Will Access 2016 break the 2 gig barrier that exists now?

Does anyone know if the new release of Access 2016 will allow users to save databases with more than 2 gigs?
CRGmanAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

x
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Jim Dettman (Microsoft MVP/ EE MVE)President / OwnerCommented:
While no one can say for certain, I'd say I'm 99.99% sure that the answer would be no for several reasons:

1. Since 2007, Microsoft has been focused on web development only.  The desktop side of things has gotten very little attention.

2. Jet has been virtually unchanged since 4.0.  Yes, it's now called ACE and a few tweaks have been added, but it's fund fundamentally still JET and the basic architecture remains unchanged since Access 2000, which will be almost fifteen years now.

3. Users have a much better alternative; a SQL Server backend.

Jim.
it_saigeDeveloperCommented:
I've not seen mention of an increase.  The last increase came with Access 2000 which increased the limit from 1GB to 2GB.  In my honest opinion, as Microsoft already has SQL Server Express (which has a limit of 10GB), I do not forsee them raising the limit on Access.  We will just have to wait until Microsoft releases more information.

-saige-

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
CRGmanAuthor Commented:
Thanks.
Acronis True Image 2019 just released!

Create a reliable backup. Make sure you always have dependable copies of your data so you can restore your entire system or individual files.

CRGmanAuthor Commented:
I guess at this point I need to take some classes on using Access as a front end and SQL Express as the back end so I can continue to develop larger databases.   Thanks for your insights.
PatHartmanCommented:
There is no pressing reason to up the size limit.  Since you can always link to multiple back end databases, essentially, the 2g is the limit for a single table.  That's a lot of data.
it_saigeDeveloperCommented:
Actually, I would take it a step further and learn VB.NET or C#.  Then you could use Microsoft Visual Studio (and potentially the Community Edition so long as you meet the requirements).

-saige-
DatabaseMX (Joe Anderson - Microsoft Access MVP)Database Architect / Systems AnalystCommented:
"Yes, it's now called ACE"
Actually ... I'm not sure ACE is still the moniker anymore ?
Jim Dettman (Microsoft MVP/ EE MVE)President / OwnerCommented:
As far as I know it is...haven't heard of anything else.

Jim.
DatabaseMX (Joe Anderson - Microsoft Access MVP)Database Architect / Systems AnalystCommented:
Well, FWIW ... I pinged Jeff ... and this is his take - which seems to make sense:

"JET was a Windows component that still ships with Windows I believe. It is not owned by the Access group at all but of course Access made/makes heavy use of it in MDB/MDE/MDA files. It has seen very few improvements in a very long time. I think the only changes have been perhaps security fixes once in a great while by whichever team owns it now. No active development has been put on JET for a long time I think.

Beginning with Access 2007, the Access team wanted to add some additional elements to JET but since we didn’t own it the team couldn’t do it. So the team decided to make a privatized copy of the JET code base for Access’ use alone. I’m pretty sure they just made an identical copy of the code base at that time, brought it into the Access build system and then started making additional features into it – most notably the use of Attachment fields and MVFs I believe. They called this “new” database engine ACE and was/is the basis for all ACCDB/ACCDE/ACCDA files. The Access team is completely responsible then for ACE but not JET.

So the easiest way to think of it is JET = MDB and ACE = ACCDB. Also, Jet = Windows owns and ACE = Access owns.

So technically, this phrase is not accurate: Yes, it's now called ACE and a few tweaks have been added, “
They are two separate things.
"
Jim Dettman (Microsoft MVP/ EE MVE)President / OwnerCommented:
<<So technically, this phrase is not accurate: Yes, it's now called ACE and a few tweaks have been added, “
They are two separate things.>>

 LOL.  So how can he say:

"I’m pretty sure they just made an identical copy of the code base at that time, brought it into the Access build system and then started making additional features into it – most notably the use of Attachment fields and MVFs I believe."

 ACE is JET with a few tweaks like I said.

Jim.
Jim Dettman (Microsoft MVP/ EE MVE)President / OwnerCommented:
Also don't forget there was JET Red and Blue.

The JET version built into windows has always been a separate thing.

 The main point is, the JET version that came with Access up to 2003 was changed into ACE and a few things added, but it's still fundamentally the same (page organization, indexing, limitations, features, etc).

Jim.
DatabaseMX (Joe Anderson - Microsoft Access MVP)Database Architect / Systems AnalystCommented:
Hey ... I'm just the messenger ... lol
Jim Dettman (Microsoft MVP/ EE MVE)President / OwnerCommented:
It's the same old line from Microsoft; they'd like you to think they came up with something new, but really it's the same old JET we've had for so many years.

  Yeah, they did add a few things to it, and the Access team now owns it, but it is still fundamentally JET.  Heck, even work group security is still there.

 To try and clam it's anything much more than a name change is ridiculous.  Actually, I have to take that back a bit as they did trash replication.  But I think they just turned it off rather than ripping it out like they did with workgroup security.

Jim.
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Microsoft Access

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.