Related
It's been 10 years since this question was asked and answered here and I'd like to see what current thoughts are.
We have a third party app that we've supported for at least that long. It's an Access runtime application that connects to SQL Server and contains highly confidential data.
Some years ago we moved the database to an SQL Server running on Server Core. More recently we've been asked to run the first upgrade of the database schema in 6 years. The vendor provided upgrade package appears to be built using VB6 and won't run on the server. It also doesn't support running the updates remotely. We have a couple of ways that we can get it done but it has presented me with an opportunity to finally move on from what I think is not an enterprise product.
As part of that I've been asked why I think this product is so bad and, in my estimation, antiquated. My immediate internal response is that it's not a real application, it's Access. That's compounded by the fact that we're paying a pretty good bit for it and I think that there are better, more robust solutions now available that are also cheaper (I think in the end that's all that should matter).
That said I acknowledge that there my be some bias in my opinions on this particular app. Looking back at that old post a few things stand out.
I think there's a big difference between internally developed applications built this way and paid for solutions. Supporting an internally developed app written in Access may still have some positives. I don't think the positives pointed out in the top answer hold up when you're paying someone for it. The disadvantages are precisely what we're running in to.
Reporting isn't being done in Access. It's now mostly being done with outside tools. Most users want to see web based reporting.
A couple of the responses mentioned professional Access developers or this type of application being the COBOL of the 21st century. I think that's an apt description. I'm not sure professional Access developers still exist. How long should we try to maintain this and how long do we think the vendor will be able to?
I think the main mistake about Access is to consider it as a tool made for amateurs to develop applications. It can work this way, but keep in mind that amateur development will give you amateur applications, while professional development will give you professional results
Maybe this is the crux of my problem in particular. I'm not convinced that our application is 'professional'. It feels semi-pro if I'm generous. The VB6 updater is one clue and there are other components that have given me cause for concern over the years.
Fair or not, in my mind, most, if not all Access applications in the enterprise have these same issues. At the end of the day, the question is whether it serves the needs of the department using it.
Where does Access fit in the enterprise in 2019?
I know this is not a programming question per se, but I wanted to get as much input from the SO community on a new project I hope to get started. The project is from being started from scratch and thus every decision for programming languages, databases, frameworks, platforms and what not are up in the air. I'm hoping to get your opinion on the matter, what you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of each option.
Database:
Currently I have the option of using MSSQL or MySQL. While I am leaning towards using MySQL because it is free and most probably has all the features I need. However, there is the possibility of having a lot of hierarchical data and the new hierarchical data type in MSSQL is quite appealing. Does it really simplify matters that much? Also MSSQL supports many more advanced SQL functions that may or may not be useful in the long run. While for development I can get access to Server 2008, multiple licenses as the development team grows and for production, are the costs justified?
Programming Languages:
The project will have a web based front end UI and a server based component that will do some heavy lifting.
For the web based UI, I was thinking of maybe doing Apache/IIS with PHP or IIS with ASP.Net in C#. I'd like to use a good framework to properly utilize good design patterns that should structure the code and development of the app. As well as make modifications in the long run easy to implement. I also want the GUI to look good and don't like the idea of buying .Net controls from component vendors. Instead I prefer the idea of using good CSS, and open sources like YUI and javascript to make the UI sleek.
For the server based component, I was thinking of using C#. I have no real development experience in C++ and I'd like good libraries and sufficient speed is good enough. However, while the web based UI and server based component is loosely coupled, there may be instances where the UI needs to communicate (call methods and what not) with the server based component and I want to pick languages/frameworks that will play nice with each other.
All suggestions on frameworks to incorporate are welcome.
Version Control:
I have had good experiences with SVN and a pretty bad experiences with TFS. I've never worked with GIT. Which do you think is better in terms of features as well as general developer familiarity. I want to pick something that other developers will know and not have trouble with.
I apologize if the questions are bit redundant or I'm not providing enough information or using bad terminology. I plan to edit and improve the question as I get feedback. Thanks!
EDIT:
Who: This would most probably be a startup formed of college students or junior developers. I want the project to utilize technologies that most people are familiar with or are easy to pick up.
What: I'd need hours and days to explain the solution. But in the end when you break it down, its a web based UI (think standard web app to just manage database data) that would be used to knowledgeable clients. The server based component would be very separate except for the fact that it should be able to communicate with the web app.
I can provide more information as required but I would appreciate an opportunity for users to answer and provide their ideas before you hastily close the question.
Obviously it depends a lot on specific requirements, but then again, even with those I probably wouldn't be able to tell for sure!
I've been working on a from-scratch project myself for a couple of months, and have generally found:
Choosing Microsoft for all the layers just goes down much easier (my subjective opinion). For example I would use C# for the UI, the back end, and use MSSQL for the database. Nothing at all wrong with non-Microsoft vendors, I'm no Microsoft fan-boy, I just struggle to get productive with unfamiliar tools. Depends where your experience lies though.
Database: In particular I've found that .NET and MSSQL go easily together. When I started the project I was using a PostgreSQL (because it's free, fully featured and has open-source warm fuzzies). However I abandoned it in favour of MSSQL simply because it was taking me too long to get database work done in an unfamiliar language with unfamiliar tools. Also, I'm not sure MSSQL is so expensive anymore, for example for a web application, MSSQL 2008 Web Edition is pretty damn cheap per-processor I think (only on SPLA licensing though). If you're concerned about database features in a free implementation though, personally I think PostgreSQL has a very full feature set, nicely standardised, and rapidly growing.
UI: I'm pretty inexperienced, but ASP.NET MVC looks far less painful to me than ASP.NET Web Forms. I like PHP too, but again I'd match the UI language with the back-end language, so would recommend .NET.
On frameworks, I'm immersed in DALs at the moment. I like Subsonic for lightweight data, NHibernate for heavy-weight.
I still have a long way to go with my project so perhaps I can only see the short-term benefits and drawbacks at the moment. But in general I would say: use the technologies that you're most comfortable using, as you'll be way more productive and the end result will probably be about the same anyway. If you want to learn new technologies though, and who doesn't? - go ahead, just expect it to take a lot longer.
Didn't want to answer 'cause it's so open ended. But a few points:
Money
First, check out BizSpark. That should take care of any money aspect for 3 years. For a service company, that means not only free VS Team Suite and Office and so on, but free Windows, SQL, etc. If your startup can't afford to spend a bit on MS tech in 3 years, it's probably a bad business. So that takes out licensing.
