Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 17:31 UTC
Features, Office OpenOffice.org's latest update includes a database that matches Microsoft's popular and competing Access database, experts say. The stand-alone database rounds out the offering by bringing long-missing, important database power to users. Users will be able to create stand-alone databases, associated forms, reports and queries, much as with Microsoft's extremely popular and widely used Access database.
Order by: Score:
v Is this intended to be a joke ?!?!?
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 17:54 UTC
the_trapper Member since:
2005-07-07

Okay, I'll bite, why is it totally ridiculous? OpenOffice/StarOffice is now the leading competitor to MS Office.

Access to OO Base does seem to be well within the realm of apples to apples comparison.

Seriously, what features does OO Base lack that are frequently used in Access?

I'll venture that most users would be happy with MS Works 4.0's level of functionality. It's the 80-20 rule...80% of the users use 20% of the features.

I'd say OpenOffice is at least at the 70% of MS Office features level, and the addition of an integrated database app helps this value proposition immensely.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

I actually think its more of a 90/10 split. You might be giving too much credit to the avg office worker.

Reply Score: 0

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed; those who use the really advanced features are the IS staff; the ones who setup internal databases, and even they're moveing to opensource solutions like Firebird, MySQL and Postgres - its not about features necesssarily, its GET - Good Enough Technology - it may not be sexy or technologically the best, but it still does a pretty damn good job, but without the massive costs.

As for end users, I agree; most would probably use less than 20% of the features; the end users the article was talking about sounded more like the wizard using variety where a set of step by step screens help them setup a database - everything automated.

On topic, kind of; I'd love to see Apple drop Apple Works, port OpenOffice to MacOS X natively and of course make it HIG compliant, then re-badge their version as AppleWorks X or something that is buzz word compliant; they would get a damn good office suite that is comparable to Office, and will be able to bundle it free of charge with their desktop systems.

Reply Score: 1

v OO Base is terrible
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 18:07 UTC
RE: OO Base is terrible
by the_trapper on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 18:14 UTC in reply to "OO Base is terrible"
the_trapper Member since:
2005-07-07

You say its terrible, but you don't say why. How do you expect it to improve if you don't give specific issues you have with it?

Or are you just trolling because OO Base is partially written in Java?

Seriously, what's so bad about OO Base, other than "it's terrible"?

Reply Score: 1

RE: OO Base is terrible
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 19:16 UTC in reply to "OO Base is terrible"
Anonymous Member since:
---

seriously no company in their right minds would switch from Microsoft Access to OO Base, not at the state it is in at the moment.

Yet, many companies use Microsoft Access -- a horrid beast that I keep having to clean up after. (Case in point: After porting to PostgreSQL, the time to run a typical report went from 25 minutes to 40 seconds...before any heavy optimization! That, and the Access-specific non-SQL parts were a real pain to redo.)

Please please please: If you are thinking about using Access on a serious project, stop and reconsider!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: OO Base is terrible
by CPUGuy on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 03:40 UTC in reply to "RE: OO Base is terrible"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, there is a BIG difference between what works as an Access database and what works as an SQL database.

There are some things where SQL is just like trying to kill a fly with a tank. And then there are some things where using Access is like using a bee bee gun to destroy a tank. (Sorry, was just watching a war show).

Don't say that Access sucks because the database that you had was too much for it to handle. It wasn't meant to handle something like what you have.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: OO Base is terrible
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OO Base is terrible"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Don't say that Access sucks because the database that you had was too much for it to handle. It wasn't meant to handle something like what you have.

This was for a small project. 30K records in one table, though only 2K in most other tables.

This is not at all unusual for how I see Access being used.

Note that in each case the people who started the projects using Access thought the database would not get too large. In most cases, they thought it would be used only for the initial stages...then management said -- "Works great! Stop there!". Oops!

Access is a GREAT prototype tool.

Access is a GREAT viewer into other databases and for quick hacks.

