Jump to content

Talk:Access Database Engine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 15 August 2009 (Signing comment by Dwfenton - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconComputing: Software Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Former featured article candidateAccess Database Engine is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 19, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 3, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Possible sources

(not necessarily used in article)

Jet 2.0
Jet 3.0
Jet 4.0
Misc
Non-MS articles
Security Bulletins

Fox base

Wasn't some or the technology acquired from Fox?Rich Farmbrough 12:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Microsoft Rushmore query technology was developed from this. I think this info should probably go into that article. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

A picture of the cover of the Programmer's Guide? Weak. It's at times like these I really hate the stupid "OMG every featured article must have a picture or I object" rule that has developed... Maybe there's some really appropriate picture out there that really illustrates the engine, but I doubt it. And then, getting one that's properly licensed is probably completely out of the question, but we can wave our Fair Use wands over that. JRM · Talk 20:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}}. If you don't like it, then you can remove it and add it to IFD. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd rather appeal the rule than eliminate the image. I'm not quite quixotic enough to do that, however. And as for sofixit: I'll let you know if I ever trip over something more suitable. JRM · Talk 07:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a rule as FA articles don't necessarily need an image. I'll remove it and delete the image as I uploaded it. Thanks for looking out for an appropriate image though! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point me to an FA that has no image, please. I'd love to read the FAC nomination. :-) Don't hold your breath for a better image, though. It's unlikely something GFDL'able ever surfaces. Or anything, really; Jet doesn't even have a proper logo, as far as I know. Still, if even articles like ROT13 can get images, there should be hope. JRM · Talk 09:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Access 2003

In the version table at the bottom right, Access 2003 is not listed. Presumably this is still Jet 4.0. Perhaps someone knowledgable can update the table accordingly.

Jet Red vs. Jet Blue

I'm surprised no one has brought up the differences between the two major implementations of the Jet engine, Jet Red (the engine used by Access) and Jet Blue (use by Exchange Server and Active Directory). I did some major research on this a while back. I will add it here when I get a chance.

Future of Jet

The Future section has two problems, seems to me:

  • The claim that Jet from Access 2007 is only going to be supported in Access is not actually supported by the Eric Rucker citation (http://blogs.msdn.com/access/archive/2005/10/13/480870.aspx). The truth is that the version of the Jet Database engine that the SQL Server team maintains will continue to exist, it just won't be updated. But that doesn't mean it's dead, because that's what we've been told about the Jet db engine since the release of Jet 4 back in 1999, that it was dead, with no further development. If you look at the cited blog post by Eric Rucker, you'll see that it doesn't support the claim being made.
  • There is no citation on Microsoft's website for the section on the 32-bit issue. I've searched the website and have found nothing about it. I do know that there is a separate set of Jet DLLs with different names for 64-bit Windows Server 2003 (see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/870753/en-us). I don't know if those are 64-bit DLLs or not, but the fact that they have different names seems to me to indicate something specifically adapted to the 64-bit platform. Furthermore, the version of Jet that will be developed by the Access team will surely be compiled to run on 64-bit Windows natively. Indeed, I'd be surprised if that were not already the case, though I have no documentation for it.

Dwfenton 21:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a modified form of an Indexed Sequential Access Method (ISAM) database

The records are not stored sequentially, and the system is not an ISAM system in the common sense of the word, ie not a system like Paradox or dBase.

So although the statement is technically correct, it is perhaps not very useful.

In fact, after reviewing the literature briefly, I wonder if it might be less misleading just to leave that sentence out. (david) 218.214.18.240 14:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense/ Present tense

  • Introduction: — present tense
  • Architecture: — past tense
  • Locking: — past tense
  • Transaction Processing: — past tense
  • Data integrity: — past tense
  • Security: — present tense
  • Queries: — present tense
  • History: — mixed tense
  • Future: — present tense

It looks like it would be less work to correct the tense of the 'Introduction', 'Security' and 'Queries' sections. On the other hand, since Jet is still widely used, using the past tense seems a little strange. (david) 218.214.18.240 15:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be entirely in present tense. Jet is still a component of all versions of Windows, as it is used for access to the Active Directory data store (though that's Jet Blue instead of Jet Red). That is why the Windows team maintains the Jet 4.0 version. It is still in use on every single Windows computer since Windows 2000, so there is no reason it should be past tense.

Furthermore, Jet still lives in the forked version that the Access team manages since Access 2007. Yes, they are calling it ACE and Access Database Engine, but it is just a new version of Jet, with enhancements. Dwfenton (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption issues?

The Microsoft Jet Database Engine was used by Diebold in its voting machines that were recently audited in Ohio, and the auditors suspected database corruption. The article below notes that Microsoft says corruption is possible with Jet under similiar circumstances. I think this is important to talk about in this Wikipedia article, so it'd be great if someone more familiar with Jet should find the original source material from MSDN and describe the issue and how it relates to the ongoing issue in Ohio.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/diebold_vote_da.html

Dmazzoni 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it should be discussed in the article at all. It's a political issue and a mis-use of Jet by a technology company. That's just not relevant here. Dwfenton (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jet version of Access 2003, XP and 2000

Both Access 2003 and XP can save MDB file to a newer format that Access 2000 cannot open. Are they really using the same version of Jet engine?--218.102.91.203 05:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Access developers make a distinction between the database (Jet 4), and the project that is stored in it (Access 2K, 2K2, 2K3). Access 2000 can use the data in a Jet 4 database, (and can 'open' the database enough to get the data in and out), but can't open a 2K2 or 2K3 project even though stored in the same kind of database. 218.214.18.240 (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit transactions

Transactions improved performance in Access 2.0 on Windows 3.11, so implicit transactions were added to Jet 3.0. However, the file system in Windows 95 cached differently, and no longer wrote data to disk under application control. Transactions in Access 2.0 were a way of reducing disk access, but in Jet 3.0 on Windows 95 implicit transactions added overhead without reducing disk access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Native Jet ISAM Driver"

Where did this term come from? I can't see it anywhere else on the web. The other drivers (the Installable ISAM drivers, IISAM) connected to ISAM database systems, and the term IISAM is still used in the help files, so it sort of makes sense to derive a new term "Native Jet" ISAM driver by analogy, except that Native Jet doesn't use a Sequential Access Method, so calling it an ISAM driver is a bit of a stretch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MDAC Exclusion

The article states:

JET stands for Joint Engine Technology...[and] has since been superseded, ...and no longer exists as a component of Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC).

The reason Jet is no longer included in the MDAC is not because it is deprecated or obsolete, but because it's unnecessary to include in the MDAC a component that is installed by default in all versions of Windows starting with Windows 2000. I believe this sentence should be changed to reflect that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwfenton (talk • contribs) 18:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Access_Database_Engine&oldid=308161123"