On a similar note, Sun has Startup Essentials. Could be interesting on the hardware side of things, but I haven't actually competitively priced them versus Dell/HP.
Software
It doesn't sound like you have hard enough requirements to say "oh, this slightly-less-popular software X is perfect for my domain Y and is gonna give me a very big boost". In fact, your project might not be like that at all. Maybe it, technically, is going to be a relatively plain application just pushing data around or whatever. You didn't specify.
For a small startup, personal productivity is probably going to trump any other argument. If your people are excellent in X, then that's one of your top arguments right there.
If you really don't have any particular system you're most comfortable with, be conservative. Stick with .NET or Java, as they'll give you the widest range of useful possibilities.
As far as things like OS and Database, I'm biased, but I think Microsoft will give you platforms that are easier to take advantage of than you'll find elsewhere. For instance, setting up load balancing, clustering, centralized authentication, managing servers (updates, events, etc.) is going to be easier to get going on Windows than it would be on another platform, assuming you're not an expert in either. Configuring SQL Server, even the advanced features, is a piece of cake. (Go time someone who knows neither: Setup a DB mirror in MSSQL and MySQL -- which is going to take more work?) Again, this is all predicated on you not having experts in a particular set of technology.
Don't mix -- whatever you do, stick with the platform. If you go .NET, MSSQL is going to work better with the data providers (or things like Linq-to-SQL). If you decide to do PHP, then use MySQL as everyone else uses it and you'll encounter less resistance. If you're not inventing stuff on the technical side, don't become an edge case.
You should pick the platform first, then the language that is best for that platform (if there is any choice).
One thing you should consider is the labor pool, and labor pool cost, for specific platforms and languages. Human Resources can often get cost metrics, if you don't have ideas already.
In my town, for example, .NET platform is much more expensive per Software Engineer than open source, because the .NET developers have a higher rate (40% roughly). C# is a little higher rate than VB.NET, but also tends to bring more well rounded candidates.
Just to throw in something totally different: How about weblocks as a web framework? It uses Hunchentoot as a server, which can run either standalone or with Apache. This is all done in Common Lisp. Weblocks can use cl-sql as a backend store, which can connect to many different RDBMs (MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, ODBC, SQLite).
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
A potential customer has asked me to look at some promotional flyers for a couple of apps which fall into the contact management / scheduler category. Both use Filemaker as their backend. It looks like these two apps are sold as web apps. At any rate I had not heard of Filemaker in about ten years, so it was surprising to see it pop up twice in the same sitting. I think it started out as a Mac platform db system.
I am more partial to SQL Server, MY SQL, etc, but before make any comments on Filemaker, I'd like to know some of the pros and cons of the system. It must be more than Access for Mac's, but I have never run across it as a player in the client / server or web app arena.
Many thanks
Mike Thomas
Calling Filemaker Pro, Access for the Mac is kind of like saying, Mac OS X is Windows for the Mac. They're both in the same category of software, they're integrated programming environments. It's like you have MySQL, PHP, HTML and your editor put together in a GUI. Comparing the two, they both have pros an cons. Here are the pros and cons of using Filemaker Pro vs PHP/MySQL/HTML in my experience.
Pros:
Easy to get started
Easy to deploy locally, turn on sharing and connect from another client
Cross-platform (Mac OS X, Windows, iOS)
There are many plugins available to extend functionality
Includes starter solutions
Anyone with access can edit the program
For the most part, drag and drop programming
Changing field/database/script names after the fact is free
Has some neat built in tricks like built in graphs, tab controls, web viewers
Built in support for importing exporting excel, cvs, tab-formatted
Cons:
Inflexible: it does what it does well, but if you need more your out of luck for the most part
Expensive compared to the free alternative: It costs about $100 per year for a local user, $150 per developer, if you are using it as a website you need specialized hosting, which tends to cost more. In addition the server part of the software is about $300-$800 a year
The plugins required to extend functionality can be expensive as well
Pretty much only drag and drop programming, you can only use predefined script steps, relationships are made by making a graph
Source control is problem
Lack of scalability
Unable to copy and paste/import or export some items from solutions
Requires the mouse to access functionality
Layout design is fairly static and dated (this is improving with the Filemaker 12 and above)
In general I would say that if you're developing exclusively for the web or a large organization Filemaker Pro probably isn't the best fit. It's difficult to have multiple people developing on the same solution. On the other hand, for a smaller organization in need of a customizable in-house database it could be a great boon. You can build rather complicated applications very quickly with it if your willing to deal with it's deficiencies.
Pros:
It's cheap
Cons:
It's cheap(ly made)
It's non-standard (easy to find
MySQL/Oracle/MSSQL/Access experts
but nobody knows Filemaker)
Using subpar and/or nonstandard technologies only creates technology debt. I've never found a respectable dev that actually enjoyed (or wanted to) using this niche product.
In my opinion this product exists because it is Access for Macs, and it gained enough of a userbase and existing applications that enough people bought each upgrade to keep it in business. There are many products on the market that still exist because it's users are locked in, not because it's a good choice.
I'll admit to bias on this subject -- I work with one of the larger FileMaker development shops out there, and have written the odd book on the subject. We actually employ many respectable developers who love using FMP. I'll try to keep it brief. :-)
FileMaker Pro is a rapid app development tool. It's primarily client-server, though it has some very respectable web publishing capabilities which work well for many applications. It is not SQL-based, but does have ODBC and JDBC interfaces, as well as an XML/HTTP interface.
As far as lock-in, FileMaker Inc has grown sales steadily, with very significant growth in new users who are attracted to the platform's solidity and ease of use.
I think Matt Haughton nailed it -- for the right applications, FMP is simply the best choice going. That said, your customer is looking at apps written in FMP Pro, and you need to evaluate those apps on their own merit. They may be good instances of FMP development, or they may not.
To know more about FMP's fitness for the task, we'd need to hear more about the proposed application and user base. Are these indeed web apps, or client-server? How many users will be using it? Do they work at one or two site, or are they spread across the Internet?
Happy to elaborate further if there's more interest.
FileMaker is designed to integrate very simply with other databases and client applications. If you are looking at building a complicated distributed system, look elsewhere.
FileMaker is NOT good to use as a front-end to another datasource due to the design goals of the External SQL Data Sources (ESS) feature set, and it is NOT good to use as a back-end to anything other that the FM client due to slow and buggy ODBC drivers. The nature of FileMaker's architecture means it doesn't scale very well with complicated solutions regardless of how well it can integrate with other systems.