Access is a horrid beast for any type of deployment beyond these two cases. Please please please kill any thought of using it inappropriately for anything else.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: OO Base is terrible
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE: OO Base is terrible"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"After porting to PostgreSQL, the time to run a typical report went from 25 minutes to 40 seconds..."

Access is a very nice tool, but its just a desktop database.

If you have a database where the typical runtime for a report is 25 minutes then its propably because of one of these two reasons:
a) the design is terrible
b) the wrong tool is selected for the job.

Either way, its a mistake on the part of the databasedesigners. Donīt blame it on the tool, which has its good sides and its bad sides (just as any other tool).

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: OO Base is terrible
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OO Base is terrible"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Either way, its a mistake on the part of the databasedesigners. Donīt blame it on the tool, which has its good sides and its bad sides (just as any other tool).

In most cases, all I did was use Access to link to the tables sent by ODBC to PostgreSQL and change the queries (in Access) to pass throughs. The idea was to make minimal changes in anticipation of full optimization later. That's what caused the 25 minute to 40 second change...nothing else. I didn't even initiate indexes.

The tool -- Access -- does and encourages goofy non-compliant SQL and other tasks. The good or bad DB design wasn't changed except where absolutely necessary...face it, it's the tool not the developers for the most part.

Reply Score: 0

RE: OO Base is terrible
by Motz on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 19:39 UTC in reply to "OO Base is terrible"
Motz Member since:
2005-07-06

No company in their right minds would use Access.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"No company in their right minds would use Access."

Agreed.

Access is constrained to a single platform. You can only get Access on Windows. Terrible.

Reply Score: 0

OOBase trial experience
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 18:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I tried OOBase. I setup a mysql database and added a couple of tables. OOBAse was kind of flakey. I had it lock up on me several times trying to modify tables. It shows promise and potential but right now it is a 1.00. I would wait until it is 1.1 before you use it for commercial work.

Reply Score: 0

close.
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 18:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I like OO base, but it does seem slower than access. A lot slower. Now I'm willing to give it a chance because it's a brand new component and I think it'll improve a lot whenever OO gets a few "point updates". It's very promising and I think most stuff done in Access could pretty easily be done with base as it stands now, just slower and sadly a bit buggy still.

Reply Score: 1

RE: close.
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 19:18 UTC in reply to "close."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I like OO base, but it does seem slower than access. A lot slower. Now I'm willing to give it a chance because it's a brand new component and I think it'll improve a lot whenever OO gets a few "point updates". It's very promising and I think most stuff done in Access could pretty easily be done with base as it stands now, just slower and sadly a bit buggy still.

Change the backend. Slowness is nearly always on the database side, and OO Base has a very simple database included.

Reply Score: 0

More detailed
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 18:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

- OO Base is really unstable (I got crashes in many, many siutations)

- It's bloated, a memory-eater

- It's enormously slow

- It can only connect to _one_ Datasource (Access can connect to multiple ones)

- No Intellisense in the editor

- Reporting via OO Writer ? Is that another joke ?

- etc. pp.




Sorry - I've worked with Filemaker and Access. And OO Base may be comparable in about 2 or 3 years. But its current state IS in fact ridiculous.

It's just another "Look-Ma-I-Can-Drop-Access-For-OO-Base". Well, you can't.

Reply Score: 0

RE: More detailed
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 19:20 UTC in reply to "More detailed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

It's just another "Look-Ma-I-Can-Drop-Access-For-OO-Base". Well, you can't.

Access is a great viewer and a good prototype tool.

Access's Jet is a horrid database, and the front ends are hard to make look like anything professional.

If you are going to swap out the Jet backend DB, why keep the Access front end for the final project?

Reply Score: 0

Redmond
by re_re on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 18:34 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

I heard Redmond was switching to OO Base from Access

(sarcasm)

Reply Score: 0

v My thoughts
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 19:03 UTC
RE: My thoughts
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 19:23 UTC in reply to "My thoughts"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Haven't used Cloudscape.

