Access vs. Crystal for Reports 
Author Message
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports

I'm trying to decide which method to use for reports in my project. I will
have 20 to 30 different reports that the users have access to. One of the
requirements is that at least one user must be able to edit the reports and
they prefer using Access. Does anyone have suggestions or arguments for and
against each reporting method?

Thanks in Advance.

Paul



Sun, 09 Nov 2003 00:36:03 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
You don't give much information about the project (e.g., primarily VB or a
mixture of VB and ???, with a Jet database or with a server database,
straight client-server or multi-tier, versions of products, if applicable).

You know that for the user to edit reports, that user will have to have
Access installed, and will have to be given appropriate permissions
(assuming you are using Access security), I'm sure. Other users could be
provided with an Access app supported by the Access runtime you get from
Office Developer Edition. OTOH, if you generate reports from that one user
and simply send the reports to the other users, they could get by with the
Report Snapshot reader, freely available from Microsoft.

I haven't used Crystal, but I have seen some impressive work done with it.
However, _every_ person I know who has used both Access and Crystal has told
me that Access reports are easier to learn, easier to create, and more
capable, with only one exception -- a fellow who had done Crystal for as
long as he'd been using VB, had also used Crystal with databases he accessed
from C/C++, and was dragged (virtually) kicking and screaming into Access
reports at client's demand.


Quote:
> I'm trying to decide which method to use for reports in my project. I will
> have 20 to 30 different reports that the users have access to. One of the
> requirements is that at least one user must be able to edit the reports
and
> they prefer using Access. Does anyone have suggestions or arguments for
and
> against each reporting method?

> Thanks in Advance.

> Paul



Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:26:22 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
Thanks for the info Larry.
I'm connecting to an Oracle database (ADO) with VB. My concern with Access
is establishing links to the tables and views needed to run the reports.
Sounds like a maintenance nightmare. But if it works well then I'll use it.

Any other views?

Paul


Quote:
> You don't give much information about the project (e.g., primarily VB or a
> mixture of VB and ???, with a Jet database or with a server database,
> straight client-server or multi-tier, versions of products, if
applicable).

> You know that for the user to edit reports, that user will have to have
> Access installed, and will have to be given appropriate permissions
> (assuming you are using Access security), I'm sure. Other users could be
> provided with an Access app supported by the Access runtime you get from
> Office Developer Edition. OTOH, if you generate reports from that one user
> and simply send the reports to the other users, they could get by with the
> Report Snapshot reader, freely available from Microsoft.

> I haven't used Crystal, but I have seen some impressive work done with it.
> However, _every_ person I know who has used both Access and Crystal has
told
> me that Access reports are easier to learn, easier to create, and more
> capable, with only one exception -- a fellow who had done Crystal for as
> long as he'd been using VB, had also used Crystal with databases he
accessed
> from C/C++, and was dragged (virtually) kicking and screaming into Access
> reports at client's demand.



> > I'm trying to decide which method to use for reports in my project. I
will
> > have 20 to 30 different reports that the users have access to. One of
the
> > requirements is that at least one user must be able to edit the reports
> and
> > they prefer using Access. Does anyone have suggestions or arguments for
> and
> > against each reporting method?

> > Thanks in Advance.

> > Paul



Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:40:11 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
On Tue, 22 May 2001 10:40:11 -0700, "Paul Davidson"

Quote:

>Thanks for the info Larry.
>I'm connecting to an Oracle database (ADO) with VB. My concern with Access
>is establishing links to the tables and views needed to run the reports.
>Sounds like a maintenance nightmare. But if it works well then I'll use it.

>Any other views?

Paul:
        This one's a no-brainer.  If you choose MS Access in your
situation you inflict an additional proprietary database platform on
development and a M$ Access license on every client.  Don't even think
it.  Access reporting is only appropriate for Access databases.  If
you've already got a database then it's bordering on ridiculous to
bring in another just because it has a decent report writer.  I would
definitely be kicking and screaming if I was subject to that.