Here's a developer's perspective on some limitations I've found when teaming FileMaker with other back-ends and ODBC clients:
The ODBC driver is limited, slow, and leaks memory on the client-side. The xdbc_listender.exe has similar memory leaking issues on the server side and will eventually crash when it uses a certain amount of RAM. We have a scheduled script to restart it each night.
FileMaker needs to load all related databases into memory before it can connect to a database. If its a complicated database, opening and closing a connection can be quite slow (1-2 seconds) depending on how it is structured, and more so if the database references tables in other FM databases because they need to be loaded as well. I get around this by creating persistent connections that stay open for the lifetime of the application. Although we try to minimize the number of open connections, we have yet to see a performance hit on the server.
The ODBC driver interprets queries in strange ways. For example I ran a query on 76k rows to UPDATE table_1 SET field_1 = 1 and it took 5 mins to perform the query because I think it split the one query into 46k update queries, one for each row. I know this because I watched it update the rows one-by-one in the FM client. So I don't trust the ODBC driver at all.
Here's another example of 3 different queries and how long they took searching on two date fields:
SELECT id FROM table
WHERE datefield1 = {d '2014-03-26'}
.5 seconds
SELECT id FROM table
WHERE datefield2 = {d '2014-03-26'}
.5 seconds
SELECT id FROM table
WHERE datefield1 = {d '2014-03-26'} OR datefield2 = {d '2014-03-26'}
1 minute 13 seconds!
We had problems with how FileMaker cached data from an SQL Express database. We tried to run the command to clear the cache, but it didn't always work (spent a lot of time investigating this).
FileMaker uses pessimistic locking of records; before editing (from the client or as part of an odbc transaction) FileMaker attempts to lock the row first.
The FileMaker Server service "prefers" being stopped using the Admin Console (though the Admin Console may sometimes be unable to stop it either). If the FileMaker Server service stops any other way (including power loss, via the management console, or even a normal system shutdown) then some of your databases may become corrupt. Same if a client crashes during an operation, or if the network connection is lost suddenly. The solution for a power loss is to write a batch script to try and automate the shutdown, and then buy a UPS and program it to execute your script before the juice runs out. And hope it works. Otherwise backup hourly using the built-in scheduler. Aside: SQL server doesn't have this problem because it can roll back uncommitted transactions.
Performing backups with the built-in scheduler actually suspends operations to the database during backup process. ie, if its a large database, then it might take a minute to backup and users will notice the pause because they wont be able to edit/insert, etc.
If you're using the FileMaker PHP API, take note that you can't use AND and OR together in the same request.
Running an intensive query using the ODBC driver might be fast on its own, but run the same query simultaneously (as in a multi-user environment) and it will slow down by about 300% exponentially. You will run into speed issues if you’re expecting a large volume of intensive queries to hit the database at the same time.
We have found that when the FileMaker ODBC driver says it has finished an update/insert operation, it still does not guarantee the transaction is committed; it appears that FileMaker will continue to hold the changes in the server cache until the auto-enter calculated fields are evaluated/indexed and then it saves to disc, meaning there may be more of a delay until the record is actually committed. So really the ODBC write operations are not always immediate writes, but rather eventual writes. This delay will be especially evident in complicated tables with many calculated fields and triggers.
Calculated fields may slow down execution and reading via the ODBC driver, depending on what is being evaluated. Try to read stored values whenever possible.
Using BLOB containers: Not Recommended. Storing documents such as PDFs in a container field will inflate your database file size, take longer to backup and complicate the retrieval and editing of those files via ODBC. It’s much easier to store files on a network share and write to the file on disk.
If you must use FM as a front-end solution to another database, make sure to carefully read FileMaker's Introduction to External SQL Sources.
Also refer to the the appropriate version FileMaker ODBC Guide found on their website.
Just a few comments on the subject
FileMaker is certainly cheaper than some enterprise solutions in licensing costs. However, the real cost benefit is in development time. The development life-cycle is typically orders of magnitude lower than other enterprise platforms (whatever the licensing costs of those platforms). By this I mean days instead of weeks, or weeks rather than months to develop some feature.
There is a strong argument that FileMaker is Access for the Mac. While this was a valid argument a few years ago, FileMaker has come into its own in recent years. It's worth noting that FileMaker is cross platform and used extensively on Windows as well as Mac. That being said there are still huge similarities and differences between FileMaker and Access, the truth is none of them have any bearing on your situation.
While FileMaker is non-standard it does support live connection to MySQL, MS SQL Server and Oracle.
Also, there are numerous FileMaker developers not as much as more standard platforms, but they are definitely about, if you let me know where you are I can put you in touch with a selection of developers in your area.
The important point I want to make is that in the correct context FileMaker is the best thing in the world at what it does - if you try to do something that it's not meant to do, you'll get stuck. However, it could support offices in 4 locations, it can and is being done.
Before you go and rewrite your system in some other platform you should get in touch with a FileMaker expert and see what they have to say about what you've currently got, writing more details on this site and having non-experts answer positively or negatively won't help you. In the end it has to be a business choice of costs vs. benefits.
No need to list anymore "Cons" - but here is a significant "Pro" - Filemaker Go. Once you have your database setup, download a ipad/iphone app (free for FM12) and run it from a mobile device. The database can be stored locally on the ipad/iphone or synced back to a host PC.
I'm sure this mobile solution is possible elsewhere - but the fundamental point is that an entry-level user (and I mean NO previous database experience) can create an impressive solution within a few weeks.
Personal experience: main database running FM 11 hosted on PC under my desk - 4 researchers scattered across the city collecting data on ipads - all syncing back to my PC. Previous solution was using paper and entering in data by hand.
FileMaker is an interesting app :) It started as an end-user tool and it still is one of very few database apps that a non-programmer can actually use. But somehow FileMaker developers managed to make it very scalable. There's no other platform where one can start with a useful tool and end up with a client-server app that for the whole company. In old days they used to have a splash screen that captured this very idea (I only found an imperfect version):
I.e. something as simple as a file cabinet that can grow quite big.
All FileMaker pros and cons come from its origin. As an end-user tool it's very much unlike other DBMS apps. No SQL. No real programming: scripts are basically macros that repeat user actions in a slightly more general way with variables and some logic. Lots of limitations; e.g. a list view cannot have a sidebar; a dynamic value list is always sorted alphabetically; to open a Save As dialog and read back the file name you'll need a plug-in; and so on. For a programmer this can be very frustrating, because most his assumptions will be wrong. And existing apps written by non-programmers are not exactly paragons of clarity and solid design.