Agree with you on Access. I'm constantly cleaning up after it. Please make it go away!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My thoughts
by kaiwai on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE: My thoughts"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Have you tried using Paradox? maybe you should give that ago if you have an aversion to Access; 4th Dimension I quite like as well; available for Mac and Windows, both server and client.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: My thoughts
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE: My thoughts"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Have you tried using Paradox?

Years ago. Is it still being sold?

maybe you should give that ago if you have an aversion to Access; 4th Dimension I quite like as well; available for Mac and Windows, both server and client.

I've had Access change hand-crafted SQL on me...and breaking it or making it harder to understand. Want more lovely examples of how Access has made me it's buddy?

Personally, I'd rather use Access for quick and dirty and other tools for actual development.

Reply Score: 0

RE: My thoughts
by kaiwai on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 03:52 UTC in reply to "My thoughts"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You know what woud be really good would be for IBM/Eclipse to develop a nice Eclipse front end to Cloudscape, that would end up with a heavy duty database engine with a multi-platform front end as to allow easier development of a database, and unlike Access, it wouldn't be riddled with the architectural limitations that exist with Access - anyone see Access chuck a hissie fit when more than 10 people try to access the database at the same time?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

>Why do people need Access?
>
>MS Access does not separate the data from its
>presentation. This is enough to keep me away from
>using. For instance, the date format, dd/mm/yyyy
>or mm/dd/yyyy.


Shows that you haven't got _ANY_ idea of the concepts behind Access. Just inform yourself before spreading such FUD.


>The first one does not control databases, and they
>have hundreds of MDB files, and they are a support >nightmare.


And ? Is this the fault of Access itself or the people using it ?

Reply Score: 1

RE: My thoughts
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 19:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>Agree with you on Access. I'm constantly cleaning up
>after it. Please make it go away!


Haha ... in 5 years you will have to clean up after OO Base "Developers" ...


@All you Access-haters out there : It's not Access what's evil - it's those noobs that use things like OO Base or Access for big project that would require a completely different platform (J2EE/.NET/etc.).

Reply Score: 0

RE: OO Base is terrible
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 19:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>Yet, many companies use Microsoft Access -- a horrid
>beast that I keep having to clean up after. (Case in
>point: After porting to PostgreSQL, the time to run a
>typical report went from 25 minutes to 40
>seconds...before any heavy optimization! That, and the
>Access-specific non-SQL parts were a real pain to redo.)

When a "TYPICAL REPORT" needs 25 MINUTES in Access with Jet as Back-End to render - 99% of the problems are :

- An idiotic E/R-model
- Usage of VBA functions in Queries
- A developer who has no idea about SQL


But it's in nearly all cases _not_ the fault of Access - these things are problems of people who have no idea about database application development and use Access.

And : Just because your're using PostgreSQL it doesn't make your database application automatically faster.

And : Most people still don't know that you can use Access with EVERY database you like - as long as it has got an ODBC driver.

-> RTFM

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: OO Base is terrible
by unoengborg on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE: OO Base is terrible"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06


And : Most people still don't know that you can use Access with EVERY database you like - as long as it has got an ODBC driver.


Just like you can use OOo Base with any database with a ODBC or JDBC driver. Just like MS-Access, the best use for OOo base will be as frontend for a server oriented database management system e.g. Postgresql or Firebird.

I agree with other posters, having file based databases usually leads to users creating db-files all over the filesystem, quickly becomes a nightmare. As a sysadmin you will almost certainly get users complaining:

- I didn't know that that C: not was backed up on a daily basis. (It doesn't matter that you told them a zillion times to put it on Z: to get regular backups)


- My predecessor had some kind of application for this, but I think I got the wrong version of her files. There are two of them and I don't know which is the right one.


