DataBuster .NET

[Andy Sjostrom]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.soft4ce.com/databuster.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.soft4ce.com/databuster.htm</a><br /><br /></div><a href="http://www.soft4ce.com/aboutus.htm">Software For CE</a> has released a database management application for Pocket PCs: DataBuster .NET. Using the application you can create and manage so-called "Pocket Access" databases on the Pocket PC. It features a form designer and allows you to run queries against the databases.<br /><br />Features include: <br /><li> Programmed with the last technology .NET <br /><li> Beautiful user interface design <br /><li> Create Pocket Access DB <br /><li> Create Pocket Access Tables <br /><li> Create custom Data Entry form <br /><li> Sync with Access Desktop DB <br /><li> Create custom entry controls: ComboBox, EditBox, Checkbox... <br /><li> Access (desktop) compatible <br /><li> Easy database query <br /><li> Sort records <br /><br />So, is this for you? Yes, it is -- if you are into the desktop Microsoft Access and need/want to easily use these databases on the Pocket PC. I think the application looks fine. But there is a slight disharmony in the message, in my opinion. Why make it a key selling point that it is "programmed by the last technology .NET" (latest?) and at the same time aim for supporting a database technology that is, on the device side, getting retired soon? What do you think?

[Ploobers]

When is the Pocket Access file structure being 'retired' and what is replacing it?

[Andy Sjostrom]

I am referring to the database engine, CEDB, that uses "Pocket Access" files (CDB). Future versions of Pocket PCs will be powered by a SQL Server CE-based database engine, instead.

I'd assume that Microsoft continues supporting CDB files (I don't know, though), but CEDB is going to be retired in favor of SQL Server CE.

In essence, "Pocket Access" files are not future technology.

[lapchinj]

… but CEDB is going to be retired in favor of SQL Server CE.

In essence, "Pocket Access" files are not future technology.
This is true and with the development that we've been doing lately at my place we have completely given up on Access 2 years ago and is only concentrating on SQL Server (all flavors). But I still think that Access will be around for a couple of years. Look at the dbf file format, it probably has about as many lines of code written to it as COBOL on a mainframe. And look how many consultants make their living using the technology.

Access was created to revolutionize desktop database when MS claimed that the dbf file format was ancient technology. I think that flopped but we still see a lot of our remote sites still using both (more often dbf). These are profitable smaller companies that we gobbled up that are bringing in the bucks using what MS calls "ancient technology". I guess that's really the bottom line. Create a profitable business using "ancient technology" and sell yourself to a larger company who will rewrite and re-host your business with newer technology - of course to enhance bottom line of the buyer.

I'm not saying that Access will enjoy the same kind of longevity as dbf but I'm sure it will take a while to get out of the system. It's cheap, easy to use and maintenance free which makes it a great database for a small company working on a tiny budget - but as a database it just doesn't scale. I really think that as Access fades away the dbf will pick up most of the slack not SQL Server.

Jeff-

[jimski]

The $100MM firm I work for still uses Access 97 to manage the front ends of most all of our planning, production and inventory management tools. Many of our larger back end tables have been converted to SQL to speed things up a bit, but the apps are very stable running locally or through Citrix servers (up to 50 users logged in at one time).

The platform is simple to develop and maintain. I created several of our primary apps, nearly without writing a single line of code (macros are king). How much easier does it get. Sure hope MS does not abandon it entirely just yet.

[lapchinj]

The $100MM firm I work for still uses Access 97...
Yeah. Like I mentioned all the companies the place I work for either used dbf or access (mostly dbf). They all had the same thing in common - they were all very, very profitable (that's why we bought them). A place like yours would probably go over to SQL if they were pushed to make a change but I think that most smaller places that would go away from Access (bacause MS pushed too much) would go over to dbf. There is a huge community around dbf. But alas, look how hard MS is trying to kill older technologies dbf, Access and even VFP (although I think I got a VFP Beta9 with my MSDN subscription recently)..

I think that dbf will be around longer than Access since it didn't start out as a MS product and a whole cult and commuinity grew up around it before MS bought up FoxPro. That's why I think that these access people will go to dbf before going to SQL unless they're just plain short of processing power. I've seen SQL Server junction tables with a billion records in it - you just can't do that with dbf or Access.

SQL Server becomes very expensive and smaller companies will only move over to it if they need that processing power otherwise dfb is fine.

Jeff-