But if you manage to overcome the obstacles you'll find a rather good RAD for client-server, single-user, web, and mobile apps, that stays rather usable over WAN, with such niceties as runtime and kiosk mode.
Having said that, I'm not quite sure about generic contact management and scheduling apps in FileMaker. If this is what they are, then they should be unlocked, so the customer can make changes; or they have to be niche apps that do for the customer what nothing else does.
Filemaker is enormously powerful and versatile. Excellent multi-user support. You can create wonderful solutions in Filemaker with document management, web interface, iphone interface, automated publishing support, scheduled scripts, PDF/Excel/HTML reports, XML support, caller ID record lookup, integration of web data (UPS & Fedex linked to order record for example). Extensible with plugins. It's like being in the Home Depot of data. Don't try to build Amazon; other than that what can't you build with it, and faster app dev than most anywhere else?
It has been more than a year now since I run through FM and use it in developing solutions for various clients. The following are my FM experience:
learning curve is much less than using the hard coded industry standard technology;
it can fit well as to industry standards platforms because of it's ODBC and JDBC connectivity. Your data is not locked in FM and other data format can get in FM;
it fits well as front end and back end solutions.
FM can match enterprise platform having a right database design and deployment i.e. workgroup or department oriented solutions. This is data to it's workgroup owner and make it available for other workgroups or departments;
FM is fits well for rapid application development that employs prototyping;
FM has many more capabilities you therein...
I suggest you try it yourself and I'm sure you'll love the stuff FM can offer!
Happy computing...
A little research has made me think that FileMaker is indeed Access for Mac, but perhaps a little more robust. I worked with Access for years, never really liked it, and am glad to be away from it (I always held a grudge for MSFT killing FoxPro, which I did like).
It is hard for me to imagine it as a good solution for a web based app used by offices in four locations around the country, plus many others logging on from home, etc.
Using it does not make much sense when MySQL, SQL Server, etc are available for the data storage and ASP.NET, PHP, Ruby etc are there for the programming.
Mike Thomas
While the comparisons to "Access for Mac" is inevitable, there are some important distinctions that have to be made.
FileMaker databases can be shared out to more than one person provided 1 of 2 things happen. One, a person on your network opens the DB and shares it from their computer, acting as the host. Two, you buy and install FileMaker server which hosts the DBs.
Also it's been my experience that while FileMaker developers LOVE FM, they're having to learn other technologies because more and more government agencies (my primary employer the past 10 years) are moving off of FM and into SQL Server, Oracle and to some extent Access and open source. FileMaker skills are becoming less and less in demand in the public sector, so getting support for these applications is harder and consequently, more expensive.
That being said, we have a FM server and FM 5.5 clients running an application that has been rock solid for the past 5 years.
i've been using FM for more than a year now. i'm doing and providing solutions for SMBs using the SQL standard for several years. i love those SQL stuff, but just a year a ago i run through FM Pro 9 and have it a try. amazingly, i got all i wanted in just a short time. in my experience as developer, FM Pro impressed me the way it does things.
true enough, FM is not an industry database standard but a good number of its features can compensate to what "standard" is being required of. FM pro has live connectivity to MySQL, MS SQL Server and Oracle. for me, it doesn't make sense to speak about standard if you can move your data around from FM to other platforms and vice-versa.
well, this note can't make that much convincing. it's good to try it for yourself... especially now that FM has its new version 10. believe me... you'll love it...
happy computing.
Two points seem to dominate this discussion and need consideration:
Non-Standard and what Government Agencies are doing.
Let's consider the small business owner or the single user both of whom a creating databases to meet their needs.
Now it doesn't matter what the government is doing, this is your database for your employees. Do what you want (as long as its legal, of course).
Non-Standard, well often this is the best idea since what you want to do works for you. Name your fields and tables as you like and later on rename this as you prefer. Don't try this with dbf or sql... Anyone remember those 'standard' file names bks1999.dbf bks2000.dbf Keep in mind that 'standards' exist because someone else wrote them before you arrived, not because they are the best possible idea.
And yes, there are a lot of 'bad' Filemaker solutions but they are working and supporting hundreds of thousands of people. But try to improve one of these bad solutions and compare that effort to improve a similarly bad dbf solution. A renamed field filters effortlessly through thousands of scripts and scripts in related Filemaker files. In a dbf solution it can become a nightmare as each instance has to be manually retyped.
One real test would be to compare how easily Filemaker can work with SQL, etc. as compared to other applications. That might be interesting. I've never done that but I bet I could create a working file in very little time that works with such data.
I have always said that every developer should use and be familiar with all of the tools.
25 years with Filemaker Pro, 3 years with FoxPro, 2 with 4D, etc.
Lots of comments about FileMaker being non-standard. But what is "standard"? By "standard", many people mean that a database supports Structured Query Language (SQL) (ISO Standard 9075) and FileMaker has and continues to support SQL. How every database engine supports SQL is proprietary to every database. Now it might be open source such as MySQL, but SQL is a standard to support, not the underlying language of how it is accomplished.
When most people talk about databases, they are only talking about the backend tables and schema. The front end user interface is frequently something else. And most of them now render those results as html pages via open standards like PHP. Again, FileMaker fully supports PHP calls and Apache or IIS (depending on which OS platform you are on).
So I would disagree with people saying FileMaker is non-standard.
What is unique about FileMaker is its tight integration between the schema and the User Interface. This is similar to Apple's tight integration between hardware and the Operating system, which has some nice benefits. Interestingly, FileMaker is owned by Apple, but I guess that is another topic.
Generally, FileMaker's User Interface is considerably easier to use than most open standards and most people stick to FileMaker's client User Interface instead of web interfaces. There are still a number of things supported only in FileMaker User Interface that can't be duplicated in a web browser.
FileMaker really makes rapid application development much easier with its close integration of schema and user interface. This makes development cost a whole lot less in most cases.
FileMaker's database services can be spread among up to 3 machines giving it primitive load balancing abilities with web services. While FileMaker easily supports hundreds of users, if you go into thousands of simultaneous users, many SQL only databases (eg Oracle, MS SQL Server, MySQL, Postgres) are designed to better spread out the load across more machines. Basically, if you have high simultaneous transactions, FileMaker is not your solution. For example, a company with many point of sale terminals from all over the county hitting it at the same time.
While FileMaker supports SQL and PHP, using it only that way is a waste of the money spent on the license for the FileMaker User Interface. It would not be a cost effective solution to develop a web front end and pay the full FileMaker license cost for only a backend. So, FileMaker's support of PHP and SQL is best combined with companies that have an in-house solution for staff, but also want to integrate that with their web development team for outside customers.
