Microsoft is losing the database war because of this marketing problem with
Access.
Simplistic.
They can't win on non-Windows systems for obvious reasons.
As for Windows systems, it's a question of who's generating the reports. If
it's the IT department, then I'd imagine Crystal Reports is usually
preferred to Access. If outside of IT departments, then Access is often
overkill. If the needed data resides on a server, any ODBC client can fetch
the data. If a lot of manual entries are included in the report,
spreadsheets are more efficient.
The day of the single PC DBMS ended back in the mid 1990s. As soon as
networks became ubiquitous in most larger businesses, the benefits of
centralization were recognized, and databases returned to the tender care of
IT departments.
As for the department in which I work, the people who populate the company's
databases do most of their data entry into character mode applications
originally written in Clipper. Data is collected on local file servers in
..DBF files which are automatically replicated to home office in the wee
hours every night, and are subject to IT validity checking before being fed
in batch into mainframe databases. Any sensible person's reaction to this
configuration should be if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
No spreadsheets in this process. No Access either.
As for what I do, mostly it's statistics and discounted cashflow analysis in
which the timing of cashflows varies from project to project. That means a
lot of data entry with little likelihood of reusing those entries. That may
affect my perspective on the efficiency of data reuse - it just doesn't
matter to me, and I suspect most other moderate to heavy spreadsheet users
face the same situation. And since most of the data I use comes from sources
outside my company, there's very little I can pull from in-house databases.
Access would be more of a hindrance than a help for me. I realize you just
can't understand this, but I've stated it anyway.
the marketing problem with Access is due to beancounters like you who think
that it is 'too difficult' to have to save the file before you start typing
I have to save XLS files before I can do much useful with them.
No, the problem with Access is that it doesn't provide me with any benefits
in what I do. To repeat, I don't get much of the data I need from in-house
systems, and that which I do I can fetch from within Excel. I don't need
Access's query builder, I'm comfortable writing my own SQL. I don't have any
use for .MDB files. I have no use for Access forms since I perfer entry
straight into spreadsheets (free form entry into a grid beats dialog-based
entry into separate fields any time for me, but I'll grant that's a personal
preference and subjective). And I don't produce reports per se, so Access's
reporting abilities do nothing for me either. And if you think it's easier
to structure ANY output exhibit using Access's Report tool than Excel,
you've never had to generate the sorts of exhibits I have.
Microsoft just needs to get their head straight.
No, they see clearly that Access will never be a major revenue source.
Beleive me, if it could be, Microsoft would be pushing it like you wouldn't
believe. You're confused because you rely on it so heavily you believe
everyone else should do so too. Well, the rest of the world doesn't need to
think like you. (THANK GOD!)
The continued marketing problem with Access is smearing SQL Server
They're separate products. SQL Server's problems lie in the fact that,
despite what you believe, it's not as well suited to many database tasks as
mainframes, and it may not be as easy to administer the Windows systems on
which it needs to run as it is to adminsited many *x systems.
You're also ignoring vendor lock-in, which Microsoft has made so much use of
itself. Office is predominant now becasue Lotus completely screwed up in the
early 1990s by believing Windows was no big deal. Microsoft made them pay
for that. It was different with databases. It wasn't mostly non-IT people
who'd be using them, and IT shops already had DBMSs they were using. It's
not as easy as you may believe to change from one DBMS to another, so the
transition would be gradual at best. Access would have minimal influence on
this.
Besides, as I've mentioned before, most IT departments don't give non-IT
users database access beyond what's needed to pull data into client
applications. Access isn't needed for that.
and SQL Server can and DOES compete extraordinarily well against those
LEGACY (obsolete) databases.
Not if those other systems are already paid for. And you're only trotting
out your ignorance if you believe other DBMSs haven't been continuously
upgraded. They may not have all the stuff Microsoft has, but many IT
departments may have decided that all that extra stuff isn't needed or is
less useful than you believe it is. To an APL programmer, there's no other
piece of software that's anywhere near as efficient for number crunching,
but only a fool would believe APL was a mass market system. Perhaps ditto
for OLAP/MDX etc.
Microsoft is just failing to make marketshare gains like they need to.
Failure to make marketshare means buyers don't believe the benefits of
switching to MSFT stuff outweighs the costs. How does this square with your
assertions that MSFT stuff has brought about a revolution? Maybe you're the
only one who believes that?
and it is a marketing problem, not a software problem
So? Microsoft has *NEVER* been shy about marketing anything it thinks will
make it LOTS of money. Perhaps they believe Access, SQL Server, OLAP/MDX
won't make them much money, certainly not enough to justify a big marketing
push. Unlike you, I'm not so arrogant that I think I know how to run MSFT
better than they do themselves. But arrogance and militant ignorance seem to
be at the core of your being.
they need to either embrace Access or drop it.
You don't understand ROI. If it makes decent returns given minimal marketing
costs, they'd be foolish to drop it. But you're the champion of foolish
things, so not surprising you're advocating foolishness.
when I mean embrace Access they need to do this:
1) convince beancoutners like you to get on with your life and start using a
real application
Clever. I use it more than anyone else in my department, but only when it
makes sense to use it. Not for things I can do more efficiently using other
software. And REMEMBER, I don't write reports.
Why should Access be special? Microsoft is slow to fix bugs in all the
Office apps.
3) tell us where Acccess is going to be 10 years from now
Dead? An add-on for Excel?
As a simple query creation tool it's unnecessary MS Query is sufficient.
There are similar tools now on Linux systems. QBE wasn't novel when Access
1.0 rolled out, Paradox had provide it for 6 years previously. Access also
wasn't the first PC-based DBMS to provide SQL, R:Base 3 was.
As a table manager it's unnecessary. Most DBMSs come with GUI DBA tools.
As a report generation tool it's unnecessary. Crystal Reports is at least as
heavily used.
It's a convenience tool, not a necessary tool.
4) make more people have access; include it with a standard edition of
office
More stupidity.
To repeat, Microsoft know a LOT better than you how to make money. They're
not about to include it into the standard edition when they can charge more
for it in professional.
