Let us appeal to Microsoft to increase size limit of ms access db

1. MS Access has been increased from 1 to 2 gigabyte, so therefore Microsoft
can upgrade or improve its size limit.

2. Other say that Microsoft want us to purchase other programming software
that is why they did not increase much the size limit of the database. But it
is also true that we also paid for MS Access product.

3. Others say that 2 gigabyte is already huge enough and moreover when can
create many ms access database file as back-end and connect to its front-end.
That is why there is no need to ask for more improvement. So if that is true,
Microsoft should have not bothered increasing 1 gigabyte to 2 gigabyte size
limit since we just have to create back-end and front-end.

4. Others say, we should learn other programming languages like SQL so we
can make it as back-end. However, most especially to non-professional or
non-formal graduates of programming course, it is hard for us to do that.
That is why we stick to what we know.

5. Others say, it would be difficult for Microsoft to increase the size
limit because doing so would have Microsoft to restructure the engineering of
ms access. If that is true, how come from version 97, Microsoft had able to
increase it to 2 gigabyte in 2000 version. It is worth to mention that
Microsoft had made a huge change for MS Access 2007. Therefore, Microsoft has
the capability to improve the size limit.

6. SQL maintains one db file that has very huge size limit. Why can't MS
Access also have same capacity while programming does not pertain to DATA
STORAGE ALONE. Programming is more geared towards CODING. This is what I
believe because the data in the data store would be useless if it is not
coded to present what we want to achieve.

This would appear like an appeal to all but I also think that this would
appear as an eye opener information.

We hope that Microsoft will understand that there is no difference if MS
Access Database file will be as same storage capacity as SQL. What matters
most is the ability of the programmer to properly code its program for its
data to be useful.


----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm....public.access

"Rommel" wrote in message
...
1. MS Access has been increased from 1 to 2 gigabyte, so therefore
Microsoft
can upgrade or improve its size limit.


A lot of things can be done to the product. At the end of the day this comes
down to what features you add, and what features you add will increase the
sales of the product. The number of requests we see in these newsgroups for
increasing the size of this product is really quite rare.

2. Other say that Microsoft want us to purchase other programming software
that is why they did not increase much the size limit of the database. But
it
is also true that we also paid for MS Access product.

I don't think anybody's said you have to purchase anything else. There are a
good number of free editions SQL server. In fact there's even more competing
products today that also free. The free editions of sql server do allow
larger data file sizes, and they are free.


3. Others say that 2 gigabyte is already huge enough and moreover when can
create many ms access database file as back-end and connect to its
front-end.

The above is essentially correct, it is very rare that people will outgrow
the size of an access database. An average customer record is about 110
characters...that translates into about 15 million records in that table.
Are you really working regularly with access databases that have 10 or more
millions of records in them? This type of usage scenarios do not represent
the average information worker, or even remotely close to anything that the
average access developer is going to use here.

That is why there is no need to ask for more improvement. So if that is
true,
Microsoft should have not bothered increasing 1 gigabyte to 2 gigabyte
size
limit

The main reason why the increased the size limit back then is that they were
changing from using ASCII characters to what's called Unicode. Unicode meant
that they would be able to sell and use MS access to different countries in
the world and be able to support different kinds of languages.

Prior to access 2000 the support of international languages and using access
in different countries was problematic. So the reason why they increased the
size is because unicode takes up twice the amount of space. To mitigate this
increased storage requement, they threw in data compression and doubled the
size. With data compression you do get an increase data storage
capabilities.

I don't think there's very many arguments you can make against the fact that
they increased storage to 2GB in size because they wanted to be able to sell
the product around the world. Again this is a sells driven process that much
decides what features are going to be placed into the product. So, they at
least wanted to keep the capabilities of the product the same, and unicode
whould have 1/2halved the storage ability.

Do you really think they should take resources and developers and manpower
to increase the size limits of access? Do you think that'll actually
translate into greater sales that'll will offset the cost of using those
development resources in this fashion? I can assure you that having met the
access developer team several times that they are working flat out and they
are stretched to the bone in terms of their capabilities. And, they now
own the code for ACE and that means they can at all kinds of cool future
enhancemnts to ACE.