One last note is that FileMaker's tight integration of schema and User Interface makes security much easier. Obviously you have to set up the groups and users and I usually integrate FileMaker with Active Directory (or Open Directory). But when you use the FileMaker Client and Server connections, turning on encryption security is a single checkbox on the server. FileMaker handles all of the certificates and uses an AES 256bit cipher (at least since version 11, maybe before then too). Currently, the US Government considers that approved for up to and including the first level of Top Secret communications. In typical SQL systems, there is a lot of work to configure security on the database end as well as the user interface end of things and it is much more work than a single checkbox.
FileMaker's target audience has been small to medium sized companies, usually with 5 to 200 users, and it is a well priced product for rapid application development of databases for companies of that size.
And I can't end this comment without commenting on how easy it is to create and deploy a mobile solution on iOS devices like iPads and iPhones. FileMaker Go is a free app for use on these mobile devices and they fully support the same user interface and security. In fact, I am aware of one company that uses FileMaker as a front end interface for their Oracle database simply for access on iPhones. Expect a lot more in the mobile market in the future and FileMaker is clearly targeting mobile users.
Just to add my 2¢ to the already given answers: Everything everyone has written in the voted answers is true about Filemaker. The product is robust enough to warrant both positive and negative opinions.
I'm not a pro enough to speak to your concerns but there are a number of large complex applications written in FMP that you may want to look at. Jungle Software is a good place to start.
The down side to FMP for me as a user of some of those apps is that they come with a stack of files. The runtime of a FMP application isn't packaged as a bundle so it can look a bit complex with a large app. We did some tests a long time back because FMP had a reputation of being slow. At that time (12 years ago) FMP needed to index the db or it was slow but once it was indexed it was as fast as anything else we tested. It's big upside for semi pros is that it is very easy to do basic stuff and end up with working tool. My experience with Access was extremely negative so I wouldn't compare it at all with FMP.
In the end it doesn't really mater what it was written in, if the software does what you want and is stable buy it. If it doesn't don't. It is very easy to get data in and out of FMP so the proprietaryness of the db format doesn't really enter into it.
I am creating a desktop app in Delphi and plan to use an embedded database. I've started the project using SQlite3 with the DISQLite3 library. It works but documentation seems a bit light. I recently found Firebird (yes I've been out of Windows for a while) and it seems to have some compelling features and support.
What are some pros and cons of each embedded db? Size is important as well as support and resources. What have you used and why?
I'm using Firebird 2.1 Embedded and I'm quite happy with it.I like the fact that the database size is practically unlimited (tested with > 4 GB databases and it works) and that the database file is compatible with the Firebird Server so I can use standard tools for database management and inspection. Distribution consists of dropping few files in your exe folder.
Simultaneous access from multiple programs is not supported but simultaneous access from multiple threads is (as long as you ensure that only one 'connect' operation is in progress at any given moment).
I have used SQlite3 for a lot of projects (but from C/C++ and Objective-C). It's extremely small -- no dependencies whatsoever -- database is in a single file.
It's the db of choice for Mac developers because it's directly supported by CoreData and on the iPhone -- so there is a big user base (not to mention all of the other users).
I've been using SQLite (via DISQLite3) in FeedDemon for several months, and I highly recommend it - it has been extremely fast and stable. As Javier said, the docs for the library may be thin, but the docs for SQLite itself are very good.
I've used DBISAM on a number of projects. It is completely embedded without even a need for an external DLL. Unlike the others you listed it is commercial. A lot of great features though and very well documented and supported. The have a successor to it that I haven't tried yet though.
Let's see, quick comparison:
SQLite:
dynamic typing in the database
cross-platform files
runs on Windows, Linux, Mac, etc.
public domain
supports transactions
relies on file system security, does not include own security
Firebird embedded:
strong typing in the database
not all SQL datatypes are supported
cross-platform files
Firebird embedded only runs on Windows
Files from Firebird embedded are in the same format as the full server version
Files from Firebird embedded can be copied to a non-Windows server for use
available under a modified MPL ("what's ours is ours and must remain free, what's yours is yours and you don't have to release it")
supports transactions, triggers, etc.
MySQL embedded:
support for SQL features depends on file format
(IIRC) cross-platform files
GPL unless you pay royalties
runs on Windows, Linux, Mac
incredibly popular with the open source crowd
Even embedded databases have their strengths and weaknesses. You'll need to weigh those strengths and weaknesses against what you're doing to decide.
Firebird embedded is our #1 choice because with no code changes, a single user Delphi app with embedded database can be migrated to a multi-user server based deployment without sacrificing any of the high end features (such as stored procedures, triggers, views, etc.). And its a TRUE free database and doesn't GPL your code in the process.
Strongly recommend to use AnyDAC when working with Databases and Delphi - then you can choose to target FB or SQLite seamlessingly.
My preference would be for FB for embedded apps.
Tom
I use Sybase's Advantage Database Server, but I'm also the R&D Manager, so this post is biased. :)
We have native Delphi TTable and TQuery components for both WIN32 VCL and VCL.NET. Direct table access in addition to SQL support makes Advantage unique among many of the other Delphi offerings. Advantage supports large tables (only limited by the number of records, 2 billion) and has a free local engine, which is nice for development PCs and for small customer sites that don't require client/server functionality. Switch to client/server with a single connection property, no other changes.
We have a ton of clients so accessing the data outside of Delphi is also very easy (.NET data provider, ODBC, OLE DB, PHP, Perl, JDBC, etc).
Main Product Web Site: http://www.advantagedatabase.com
Developer's Web Site: http://devzone.advantagedatabase.com
It really depends what you need. For single-user applications, Firebird Embedded or SQLite are probably best choices (and price is right). On the other end, if you need support for large number of multiple users, you should probably use regular Firebird instead of Embedded version (server is simple to install so you won't have much problems here).
And if you need something in between, for a moderate multi-user application, one of flat databases would be better. I found that ComponentAce's Absolute Database better choice for my needs than DBISAM, NexusDB or VistaDB.
It leaves relatively small footprint (no DLLs), it's a single-file db (a must for me), supports Unicode, BLOB compression, crypting, and technical limits seem impressing for a flat database. Moreover, support was good in few occasions when I needed it.
For cons, I have noticed it doesn't support nested transactions, but other than that, I had no problems.
As for size, nothing beats SQLite.
when you refer about lack of documentation, i guess it's doc for DISQLite3. The SQLite docs are quite complete
Take a look at NexusDB. Have used very successfully in the past.
