktop Database Engine). The new versions of SQLServer are fully committed to Microsoft's .Net platform - essentially a new common platform for new Microsoft products and development tools - which Access/Office is not a part of. Traditionally, many have used Access as a front-end for SQLServer or MSDE databases. Access has provided a great front-end capability for the more grown-up and complicated back-end database servers. The only doubt on the horizon is whether Microsoft are committed to supporting Access properly with future versions of SQLServer. Access Data Projects (an access database front-end for SQLServer 2000) appear to be on the chopping block. You may still be able to use Access files with "linked tables" to access newer SQLServer versions but they can be more difficult to develop and are less than optimal for anything but small database applications. And if you do fit in this category, why would you consider developing a database application at considerable expense when it might not be completely supported by Microsoft in future?
My very personal feeling is that Access is not long for this world. Access as a database application is caught between trying to be a serious database development tool with support for upstream Microsoft products and being a usable database application for small businesses. It appears that increasingly it is not effectively addressing either role. It started life as a serious database tool and then was opted into the Office product lineup where it has pretty much floundered ever since, while SQLServer has been the focus of Microsoft's attention. Sadly, Microsoft seem to have missed the opportunity to develop Access as the stand-alone database and front-end to SQLServer that it could have been.
Ironically, I have been using Access since the first version came out about 10 years ago and, having taken the time to learn it, find it to be an incredible tool for databse front-end development. But it appears that this product is nearing the end of its useful life mostly because Microsoft seem content to not invest much in the product. I certainly hope that Microsoft are just keeping their plans for an Access .Net version that will again integrate with SQLServer quiet, but indications are that there are no such plans.
If you are a database programmer, Access is simple, easy April 18, 2005
12 out of 15 found this review helpful
I use Visual Foxpro and found Microsoft Access a breeze after I have struggled with VFP for so many years. No object classes, form sets, etc.. Can anyone ever really "know" Foxpro? If you are a database programmer, you will find Access simple and easy to use. Create your switchboard and run only macros from it to launch forms, which in turn, can launch another macro from a button on the form that will run the action queries and the reports. It helps to know some Visual Basic but its not mandatory. It doesn't get any easier than this but I say this as a database programmer. If you are not a DB programmer already, get a little help in the beginning from someone who develops applications with Access. Before you know it, you will be rolling out applications with ease.
|
|
|
Copyright
©
2006 Adminpal LLC | |