They have to choose from 20 possbile features and choose the options that
will have the best chance of increasing sales for the given amount of
expenditures that they put into the product. All Software development pretty
much follows this path. Unless you have a bunch of idle developers sitting
around doing nothing and you have a bunch of extra money that you plan to
use in a poor fashion, you have to spend your money in the most efficient
manner possible to get the greatest return on that investment.

I mean the question you have to ask your boss here is ask him how come you
guys don't get brand new fancy desks and brand new fancy chairs tomorrow?

The answer is simple:

Purchasing those brand new desks and new fancy chairs will not make the boss
more money. If purchasing those desks was going to make the boss more
money, then why on earth would not the boss purchase those new desks? The
thinking and reasoning goes for increased size limits in MS access. The
access team could spend money on this, but I don't think anyone can make the
case that would offset increased in sales for doing this kind of work.
Frankly, I'd rather see and take that money and add something like a tree
view control or something else that's far more useful from the user's point
of view. in terms of money spent on ACE...they are doing far more
intersting things.

You don't just spend money on features because you think it's a good idea,
if you keep doing that you'll eventually reach a point where your software
company has no more money because it's not implementing features that
generates revenue.


4. Others say, we should learn other programming languages like SQL so we
can make it as back-end. However, most especially to non-professional or
non-formal graduates of programming course, it is hard for us to do that.
That is why we stick to what we know.

You don't have to use nor learn anymore SQL then you're using now in MS
access if you move the backend data to SQL server. The main learning curve
in SQL server is all the management of the server. You don't have to learn
more SQL or some new language. I'd never used SQL server before, and less
than two hours I had linked tables up and running. It's not a big deal and
it's really quite easy to get up to speed the SQL server, this is
especially if you grasp the idea of building queries and tables, which most
of us have done for years in access anyway.


5. Others say, it would be difficult for Microsoft to increase the size
limit because doing so would have Microsoft to restructure the engineering
of
ms access. If that is true, how come from version 97, Microsoft had able
to
increase it to 2 gigabyte in 2000 version. It is worth to mention that
Microsoft had made a huge change for MS Access 2007. Therefore, Microsoft
has
the capability to improve the size limit.

They have the ability to increase the size limit, but for what gain? Exactly
how many people do you know are experiencing restrictions in terms of size
limits? As I mentioned, exactly how many records are you dealing with here?
A few million records fits WELL within the current size restrictions that we
have these days anyway.


6. SQL maintains one db file that has very huge size limit. Why can't MS
Access also have same capacity while programming does not pertain to DATA
STORAGE ALONE. Programming is more geared towards CODING. This is what I
believe because the data in the data store would be useless if it is not
coded to present what we want to achieve.

Well if you really are taking about development and programmers then you
better be true to yourself make a note that ANY seasoned developer will
alwasys split the database into a front end, and a back end.

Perhaps you might want to explain what kind of application you're developing
and why you feel so important to increase the size limits? I have an
application is over 30,000 lines of VBA code, over 160 forms, and the whole
application is less than 10MB in size. in fact if I converted to a mde and
then zip up the file, is still fits on a single floppy disk. So from a
programming coding and forms development point of view, your applications
should be very small.

For access 2007 they finally did fix the picture bloating problem, and even
storing images inside an access database does not now cause it to grow or
bloat too much at all. so some issues that caused a lot of storage
requirements have been fixed.

on the other hand do feel free to explain and expand on what you're doing
that has such high storage requirements.

Perhaps you take a minute here to explain what kind of data files you have
and why they are so large?


This would appear like an appeal to all but I also think that this would
appear as an eye opener information.

We hope that Microsoft will understand that there is no difference if MS
Access Database file will be as same storage capacity as SQL. What
matters
most is the ability of the programmer to properly code its program for its
data to be useful.


At the end of the day I'm not trying to throw some cold water on your
suggestion. I find the limits of access so high that in fact if I ever
reached the limits of the product in terms of data, then it is likely at
that point in time I need to use some different storage mechanism. Even when
you do outgrow the data storage ability you can continue to use MS access as
the development tool and simply move the data into something with a higher
capacity.

At the end of the day you can not expect a little passenger car to haul the
same amount of goods as a big heavy duty transport trailer truck.