The problem with (embedded) firebird is, that the database cannot reside on a network drive. Also, it is difficult to have a database on a read only drive (CD/DVD).
For some hacks around these limitations see the Delphi Wiki:
http://delphi.wikia.com/wiki/Firebird_tipps
NexusDB offers the full range from embedded, to full client/server / remote. Also SQL2003 compliant, I believe. I'm using it on a few projects, and am very pleased so far, and the fact that it can work in such a wide range of "scales" is a big plus (not having to learn another DB for scaled-up apps, etc).
Look at this embedded database comparison: http://sql-db.cz.cc/, it can be helpful. Most of abovementioned products are presented there: Advantage, DBISAM, Firebird, MS SQL Server, and much more: Accuracer, Apollo, ElevateDB, NexusDB, TurboDB.
I am partial to Component Ace's Absolute DB. Although a commercial product ($), it is solid, easy to use, small footprint and well documented. If you are looking for a huge multi-user application, this is not the way to go, but if your multi-user needs are light (or non-existent) this is a solid option.
I'm using SQL Server Express and the ADO components. Works great. You can run the SQL Server Express install with commandline to hide the complexities from the users. You can also distribute a database that you load by filename. There are millions of SQL server users so solutions to any problems are easily found in the intertubes :-)
I did a websearch to find a fast database package for my Delphi Application. I wanted it to be completely contained in the executable with no external DLLs or libraries required. I originally found Accuracer by AidAim. They had posted how fast their database was and even gave comparisons with other similar packages to “prove” their point.
I wanted to believe their claims but I thought I’d search the web a bit more to find timings of other packages. I was very surprised to find a post at the Delphi discussion forums where a person asked what database to use, and there were 14 different suggestions. One of the responders had done his own timing comparisons and had found Accuracer to be quite slow compared to several others, which Accuracer had (conveniently) left out of their own comparison page.
The post, plus additional followup web research by me, led me to lean toward DISQLite3, a product based on the Open Source SQLite program, but with enhancements to work in Delphi very quickly, with very small overhead, and with command-based calls - which I like. It is actively under development and will soon have an official Delphi 2009 version, although apparently the current version will work under D2009.
Addenum: DISQLite3 Version 2.0.0, released Nov 17, supports D2009.
I know MS access is a comparatively crap db (and expect to be shot down in flames here), but if only small data is needed it may have advantages if ms office is used anyway. For me it was a way to store program data with more flexibility than csv files which is a common approach for scientific code.
You can create an access db from delphi code without having ms office installed using ado & odbc driver (might be necesary to have an initial .accdb file without tables to copy from then populate, I can't remember this detail. not sure licensing situation doing this.
The .accdb extension can be changed to something else & the file password protected (to a limited degree) so its not immediately obvious to users its access if that's desired.
I know a few commercial developers do this method & copied it myself. Found it easier to setup than sqlite, but maybe because I'd already used ado & access in the past.
I have used ScimoreDB. It has its quirks as they give it royalty free and it has its quirks in data types and with some installation issues. This was on a C# project.
If embedded is an absolute must, look at DBISAM.
kbMemTable is a good candidate. Runs in memory, fast, multi-threadding. Used to be free.
Components4Developers
I have used DBISAM and kbMemTable on different occasions.
What I like about DBISAM is that it has great features, and is usually very reliable. I have used it in large databases, full-text search, read-only mode, CGIs and many other situations.
It is fairly large compared to kbMemTable or SQLite based components, though. And you can't have a single file per database (or even table) - depending on the situation, that is a major disadvantage.
kbMemTable is tiny and it's great for small amounts of data. Since it runs in memory, it has to be a small amount of data, of course.
One other option I've taken on a couple of my desktop apps is dumping the data directly from/to my object hierarchy using TWriter/TReader. This is by far that smallest option, and is absurdly fast compared to using a database. The data files are tiny, too.
It has all kinds of drawbacks, though - you have to code versioning in if you might want to ever add/change fields, unless it's in-memory it is even more complicated, no multi-user support at all, etc.
Firebird embedded is our #1 choice as well. And the suite Unified Interbase v2.0 with it. A great and stable solution!
I have a database that I have to record 5 field data for every 20 sec for 10 days.. 3 field are integer , 1 field is double ( time ) and 1 field is string[5].
I am still using Delphi6 srv2 because of my components. Newer delphi versions are terrible at components that I have to spend thousands of dollars of money to rebuild my component library. Therefor delphi 6 is still best for real commertial applications that never version of delphis give many problems. At many points such as USB or comport readings so on... they release newer ones before previous versions never sit on market.
I have setup a code with Delphi6 what appends 43200 records at a table for test because I will deploy the table in application while it has 43200 records. I will shown all the data on DBChart.
Test result is below databases filled the tables by insert command with 43200 records
Dbisam = 34 sec,
ElevateDb = 11 sec,
AbsoluteDB = 45 sec,
SQLlite = 32 Minute,
Firebird = 12 min,
MSSQL12 localDB = 28 Minute,
Easy table = 8 minute,
BDE = Blocked ,
I havent tested oracle , blackfish , sysbase, nexsusDb etc.. but it seems they will also very slow. I have connected with DBChart and only elevateDb and absoluteDB has loaded 43200 records on DBchart in exceptable time such as 7~10 secs. Other all taken minutes. So slower databases always needs coding tricks to succeed in some real jobs..
I have tested their search speed as well by locate command that unfortunatly the server based databases are always slower in.
MSSQL and SQLLite3 are extremely difficult to manage in to delphi that they made me very tired.
These are my test results
At the end I decided to use AbsoluteDB, Dbisam and Elevate. I have thrown the rest off the PC .
Elevate software doesnt support recno function that requires extra codes at runtime to manage. This makes the database slower Other bug is with Elevate software is autoinc fields. There is no way to reset it . Therefore I have not chosen the Elevat software even it is the fastest database. They say many good functions but how many of them we use it in fact . They just left the most important functions not supported but fixed many many unnecessary functions. and it seems since 8 years there is no any advantage either.
If you want to see with your own eye pls just try and see..
I am thinking between two now absolute DB or DBisam4
Firebird all the way. Does pretty well everything and so far version 2.1 is very solid.
FireBird offers the opportunity to scale up to multi-users sometime down the line, or if you need concurrency (if your application goes multi-threaded).
SQLite is quite unrivaled if you only need single-user access, no other database comes close to it on any aspect, be it performance, convenience, SQL support or stability.
