Increase size limit of ms access request to microsoft

[rommelgenlight]

hi to everyone! I have requested microsoft through their customer service email if it is possible to increase the size limit of the database. I noticed that ms access 97 limit is 1 gigabyte and ms access 2000 to 2007 is 2 gigabyte. I talked to our country's local microsoft office branch and they told me that the request maybe granted depending upon the number of users who will request for the increase. Therefore I would like to appeal to all users of all MS Access to join me to email to Microsoft through their website contact to email them our concern. I have requested them if possible to increase it to 100 gig or even to terabyte. Let us help one another so that our request maybe granted as soon as possible.

[Ancient Dragon]

MS Access is not a good choice for large databases. Move on to something else, such as MySQL, Sybase, or Microsoft SQL Server. I don't know what the max size is of their databases but I know they are better than Access. So I would not ask M$ to increase Access's file size because it won't make a bad database any better.

[rommelgenlight]

you know if your saying ms access database will make a bad database, why did microsoft made it in the first place if it will make a bad database. You are very pessimistic.

On the other hand, I am very optimistic using ms access of its capabilities and for future use and improvements.

We are not in-depth programmers but we learned how to use the product. We are contented of its simplicity and easy usage. So if your happy using other products, we too are happy using what we know.

[Ezzaral]

You can be offended all you want, but Ancient Dragon is correct. MS Access is not good for large databases.

Just because you don't want to move beyond what you already know and are comfortable with doesn't make it a good solution.

[Ancient Dragon]

Here are some pros and cons for using MS Access database. The author listed 11 pros and 15 cons. IMO the biggest reason for not using it is database table/file corruption that can occur with large tables and/or too many users.

But is you only have a couple users and fairly small number of rows in the tables, Access might be a good choice for you.

[almostbob]

you know if your saying ms access database will make a bad database, why did microsoft made it in the first place if it will make a bad database. You are very pessimistic.

think
windows vista
windows xp initial release
windows 98 famous bluescreen on release

ms dont care whether it is good
just good enough to sell

[jbennet]

I have requested them if possible to increase it to 100 gig or even to terabyte

It would break compatibility. Older versions of windows cant use files over 4gb in size.

Secondly it would require a rewrite of everything. Windows's JET engine and ADO probably arent designed to handle numbers that high.

MS aint going to do it.you know if your saying ms access database will make a bad database, why did microsoft made it in the first place if it will make a bad database. You are very pessimistic.

MS only designed access to be used for small scale tasks, e.g clubs/societies, individuals, very small businesses.

It isnt meant for larger scale deployments. For that, you really aught to use Microsoft SQL, MySQL, Oracle or something.

[malibumax]

I have deployed many Asccess databases for my company...a very large company. Access may have its quircks, but you learn to program around them, install updates, and become a better programmer. With Access you can still develop a front end GUI rapidly and use multiple back ends. There is maintenance required in any database which is why we all should still have jobs. I use Access to network four different countries with no front end crashes.

Identify the issues and implement the fixes. If you want to use a different platform then identify the needs first. Several products work well. It will depend upon which one you will master.

It would break compatibility. Older versions of windows cant use files over 4gb in size.

Secondly it would require a rewrite of everything. Windows's JET engine and ADO probably arent designed to handle numbers that high.

MS aint going to do it.

MS only designed access to be used for small scale tasks, e.g clubs/societies, individuals, very small businesses.

It isnt meant for larger scale deployments. For that, you really aught to use Microsoft SQL, MySQL, Oracle or something.

[debasisdas]

I have requested them if possible to increase it to 100 gig or even to terabyte.

Go for Oracle , version 10g supports 8 million terabytes.

I think that would be enough for all your data.

[jwenting]

Go for Oracle , version 10g supports 8 million terabytes.

I think that would be enough for all your data.

yah, but iz no free to download from p2p network!

[debasisdas]

yah, but iz no free to download from p2p network!

Neither is MS Access

Download and use it for personal use, no one is going to ask you to pay till you ask for support.

I can't see quality in anything that comes for free.:S

[jwenting]

Download and use it for personal use, no one is going to ask you to pay till you ask for support.

I can't see quality in anything that comes for free.:S

Wrong on both counts.
Oracle regularly sweeps the net for copies of its software in use in violation of license terms.
There are ways to detect Oracle application stacks, though especially application servers.

And there's a lot of free products that are quite good. Oracle XE for example is good, Firebird SQL is excellent, etc. etc.

[almostbob]

I can't see quality in anything that comes for free.:S

PHP ?

[jwenting]

PHP ?

php would be a great example of not getting quality in something free...

[Ancient Dragon]

SqLight is free, but I don't know the max file size it supports. Since you have to compile it with the application program my guess is that it supports files as large as those supported by your compiler.

[nonlinearly]

Hey...guys... listen me...
I develop Access project for many situations and for many companies for many years. I have also experience in other platforms (VB,ASP,SQL Server,MySql...).
Only those that have not developed Access projects in depth say that Access is a bad product. These people think more academic and less professional... These people are those that would kill a fly with a hydraulic press. Yes... of course hydraulic press is better but for other situations. All depends from the project. For 9 of the 10 projects Access (especially the last two versions) is a very good choice. But even if we need more robust back-end database engine Access has a role again as a front and to make even a robust client-server application. Only those that do not know Access have an objection. The market is not an academic institution.

[Ancient Dragon]

I would agree that as a single-user or maybe even two-user database Access is probably just as good as any other. The problem with Access comes in with multiple-user. When there are three or more simultaneous connections Access becomes very very slow and frequently corrupts the database files.

>>The market is not an academic institution

True -- but it something won't work in academic environment it won't work in business either.

[nonlinearly]

"Ancient Dragon" I will refute you... I have an Access 2007 app in an multi user environment (10 users!!) and everything are ok... Of course if I have to increase the number of concurrent users while the database size increases then must go to another back-end and this only if the the forms and controls are bounded to the data. Else, as I have mentioned before, Access has a role as independent front-end interface using another database engine as back-end. With this form we can make a truly client/server application. Also, do not forget the role of Access as a daily tool for quick data management. In this, nothing can compete it.
Thanks

[Ancient Dragon]

I used Access in an environment that had about 60 users and had to replace it with Sybase Server (this was in late 1990s). I'm not sure how you used Access as a front-end to another database, but that's ok because I'm not really interested.