        The easy best choice is a dedicated report writer like Crystal
Reports or a competitor.  Good luck.

Bill Johnson
WJA Inc.



Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:30:46 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports

"Bill Johnson" wrote >
 > Paul:
 >  This one's a no-brainer.  If you choose MS Access in your
 > situation you inflict an additional proprietary database platform on
 > development and a M$ Access license on every client.  Don't even think
 > it.  Access reporting is only appropriate for Access databases.  If
 > you've already got a database then it's bordering on ridiculous to
 > bring in another just because it has a decent report writer.  I would
 > definitely be kicking and screaming if I was subject to that.
 >
 > The easy best choice is a dedicated report writer like Crystal
 > Reports or a competitor.  Good luck.

Au contraire, Bill.

Paul said that one user would be generating the reports and that user
preferred Access -- seems to me, there's a pretty high probablity that user
already has Access installed. There is a free-for-the-download "Snapshot
Viewer" for Access reports that can be used by the people who only need to
look at them.

Thus, with no additonal cost for Access and no cost for the copies of the
viewer, it'll be _less_ expensive than purchasing Crystal or some other
dedicated report generator.



Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:18:29 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
Now this is going to be a tough decision....
All of the sites that I am currently aware have Office97 installed so there
is no additional charge there.
Here are the business circumstances:
    We are a 3rd party distribution center and develop add-on programs to
enhance a WMS that our customer requires. We are nearing a point where we
will be selling our programs to our customer's other distributors.
The questions:
    I am 90% positive that the other companies have Access installed since
Office97 is required for communication with our customer.
    Do I develop a program and use Crystal? This would require the other
distributors to purchase Crystal or pay us a fee to develop custom reports.
    Do I develop for Access reports? No problem, no hassle.
The issue:
    The Director of our department is stuck on using Crystal since it is
"the industry standard". I am familiar with Access reports and know nothing
of Crystal. This would be a training issue for me with a limited time frame
to learn.

If I go with Crystal are there any good sites the help my learning curve?
Any other arguments one way or the other?

Thanks for the input, I really need it!

Paul

Quote:

> "Bill Johnson" wrote >
>  > Paul:
>  >  This one's a no-brainer.  If you choose MS Access in your
>  > situation you inflict an additional proprietary database platform on
>  > development and a M$ Access license on every client.  Don't even think
>  > it.  Access reporting is only appropriate for Access databases.  If
>  > you've already got a database then it's bordering on ridiculous to
>  > bring in another just because it has a decent report writer.  I would
>  > definitely be kicking and screaming if I was subject to that.

>  > The easy best choice is a dedicated report writer like Crystal
>  > Reports or a competitor.  Good luck.

> Au contraire, Bill.

> Paul said that one user would be generating the reports and that user
> preferred Access -- seems to me, there's a pretty high probablity that
user
> already has Access installed. There is a free-for-the-download "Snapshot
> Viewer" for Access reports that can be used by the people who only need to
> look at them.

> Thus, with no additonal cost for Access and no cost for the copies of the
> viewer, it'll be _less_ expensive than purchasing Crystal or some other
> dedicated report generator.



Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:56:25 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
Well, I've got to throw in my two cents...

I'm an Access person so I'm bound to be a little biased.  But, from my
experience, what I've seen of Crystal, it doesn't have the VB/DAO type stuff
and the ability to execute direct sql queries like Access does, or am I
totally off base here?  When I was taught how to program Access, the idea is
that we didn't care what the back end was, just that we could get to the
data, and in many cases, if we're just reporting we can copy a subset of the
big table back to our local machine and slice and dice it as we see fit
without influencing the larger database.

As for the subject of licencing, we use a thing called the Access Developer
Kit which allows you to create what they call (or called, I don't know what
the new version says about this), the Royalty-Free distribution copy.
Basically, it gave you the tools to make the access database into a
distribution that you could slice up and put on diskettes if you wanted.  I
just usually stick all the files in a network drive.  I like that version of
the software too because it means that the user can't get in there and start
messing with forms and whatnot.  They can open the forms you make and that
is it.  I'm not sure how it works, I think the ODBC links are seperate from
the program, so if you set those up in advance, then I think the executable
will just see them and work.