Firebird is really awsome and has a small footprint so you can use embedded
and it can be scaled upward for many users
and does unicode faily well
I use devart components with delphi 2009
and FIB plus for delphi 6/7 (their version for 2009 and unicode is not ready yet too bad)
Hmmm, no one has recommended the BDE - I wonder why that is ;-)
BlackFishSQL is another possibility, although I haven't tested in depth as yet.
when it comes to embedded databases the first question is : is it multiuser ?
Actually,who needs a database that does not allow multiple connections (read&write) to it ?
I have tried (intensly) all mentioned databases and found only one that actually functions the way it should. And that is Accuracer.
The only pity with accuracer is that its a three man band and chronic lack of proper support. It also is mainly static in development as we have seen no real features in years.Not surprising since only one person actually develops it. It seems they are living on old fame. Users praise reflect that (usually 10 years old comments).
For a single user experience I would recommend Absolute Database.
As for major players I would recommend SQL Server from Microsoft. Oracle has become a bloatware and is slowly dying out.
ps
what is nice in accuracer is that their embedded database functions just like full blown server. It locks only current record if its in use while the rest functions normally. Nice database. Pity only it is stagnant.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Consider the need to develop a lightweight desktop DB application on the Microsoft platforms.
It could be done fairly easily with MS Access but I'd like to be able to distribute it to others and I don't want to pay for a runtime license.
Requirements:
easy distribution to others
no runtime licensing issues
Considerations and Candidates:
Base from the OpenOffice suite. My concerns were around its stability.
MySQL + writing custom DB code in C++ or Python or whatever seems like a rather heavy-handed solution.
Question: What are the low cost or free database alternatives to MS Access?
See Also: Open Source Reporting Engines
#Schnapple
Bruceatk kind of hit on what I'm thinking of; it's not so much the DB engine as I want the other niceties that Access brings to the party. The nice form designer, the nice reporting engine etc. But you do raise a very good point about the installation footprint. I had considered that but I've not made any firm decisions about which way I'm going with this yet anyway. It'll probably be something fairly lightweight anyway and a small installation footprint would definitely be a plus.
#Remou,
No I was unaware that the MS Access 2007 runtime is free; thanks for pointing that out. The last time I'd bothered to investigate it (I don't remember when it was) I think it was a fairly expensive license for the runtime because I think they were trying to sell it to Corporate IT departments.
And thanks to everyone else who responded as well; I was completely unaware of those other options you all pointed out.
When people ask about a replacement for Access, a lot of them only think about the database, but what they are really asking about are all of the other features in Access. They usually don't care what database Access is using.
Some of the functionality provided by Access are: Forms, Query Building, Reports, Macros, Database Management, and some kind of language when you need to go beyond what the wizards provide.
SQLite, MySQL, and FireBird are free database back ends. They do not have those additional Access functions built into them. Any free alternatives to Access require you combining something like SQLite and a development language.
Probably the best free option would be SQLite and Visual Basic 2008 or C# 2008 Express Edition. This would have a heavy runtime dependency, so installing on a bare client could take quite the installer.
There really isn't a non-Access option for free with minimum runtime requirements. I wish there was.
I'll be interested in hearing if anybody knows any good alternatives.
Are you aware that the Access 2007 runtime can be downloaded for free?
Links for newer versions:
2010 Runtime
2013 Runtime
2016 Runtime
Schnapple asks:
Are you referring to the concept of a
free database to distribute with an
application, or an Access-like "single
file, no installation" database?
Er, nobody who has any competence with Access application development would ever distribute a single MDB/ACCDB as application/data store. Any non-trivial Access application needs to be split into a front end with the forms/queries/reports (i.e., UI objects) and a back end (data tables only).
It's clear that what is needed here is a database application development tool like Access. None of the database-only answers are in any way responsive to that.
Please learn about Access before answering Access questions:
Access is a database application
development tool that ships with a
default database engine called Jet.
But an Access application can be
built to work with data in almost
any back end database, as long as
there's an ISAM, or an ODBC or OLEDB
driver for that database engine.
Microsoft itself has done a good job of obfuscating the difference between Access (development tool) and Jet (database engine), so it's not surprising that many people don't recognize the difference. But developers ought to use precise language, and when you mean the database engine, use "Jet", and when you mean the front-end development platform, use "Access".
One thing to keep in mind here is the MS Access product is much more than just the raw database engine. It provides a full application development platform, including form and menu designer, client application language and environment (VBA), and report designer. When you take all those things together, MS Access really has no peer.
But for the scope of this question, we're concerned with the raw database engine. With that in mind:
SQLlite,
Firebird,
VistaDB (not free),
SQL Server Compact Edition (not Express)
and now SQL Server LocalDB
all come to mind.
Another thought: while the original question does ask about desktop databases, its likely some people will land here looking for a database to use with a web site. It's important to remember that these are all in-process databases, and as such are rarely if ever appropriate for use on the web. If you want to build a web site, where it's common to need to support significant concurrent access, you generally want a database server engine, like MS SQL, Postgresql, MySQL, Oracle, or their brethren. At the same time, those server engines are rarely if ever appropriate for a single-user desktop application.
To be honest - there aren't any free alternatives to MS Access. At least if you mean database development tool (forms, reports, queries, VBA support etc.). If you think about MS Access as a database engine (you mean MS Jet or ACE in fact) then yes - you have a lot of possibilities. There are a lot of free database engines - the most popular are MySQL and PostgreSQL. I can recommend both - it depends what you want to do.
For writing database frontends C++ is one of the worst choices. You should consider MS Visual C#, MS Visual Basic .NET or... Even Java/Swing (if we are talking about desktop application). If you think about the web-enabled frontend - consider PHP (with MySQL or PostgreSQL on the backend) or ASP.NET (with MSSQL Server at the backend).
I strongly recommend you not to use C++ for such job. This language is very efficient and flexible, but advanced database frontend development with C++ is not the best idea. C++ is great in system programming, games development, maths and physics simulations, everywhere where efficiency is the key - like real-time applications etc. Frontends don't have to be daemons of speed - they should look nice and have advanced end-user features (like sorting, coloring etc.). If you are looking for free tools - maybe C# Express or Visual Basic.NET Express 2008 would be the proper choice? Or maybe Java/Swing (check the NetBeans IDE)? Maybe SharpDevelop? But not C++... Leave C++ for the things it suits the best.
Check out suneido.
I made a fairly complicated GIS app as an experiment with it some years ago (database, complex gui, reports, client/server). It was a pleasant experience (apart from some documentation issues...) and I became productive with it very fast.
