Every few months like clockwork, another article pops up declaring that Microsoft Access is dead, obsolete, or being quietly replaced by something newer and shinier. And every time I see one, I feel compelled to dust off the same response. Not because I enjoy arguing on the internet, but because the narrative keeps getting repeated without much real-world context. If you actually build business systems for a living, the story looks very different.
Let’s start with the biggest misconception right out of the gate. Microsoft Access is not just a file sitting on your hard drive. It is a development platform. Treating it like a glorified spreadsheet or a single flat database file is where most of the criticism begins, and where most of it goes off the rails.
You have probably heard the famous “2GB limit” argument. On paper, yes, an individual ACCDB file cannot exceed 2GB. That sounds terrifying if you stop reading there. But that is not how Access is deployed in production. Real-world systems are almost always split databases. The front end contains the forms, reports, queries, and VBA code, while the back end holds only the data tables.
Once you split the database, that 2GB ceiling stops being a practical limitation. You can link multiple back-end files, archive historical data, or move the data entirely into SQL Server, including the free SQL Express edition. I have systems running Access front ends against enterprise SQL Server databases with millions of records. At that point, worrying about a 2GB file cap is like judging a truck’s hauling capacity by the size of its glove compartment.
Another talking point that refuses to die is database corruption. Critics love to frame Access as fragile, ready to implode the moment two users log in. There is a kernel of truth there, but context matters. If multiple users open the same unsplit database file across Wi-Fi, yes, corruption risk goes up. But that deployment model has been considered bad practice for decades.
Proper architecture uses a local front end on each workstation connected to a shared back end on a server, or better yet, a SQL Server data store. Under that model, corruption is rare and usually repairable using built-in compact and repair tools. Blaming Access for corruption in badly deployed environments is like blaming a car for engine failure because someone never changed the oil.
Then we get the “Windows-only” argument. Guilty as charged. Access is a Windows desktop application. But whether that is a limitation depends entirely on your environment. Many organizations are already Windows-based from top to bottom. Employees spend their entire day on Windows machines. In those scenarios, Access being Windows-only is a non-issue.
And when mobile or browser access is required, Access does not have to stand alone. It can connect to shared data that is also exposed through web apps, remote desktops, or Power Apps overlays. Access becomes one interface among many, not the only doorway into the data.
Security is another favorite criticism, especially around row-level permissions. Standing alone, the Access database engine has limited native row-level security. But serious deployments do not rely on Access as the primary security boundary. Security is enforced at the data layer, typically in SQL Server, using Active Directory, server roles, and permission structures.
When Access connects to a secured back end, it inherits that security model. Evaluating Access as if it must single-handedly satisfy enterprise compliance frameworks misunderstands its role in a multi-tier architecture.
You will also hear complaints about Access databases being scattered across file shares, invisible to IT governance. That happens, sure. But it is not an Access problem. Excel files get scattered. PDFs get scattered. Shadow SaaS tools get scattered. Governance is an organizational discipline, not a software feature. Properly managed environments centralize storage, enforce backups, and control deployments regardless of platform.
Some critics point to VBA and macros as a liability, arguing that systems become dependent on the developer who built them. If that person leaves, the system becomes difficult to maintain. That risk exists in every development environment on earth. .NET apps, Python scripts, SQL procedures all have the same dependency risk. The solution is documentation and standards, not abandoning the platform.
Modern discussions often position the Power Platform as Access’s replacement. Microsoft is absolutely investing in Power Apps, Dataverse, and cloud development. But investment does not equal replacement. The two platforms serve different needs. Access excels at rapid desktop development, complex form design, and offline or local-network solutions. Power Apps shines in browser and mobile deployment.
They overlap, but they are complementary tools, not identical substitutes. It is also worth noting that cloud platforms introduce subscription costs that many small and mid-sized organizations simply do not need or want.
Comparisons to SaaS tools like Airtable or Notion come up as well. These platforms are fantastic for collaboration and lightweight relational work. But they do not replace mature Access applications that rely on complex relationships, advanced queries, automation, and reporting. They solve different problems.
None of this means Access is the right solution for every scenario. If you need massive web-scale concurrency, public-facing portals, or mobile-first design, there are better tools. The software landscape has evolved. But evolution expands the toolbox. It does not invalidate tools that still do their job exceptionally well.
Microsoft Access is still supported, still maintained, and still widely deployed. For the right projects, it remains one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to turn a business need into a working solution.
If you want to see the full walk-through and deeper discussion, be sure to watch the embedded video above.
Live long and prosper,
RR
No comments:
Post a Comment