- Huh! I didn't know files ending in mdb could be downloaded when placed on our website.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: OO Base is terrible
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE: OO Base is terrible"
Anonymous Member since:
---

-> RTFM

Please read my other comments. [sarcasm]RTFM indeed.[/sarcasm]

Please learn how to properly reply (your message quoting me did not show up as a linked reply...so I initially missed it)

Reply Score: 0

What I've Been Waiting For
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 19:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I currently use WinXP and other MS products. I am not willing to pay yet again to upgrade my OS on the several machines I run at home, but I've refrained from moving to GNU/Linux because not all the programs I use have an OSS alternative. OO Base is one of the last tools I need to make a switchover to GNU/Linux. While I am concerned about the anecdotal bug & slowness reports in this thread, I think they will be corrected. Goodbye, MS!

Reply Score: 0

Not as slow as previously thought
by WeaselMaster on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 19:46 UTC
WeaselMaster
Member since:
2005-07-12

I absolutely hate Java. But in Base's favor, I put it on my machine to test Base out. The memory use and response time was surprisingly good. I made a few tables, tossed a little data in, and there was no slowdown or memory gobbling. I think it's a good start.

I do have a question, in that regard...I know Base can be plugged into another backend, like MySQL, but I'm thinking about SQLite. I want to use a database to store full-text articles for my website and projects. Any recommendations?

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You shouldn't fear or hate Java stuff; what sucks in Java is the graphic user face side of the equation; for the unsexy backend; the engine, Java performs just as good as something programmed natively.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

I want to use a database to store full-text articles for my website and projects. Any recommendations?

Not at the moment. PostgreSQL is well supported, though I don't know if it offers any special advantages over other DB backends when used with OO Base.

Reply Score: 0

What exactly is the point of Access?
by Motz on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 19:50 UTC
Motz
Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe Base does have shortcomings if you were using Access in the first place, but I can't for the life of me see why you would be. It seems that Access is a RDBMS for people who don't need a RDBMS. Already in coursework for A Level Computing I'm seeing little niggling annoyances that make it a pain to work with and the teachers are struggling to find real world examples for use.

Maybe it's just my personal lack of experience, and forgive me if it is, but it seems that any real world task too small to warrant something like Postgres or, at the higher end, Oracle, is more or less a glorified spreadsheet.

Reply Score: 3

@Access-haters
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 21:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

What I really can't understand : I don't know where you're living but : The reality shows that Access is being used in many small and medium sized companies, and I know serveral examples where most other platforms for database application development would have been a total overkill for a small or medium project. I know that there are many good Access-Apps out there being used every day.

I have also seen some people porting over Access apps to LAMP with a catastrophic mess in MySQL and PHP.

It depends on the developer. *JUST* because you use a good tool, the result does not need to be good also.

Some months ago, I saw a J2EE project gone completely down the drain - because it has gone too complex and the developers had too few expirience ... now what was the problem ? J2EE or the developers ? I thing you can answer this question yourself ...

Reply Score: 0

RE: @Access-haters
by JeffS on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 22:03 UTC in reply to "@Access-haters"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"Some months ago, I saw a J2EE project gone completely down the drain - because it has gone too complex and the developers had too few expirience ... now what was the problem ? J2EE or the developers ? I thing you can answer this question yourself ..."

Probably both. J2EE is extremely, extremely complex ... it's just a labyrinth of complexity, and requires the highest order of programming skill and experience, knowledge of the massive and numberous APIs, knowledge of the gazillion frameworks, and frameworks that are wrappers of other frameworks, and the subtleties of putting all of the that together, and the subtleties of 100% OOP. Whew.

Actually it's a fairly common thing for large J2EE projects to go down the drain, because the complexity overwhelms the devs, architects, and project managers.

Java the base language has it's strengths, and J2EE has incredible capabilities, but handles those capabilities in the most complex ways possible. But J2SE (standard) development isn't so over complex, and pretty productive (so long as Swing isn't used too heavily).

