[fsckboy]

>>Wasn't Microsoft Access basically that?

>No because the datagrid in MS Access is too rigid and doesn't have the extensive slice-&-dice features of MS Excel.

i'm not saying it worked or worked well, but i'm pretty sure the point of Access in the office suite was so that you could access Access (get the clever marketing?) data from within Excel and then do all the excel things you were used to.

anyone know if that worked or didn't? DDE and all those other projects were always pursuing this as a dream

[mjrpes]

Access's database is fairly limited and prone to corruption, especially using in a (local) network setup. The better solution would be to have real backend database and use ODBC to sync in data to Excel and Access. Maybe back in 1995 it made more sense but that's before my time.

Access was pretty amazing on its own back in its day, ignoring its multi-user limitations. It glued together a relational database, visual query builder, GUI/Form Builder, and reporting. You could create forms with sub forms that linked tables together. Also had a datasheet view. All of this without touching VBA code, but VBA was there when you needed it.

[osullivj]

dbase II offered similar capabilities on 8 bit CPM workstation in the early 80s.

[zevon]

I think it worked technically and I‘ve seen a few Access-based solutions to problems faced by people/groups without any real access to development resources. However, these solutions pretty much always came from people with rather technical mindsets and I think many of them involved tinkering in the evening and on weekends. So, my assumption would be that the demise of Access was more about UI/UX, complexity, familiarity and the like than it was about functionality.