I'm open to any suggestions here and I will certainly take the opportunity
go to bat for anybody here about the size limits of a accDB file to the
access team if a good case is made here.

On the other hand I think there's a LOT MORE cool other kinds of things that
they could do with the ACE engine.....

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

Rommel wrote:

Albert has already replied quite eloquently. I'm a bit more simple
minded at times.

I respectfully disagree. SQL Server isn't that much more work to
learn to use once you're familiar with Access. The concepts are very
similar in that you have tables, indexes and relationships. It's a
viable growth plan and has a *lot* of features for the large dataset
that Access/Jet simply doesn't have.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/

thanks for the opinion Sir.

Same as you said, Microsoft have expensed making sql server lite and other
softwares to be free so why not expense it to ms access if microsoft is to be
a user friendly software amongst the rest. they have expensed making access
2007 much more useful for the users to the extent of revising the overall
IDE, they have expensed upgrading size limit of 97 version to 2000 version.
So much expense have been made in the long run so why not go for an EXTRA
MILE for only a small request since as you have said they have the capacity
of doing it. What Im saying is that, they have incurred also those expenses
of creating new and free stuffs, so maybe the cost of upsizing the size limit
is not that big as compared to creating free stuffs and other new products to
be sold to the market. and since there would be new product like MS Access
2007, why not add the capacity to handle huge data storage.


what I am really after for the storage capacity is the continuity of records
from year to year or if decades to decades especially if that will really eat
up storage.

thanks for the opinion Sir, but I have a reply first to Mr.Kallal that you
may want to read first. thanks again.

"Rommel" wrote in message
...
thanks for the opinion Sir.

Same as you said, Microsoft have expensed making sql server lite and
other
softwares to be free so why not expense it to ms access

But you're forgetting that they had the product already built, and simply
removed features, NOT added features. That is a grand canyon of a difference
here then spending money on new features. In this example they are removing
features, not adding features.

Of course the other reason why they did is that giving away a free edition
of SQL server INCREASES the adoption rate, and therefore drives more sales
into the paid for edtiions of SQL server. Again at the end of the day you
have to make a cost issue and tell me how much more sales you're gonna get
from increasing the size of a jet base file system?

Also, in the case of sql server there was several competing products that
started giving away light or reduced versions for free allso. So, again they
were forced to compete, again this comes down to the money issue.

You've not told me how many MORE users out there gonna run out and purchase
MS access because the data file size was increased? You've not made a case
that says the whole bunch to users will say golly, I'm now going to use MS
access because now supports larger file sizes. Furthermore you not even made
a case to tell me that how many access using a year are leaving thje product
because they are outgrowing the data file size ability?

I been using the product for more then10 years and none of my clients and
none of my users have ever outgrown the product, or even come close out
growing the product in terms of the data storage issue.

In other words, I'm hard pressed to find the average user or even the vast
majority of users in access who are outgrowing the data file size issue.
Therefore if very few people are outgrowing the data file for issue, then
how can you make the case to spend more money on this issue? There is about
10,000 posts a month in the access forums and is is RARE that somebody says
that the data file sizes are too small.

You'd not made a case for spending this money on this issue.


if microsoft is to be
a user friendly software amongst the rest. they have expensed making
access
2007 much more useful for the users to the extent of revising the overall
IDE

The problem is you're forgetting that the access team does not own, nor did
they write the ribbon code. In a sense the ribbon was forced on the access
team and they did not really have a choice in this matter. This is very much
like the uni-code issue. For unicode it was to allow access to become an
international product and support different languages. This meant they HAD
TO adopt unicode since all of office was going to use Unicode. That meant
they had to double the file size since each character you typed into a form
now takes two characters where in access 97 typing one character only stored
one character. Now, you store two characters for each keystroke.

On the other hand it's pretty easy make a business case to that going to
unicode was going to increase sales of the product substantially.

So, no, the acces team does not own the ribbon code for that new UI system.
Furthermore the ribbon teams code cost was spread over many products and
given to many of the office products. So, the ribbon is not somthing that
ONLY the access was going to beneift from. Most important keep in mind here
is that the expenditure on the ribbon system is going to be costed over over
all the office products. All the products were going to benefit from the use
of the ribbon system, not just access.