Anyway, this thread is about OO.o Base. Base is a brand spakin' new software product, and is going to have it's problems. When it reaches maturity, however, it might be pretty slick and will fullfil a need for replacing MS Office completely. The fact that it partially uses Java is okay. Again, Java the base language has some good features. And OO.o is already big and a memory eater, even though most of the code base is C++, because it basically creates it's own runtime library, which is expensive on resources. But it gives the advantage of one code base for all platforms, which is great. So the addition of Java code in Base won't matter.

Reply Score: 1

RE: @Access-haters
by unoengborg on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 00:49 UTC in reply to "@Access-haters"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06


I have also seen some people porting over Access apps to LAMP with a catastrophic mess in MySQL and PHP.

It depends on the developer. *JUST* because you use a good tool, the result does not need to be good also.


That's true, but if you use a bad tool chances are that the outcome will be worse than what it could have been, at any given quality of your developers.

In this case replacing one bad database for an even worse will not help much. Even though MySQL is a server oriented system, it is not exactly a good database. At least not in versions prior to 5.0. Even in late versions like 5.0, things most people take for granted e.g. referential integrity is not turned on by default.
And most people doesn't know how to turn it on. It usually assumes that the developer should do things in the surrounding php code that normally are handled automagically by the database (even MS Access is better in this respect).

I agree with you that J2EE is overly complex in most situations, if you considered using MS-Access you almost certainly are in that kind of situation.

However using plain old java for GUI and a relational database and stored procedure for data storage and business logic creates very fast and reliable solutions. As database you could use Postgresql, Firebird or even MS-SQL server if Microsoft are your heros. There are plenty of java IDEs that make the job of building a GUI and connect it to the business logic in the database very simple.

If you don't like java for GUI build it in Access or OOo Base. The downside of this way of development is that stored procedures and triggers are database vender specific, so it will be hard for you to change database vender. But on the other hand you are not worse off, than if you had developed all of the functionality in Access or OOo Base.

I'm not saying that there never are occations where a pure Access/OOo Base solution is the right thing to do, just that they rarely are.

Reply Score: 1

Hard to believe they have used it
by alcibiades on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 21:17 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

If you set up a simple database in Filemaker, and try to do the same thing in this, you can see at once it is no contest. I did one the other day, about a couple of thousand records and about 40 fields per record. In FM, to get the fields in and import the data took me all of 10 minutes. To do some layouts and get the buttons set up for my users, about a couple of hours more.

Try it in this. Just try it. Then if you still think there is a contest, well, I'll be amazed. Look, for instance, at field creation and typing. Compare how they work. In FM you create, type, and move on. Here you create them all, then type them.... No thanks. And inserting buttons and so on. Forget it. The other bits of OO are fine, but this part is well below the DB part of Claris Works!

There are two things open source seems unable to do. One is a decent outliner. The other is an end user database.

Anyone want to join in and make either one?

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

This is a 1.0 release, while FileMaker has what, over 20 years and 8 .0 releases under its belt?

Of course it isn't up to FileMaker's standard, any moron could figure that out and the reasons why.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

It is not about whether we can find reasons why it is not at the same level as Filemaker. There are always reasons for relatively poor performance. It is about what that performance actually is. It is about how usable it is in its present form. Like it or not, in end user databases, there are standards of usability, and these were probably set by Filemaker 3 or 4. The question is, whether OO Base is a viable contender. It is not. Not yet.

What people need to do is stop making excuses or justifying suppliers or packages, and look hard at the real facts about them. Calling this moronic is part of the hysterical partisanship that disfigures many open forums, and makes intelligent discussion impossible.

Reply Score: 0

Writer?????
by fretinator on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 22:04 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Openoffice uses Writer as its Reporting and Form tool. Comparing this to Access, it is a joke. Creating a report or a form in OO is an exercise in madness. These things are simple in Access, and give power to everyday users. OO has a few miles to go before Base becomes useful.

