1. Home
  2. Computing & Technology
  3. Databases
Mike Chapple
Mike's Databases Blog

By Mike Chapple, About.com Guide to Databases

Access 2007 Product Review

Sunday January 21, 2007
Microsoft might be competing against Oracle for market share in the server database category, but they maintain a clear lock on desktop databases with Microsoft Access 2007. The price tag may be a bit steep, but you won't find a more functional product anywhere. Read our full review.
Comments
December 15, 2008 at 8:36 am
(1) Charles J. Budde says:

“Won’t find a more functional product anywhere…” Are you joking? Access 2007 is a mess. What could you be referring to? The 2007 version of Access is not an improvement. It is different for no purpose and adds no functionallity that we have found useful.

January 21, 2009 at 1:23 am
(2) Joe the programmer says:

I am amazed at how Microsoft took a product I have been working with since 1995 and convoluted it to the point that I would rather just go back to an older version to develop.
I think the changes to Access 2007 were a big mistake.

January 22, 2009 at 2:06 pm
(3) Bob says:

The previous comments are common from Access developers who first use this totally new interface of Access. I have developed in Access for over 14 years, however Access 2007 still has the old features available, excluding easy custom menu and tool bar creation. The new features can be powerful tools, if understood. Look around and see if you find any PC database that can do all that Access can. Learning and help are available in many areas.
Bob Heifler
MyAccessProgram.com

Contact information:
http://www.myaccessprogram.com/Contact.html

Find example files at:
http://www.myaccessprogram.com/Download.html

Find free video tutorials at:
http://www.myaccessprogram.com/Tutorial.html

April 7, 2009 at 1:26 pm
(4) vba-dev says:

The only “con” is that Access is “relatively expensive”? You are certainly joking.

You obviously are not a developer and, again obviously, have never actually used Access 2007.

I am an Access developer of over 16 years.

2007 is an abomination. It is a complete failure. It is a rebuild of something which was just fine the way it was. Nothing new was added, except one’s ability to USE the thing.

To those who might happen upon this review, and these few comments – take it from a veteran developer: Access 2007 is juvenile. It is not, repeat NOT a serious development platform any longer.

I recommend dropping Access development altogether, unless Microsoft restores Access to what it should be – a real development platform.

April 8, 2009 at 4:15 pm
(5) Mike Chapple says:

I certainly respect your opinion, and thank you for taking the time to share your views. However, I need to respectfully disagree.

Consider the purpose of Microsoft Access: it is a desktop database designed to bring databases to the end user. This is an important niche in the marketplace and I believe that the changes made in 2007 go a long way toward making the product more accessible to the masses.

Yes, it is different. Yes, the interface has changed. But the functionality is still there and the new UI makes it more intuitive. I believe that time will prove Microsoft’s strategy successful.

August 12, 2009 at 3:53 pm
(6) GMS says:

Access 2007 is awful. I am not a developer, just someone who knows a little more about data than the average user and has been using Access since the late 90s to slice and dice data. While the other Office 2007 products use logic when arranging the ribbon, Access 2007 did not. It’s harder to see what you have because of the weird left/right layout of the objects and the screen you are working with. If you run a query and want to re-run it with different criteria, you have to click on the view button on the toolbar to put it in design view then click the create tab on the toolbar to get the right tools. It just takes a lot more clicks to do anything, so I can’t see how that’s an improvement.

September 3, 2009 at 3:37 pm
(7) Josie says:

I concur with the opinion that Access 2007 is an abomination. I have been using Access for over 10 years and thought I would upgrade to 2007 for a new project I am working on. I have had so much trouble navigating the system and wasted so much time with this, I am seriously considering reverting back to an earlier version. I wonder if I can get my money back! What a rip off!

October 6, 2009 at 10:41 am
(8) Mark says:

I moved from being an Access database user on 2003 to doing db design on 2007.

I have had horrific experiences with Access 2007; after learning the incredibly un-intuitive “ribbon” system, I developed a database that uses VBA code. I designed about 20 reports that the database is to use.

Now, the DB is somehow auto-deleting the reports. They simply vanish. Not run reports, but the entire report design.

The work I have done on this database encompasses weeks of effort, and the project is now two months behind as I continue to try to figure out why Access2007 sucks up my work and turns it into vapor.

I have tried saving to three different files to maintain back-up copies, and nothing works. Every week, it is something new.

My frustration cannot be overstated.

November 8, 2009 at 12:02 am
(9) Jason Allen says:

More Functional?? I know its your opinion but ive been developing Access for 10 years now and 2007 is the worst release to date, whoever was put in charge of the GUI should be sacked if thhavent been already.

All the most used functions are in the wrong place and little touches like quick options so familiar in 2003 are out in place of over complicated menus.

I hope they change it back I really do.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

Explore Databases
About.com Special Features

Stay connected and entertained with reviews on tips on the latest HDTVs, cellphones and more. More >

Easy ways to connect two computers for networking purposes. More >

  1. Home
  2. Computing & Technology
  3. Databases

©2009 About.com, a part of The New York Times Company.

All rights reserved.