, they have expensed upgrading size limit of 97 version to 2000 version.

No, that's not quite how it happened. What they did was look at all of the
NEW sales of making the product work in other languages around the world. It
was a really big limitation of the product to be restricted to English only.
So, once again the increase in size was not because they wanted to increase
the size, it was because they're going to use unicode. As I said it does not
take much to figure out that that was going to vastly improve the size of
the marketplace for the product. So once again, they can increased the data
size becuase of bein forced to use uni-code, but that was because they
wanted to sell into international markets and non English language
marketplaces. They needed unicode for this goal. The goal was not increasing
the data file size, the goal was increasing sales into other marketplaces.


So much expense have been made in the long run so why not go for an EXTRA
MILE for only a small request since as you have said they have the
capacity
of doing it.

They're capable of doing it, but for what gain? How much difference is is
going to make an overall sales?

In the above examples I could make it clear and obvious business case for
vastly increased sales when they changed those particular features of
access.

What Im saying is that, they have incurred also those expenses
of creating new and free stuffs, so maybe the cost of upsizing the size
limit
is not that big as compared to creating free stuffs and other new products
to
be sold to the market.

It might be, but then again it might not be.

It is pretty simple and obvious logic that giving away free light versions
of SQL gets people to adopt the paid for versions also.


what I am really after for the storage capacity is the continuity of
records
from year to year or if decades to decades especially if that will really
eat
up storage.

You not given any REAL numbers as to the size and number of records you are
storing here. As I said, a typical backend database will store millions of
records now.

If you can put in 4 years worth of data now, then doubling the data size
will only get you to 8 years. After 8 years then what will you do? You will
be right back to square one and splitting up the data up into multiple files
of each of several years apiece anway. Does that extra 4 years make that
much of a difference?

Again for typical usage, it's really hard to make the case to increase the
data file size, it's just a rare limitation. For most access developers it
doesn't come much into play.

Now perhaps your situation is unique and different and you really do require
this additional storage ability. I think the only really practical solution
you have that this point in time is to come up with a way to split the data
up into multiple years.

If your data storage requirements really have become this high, using JET is
likely is not the correct product to store this data...

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

As an observation, Tony posted before your reply according to the time
stamps I see in my newsreader, so reading your reply first was not an
option.

"Rommel" wrote in message
...
thanks for the opinion Sir, but I have a reply first to Mr.Kallal that you
may want to read first. thanks again.

=?Utf-8?B?Um9tbWVs?= wrote in
:

how come from version 97, Microsoft had able to
increase it to 2 gigabyte in 2000 version.

Unicode, which doubled the number of bytes per character stored.

This is not complicated -- that was a relatively easy conversion. My
guess is that there is one of those hardwired limitations within the
Jet database engine (like the old 8-bit limit to the number of rows
in Excel, finally removed in Excel 2007) that would require some
major re-engineering.

You don't know enough about it to say whether it would be hard or
easy.

And I don't think MS has any interest in making Jet/ACE more capable
-- it goes against the entrenched interests of all the other
products that MS sells.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

=?Utf-8?B?Um9tbWVs?= wrote in
:

they have expensed upgrading size limit of 97 version to 2000
version.

You mean from Jet 3.5 to Jet 4.0. Again, this was possible because
of implementing Unicode support. 1,000,000,000 (roughly speaking --
I can't be bothered to calc the actual number!) double-byte
characters require 2GBs to store. If you change the format to store
1 billion double-byte characters, you can automatically store 2GBs
of single-byte characters.

Again, this was not likely to have been a difficult process. Likely
much more difficult was re-engineering the Access application to
work with double-byte character sets.

I'm afraid you just don't know what your talking about and you just
look churlish in insisting that your uninformed point of view is
correct.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"Albert D. Kallal" wrote in
:

That meant
they had to double the file size since each character you typed
into a form now takes two characters where in access 97 typing one
character only stored one character. Now, you store two characters
for each keystroke.

More exactly, they had to allow for the storage of double-byte
characters. But text fields default to having Unicode compression
ON, so this means if you're not using double-byte characters
anywhere, you get twice the capacity. That is, if you've got Unicode
compression turned on, it doesn't store two bytes for each keystroke
at all.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/