I don't use it anymore mainly because:
it's not really general purpose
it's not cross platform (windows only)
I decided to stop exploring exotic
technologies and specialize in something
more mainstream.
Of the Free Software alternatives these haven't been mentioned yet:
Bond
Rekall (not sure about the status of the Windows version currently though)
Glom (Windows version under development)
I'd also keep an eye on what DB RAD tools the Flex/Air community is coming up with, since with those tools it's possible to get unified desktop and web interfaces.
Oracle XE With Application Express.
Has a nice web based gui,
Is a "Real" database
Will scale beyond a single desktop
Offers a clear scale path beyond a small team
Applications as web based, easily accessible.
Can convert Excel spread sheets into Applications
The issue is finding an alternative to MS Access that includes a visual, drag and drop development environment with a "reasonable" database where the whole kit and caboodle can be deployed free of charge.
My first suggestion would be to look at this very complete list of MS Access alternatives (many of which are free), followed by a gander at this list of open source database development tools on osalt.com.
My second suggestion would be to check out WaveMaker, which is sort of an open source PowerBuilder for the cloud (disclaimer: I work there so should not be considered to be an unbiased source of information ;-)
WaveMaker combines a drag and drop IDE with an open source Java back end. It is licensed under the Apache license and boasts a 15,000-strong developer community.
NuBuilder (www.nubuilder.net) might be right.
NuBuilder is a GPLv3-licensed PHP web application that requires MySQL as backend database. Users and programmers both use the web interface.
They promote it as a free, web based MS Access alternative.
I'm creating my second NuBuilder application these days. The NuBuilder seems to be very actively developed, and I found it stable and well documented (provided you can stand video tutorials.)
You may want to look into SQLite (http://sqlite.org/). All depends on your usage though. Concurrency for example is not its greatest virtue. But for example Firefox uses it to store settings etc..
In the context of a programming forum, we don't usually think of the programmer also needing the application portion of the database. Normally a programmer wants to use their own development environment for the business logic and front end, and just use the store, query, retrieval, and data processing capabilities of the database.
If you really want all those other things, then you're talking about a much larger and more complicated run time environment. You're not going to find anything that's 'lightweight' any more. Even MS Access itself no longer qualifies, because it's hardly light weight. It's just lucky in that a lot of users might already have it, making it appear to be light weight.
This doesn't mean you won't find anything. Just that it's not likely to have the same level of maturity or distribution as Access, especially since the underlying access engine is already baked into Windows.
The Access runtime license has never been all that expensive -- the cost for the developer tools/extensions has been around $300 as long as I can remember (which would be as far back to the Access 2 Developers Toolkit, or ADT), but that gives you the ability to distribute your app with the runtime to an unlimited number of users. As long as your runtime app was used by three or more users, you'd have been saving money (assuming a cost of $100/user to install a full copy of Access).
The runtime for Access 2007 is completely free, but really, the cost before that was not all that great.
Marc Gravell added (in what should have been a comment, in my opinion):
Being free, though, is certainly an encouragement for people to try it out which the $300 price really would have discouraged.
VistaDB has an express version which is free to use and is syntax and driver compatible with SQL Server. VistaDB is a single file and only requires their driver .dll to work in your asp.net or winforms project.
Since it is syntax and datasource compatible you can upgrade to SQL Server if needed.
from their site:
VistaDB is a fully managed and
typesafe ASP.NET and WinForms
applications using C#, VB.NET and
other CLR-compliant languages.
VistaDB.net
You mentioned Python, have you considered Dabo?
http://dabodev.com/
That would avoid much of the grunt work in a custom app.
Are you referring to the concept of a free database to distribute with an application, or an Access-like "single file, no installation" database?
As in, things like SQL Server Express Edition require things like runtimes to be installed, databases to be created and mounted, entries on people's Start menus that they won't recognize (my wife asked why SQL Server was on her laptop the other day) whereas an Access database can be run in a single file.
I guess what I'm asking is do you want to think of the database as a document you write to or as an instance of something on someone else's machine?
What about r:Base? Way back in the day r:Base was a very robust DOS (then Windows) RDMBS and this is pre-Access / pre-Paradox days. Its closest competitor was dBase but that wasnt fully relational, at the time. I developed some very nice r:Base applications AND, like Access today, had a built in report generator, forms facility, queries and table manipulation.. To my surprise, its still alive! http://www.rbase.com/ Its got all that access offers, it seems. Might be something for you to consider.
Kexi 2007.1.1 may be what you are looking for.
Its express version is free but DB size limited. Full version cost $72.
The description from its home page:
Kexi is an easy to use application for visual database design for Linux and MS Windows. Kexi competes with MS Access, FoxPro, Oracle Forms and FileMaker.
Visit http://www.kexi-project.org/about.html for details.
Apache Derby is a nice db alternative.
Gambas
Much in line with Aurelio's answer, I now work in Ruby on Rails on some applications that I might formerly have done in MS Access. The back end database for a Rails App. is usually, MySql (works well enough and is available on most shared Web hosting) or PostgreSQL (the better choice when possible).
What about Microsoft's Visual Studio Express?
http://www.microsoft.com/express/default.aspx
SQL Server Express is also at that link...
I'd the same problem of you. I had a MS access application but I wanted to go to a web application accessible to everybody and without paying money to MS. So I decided to use MySql and Wavemaker (open source) to get the scope..I'm very happy of this decision. and that's the result http://www.mara-database.org/
Also check out http://www.sagekey.com/installation_access.aspx for great installation scripts for Ms Access. Also if you need to integrate images into your application check out DBPix at ammara.com
What you appear to be looking for is not just a database program, but a database with forms, reports, etc (basically an IDE of sorts). I would recommend trying OpenOffice.org Base, which comes with the office suite. It's free and open source. It's nowhere near as polished as access, but it does pretty much the same things.
Plus, if you know access, it will be at least somewhat familiar.
http://www.openoffice.org/
EDIT: Sorry, failed to read that you are considering OpenOffice.org. With regard to stability, I've had it crash and do some "odd" things when I played with it, but Access has done the same thing. The best way to find out is to play with it a bit and see if it suits you.
I think the database included with OpenOffice.org has the form designer in it. I've never tried writing code for it though. A forum post I saw had a link to a tutorial they said had some code in it.
I started to set up a database for my wife and the interface was coming out pretty good as far as I could tell.
oooForum.org tutorial
for sqlite, check out the firefox extension. It offers a serviceable GUI.
VistaDB is the only alternative if you going to run your website at shared hosting (almost all of them won't let you run your websites under Full Trust mode) and also if you need simple x-copy deployment enabled website.