Reply Score: 1

Still Playing By Microsoft's Rules
by Anonymous on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 22:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Too bad they didn't create a better way of handling data, rather than building a mirror image of Access. That, at least, would have given current Office owners a reason to switch. If you already have the real thing, why abandon it for a clone?

A little innovation now and then might do some good.

Reply Score: 1

Use web Databases - They're better
by Joe User on Sat 22nd Oct 2005 23:43 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

It's been years now that I haven't used MS Access anymore. Problem of mobility was problem #1. Nowadays, people need to access databases from everywhere, and they need data to be concentrated on one place for consistency. Having a database on the web (PostgreSQL/MySQL/Oracle, etc...) is much better in most cases (if not all).

Reply Score: 1

All Your OO Base Are Belong to Us
by segedunum on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 01:02 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Reply Score: 1

oi
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 01:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Does it support sqlite3?

Seems kind of early to tout this. True that it's big news when the first competitor steps up to one of M $'s products, but can't we wait till it's mature and fully featured. Seems like the logical thing to do...

Reply Score: 0

DB Openoffice Base Tutorials?
by agsedu on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 03:11 UTC
agsedu
Member since:
2005-07-06

To the Osnews readers,

Where are the best online resources for learning Openoffice Base. There are several MS Access books and resources available at barnes and nobles, and amazon. But where is the best resource (online or otherwise) to learn Base and general db skills (e.g. sql) online?

Thanks for the help

~agsedu

Reply Score: 1

In our case
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 11:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In my case (a small 5 person company) access is the only thing holding us back from changing everything (including desktops) to OSS. A previous post states that "why use access if you're gonna dump the front end".

Well the reason in our case is easy - we handle a LOT of data and use firebird (on linux) to store it and run the queries (the best OSS db server in my opinion..). However, for the front end Access is the easiest and quickest to develop the GUI on, whatever people say. I've tried alternatives incuding but not limited to Gambas, kdevelop, eclypse, anjuta... and they all take too long and are too complex- being able to simply chose a data source for a form, for example, and asigning data fields to text input boxes in a few clicks really speeds up stuff. So does Visual Basic... and building queries using access' query builder..

Reply Score: 0

SQLite backend wanted
by reirob on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 12:48 UTC
reirob
Member since:
2005-09-24

I am happy that there is now a DB component in OpenOffice, was waiting for it a long time. I would like to see a SQLite backend, as SQLite files can also be used with scripts (shell, etc.) and from many other programming languages, without the need of a JVM. You would tell me to use PostgreSQL or MySQL, but frankly compared to the easyness of SQLite, it's not an option, especially if you use it at home and there are no plans to use it for Web or multi user systems.

Here my experience with OO on Ubuntu on a 1GHz Celeron box: it is slooooow. Maybe it is due to the fact, that Ubuntu Breezy does have some beta or release candidate and not the final release? And even if I don't have MS Access at home, I remember using it during my studies five years before on much slower machines and it was a lot faster. So there is a lot to do.

My wishlist:

+ Make it a LOT faster. It is almost unusable.
+ Make it more robust. A lot of crashes.
+ Add SQLite

Reply Score: 1

RE: SQLite backend wanted
by ahmetaa on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 17:17 UTC in reply to "SQLite backend wanted"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

By default HSQLDB is used in OOo2. And SQLLite does not really have serious advantages comparing to HSQLDB. Actually HSQLDB itself is more stable and SQL standart compliant than SQLLite. And posibly equally fast (not sure the OOo usage tough). And this tools whole purpose is to provide a GUI mechanism to the database. external access to the database is not the prior concern.

As for slowness, your CPU (Celeron 1Ghz) is not really a speed champ. But mostly the performance problems comes from
a- slow hard drives (notebooks anyone?)
b- small amounts of RAM
c- unstable OS

Reply Score: 1

OpenOffice.org 2.0 Is Here + Screenshots
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 08:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

OpenOffice.org 2.0 Is Here + Screenshots: http://windows.czweb.org/show_article.php?id_article=198

Reply Score: 0