I don't have a lot of experience with external data sources, I've played
with MYSQL for linux, and got that to work alright, I wasn't sure if I
wanted to put my mission critical stuff on it though.  The other databases
we have are MSSQL based, they are accounting tables, and I just link up to
them, and like I said copy the data back to the client machine for any
fooling with.

I'm done fooling.  Seeya.

-Brian


Quote:
> Now this is going to be a tough decision....
> All of the sites that I am currently aware have Office97 installed so
there
> is no additional charge there.
> Here are the business circumstances:
>     We are a 3rd party distribution center and develop add-on programs to
> enhance a WMS that our customer requires. We are nearing a point where we
> will be selling our programs to our customer's other distributors.
> The questions:
>     I am 90% positive that the other companies have Access installed since
> Office97 is required for communication with our customer.
>     Do I develop a program and use Crystal? This would require the other
> distributors to purchase Crystal or pay us a fee to develop custom
reports.
>     Do I develop for Access reports? No problem, no hassle.
> The issue:
>     The Director of our department is stuck on using Crystal since it is
> "the industry standard". I am familiar with Access reports and know
nothing
> of Crystal. This would be a training issue for me with a limited time
frame
> to learn.

> If I go with Crystal are there any good sites the help my learning curve?
> Any other arguments one way or the other?

> Thanks for the input, I really need it!

> Paul


> > "Bill Johnson" wrote >
> >  > Paul:
> >  >  This one's a no-brainer.  If you choose MS Access in your
> >  > situation you inflict an additional proprietary database platform on
> >  > development and a M$ Access license on every client.  Don't even
think
> >  > it.  Access reporting is only appropriate for Access databases.  If
> >  > you've already got a database then it's bordering on ridiculous to
> >  > bring in another just because it has a decent report writer.  I would
> >  > definitely be kicking and screaming if I was subject to that.

> >  > The easy best choice is a dedicated report writer like Crystal
> >  > Reports or a competitor.  Good luck.

> > Au contraire, Bill.

> > Paul said that one user would be generating the reports and that user
> > preferred Access -- seems to me, there's a pretty high probablity that
> user
> > already has Access installed. There is a free-for-the-download "Snapshot
> > Viewer" for Access reports that can be used by the people who only need
to
> > look at them.

> > Thus, with no additonal cost for Access and no cost for the copies of
the
> > viewer, it'll be _less_ expensive than purchasing Crystal or some other
> > dedicated report generator.



Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:13:13 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
Well, if Crystal is, in your director's eyes, "the Industry Standard", that
may, in fact, _make_ it "the Industry Standard" as far as you are concerned.
Depending on the manager's attitude and the strength of the manager's
opinion, there are times when it's folly for an employee or contractor _not_
to say, "Yes, sir. As you say, sir. It shall be so, sir." However, there are
far, far more installations of Access than of Crystal. And, since I am
neither an employee nor contractor in this situation, I'll be happy to state
that I certainly do not agree that there is _any_ product that would be
called _the_ industry standard. I suspect that ReportSmith and others would
support my view, including, probably, even Microsoft who could make a much
stronger case for Access being the standard. (It's just that Microsoft does
not consider Access to be a "report generator" even though it _includes_
what is, IMNSHO, the best report generator in all computing history.)

And with Access, there is no learning curve for users who already use
Access, Access' connectivity is better than any other product I know about,
Access has no additional cost for people who have Office Pro or better
installed -- unless your users have Crystal already installed, which is far
less likely, there will be additional cost and learning curve. And, as I've
said, those people I know personally who have done both, by an almost
infinite ratio, think Access reporting is (1) easier to learn (2) easier to
do, and (3) more capable than Crystal is.

Feel free to convey my opinion to your director. And, to give some credence
to my opinion, you can tell him/her I have nearly 44 years in the computer
business, and have used both Visual Basic and Access since their respective
first releases (1991 and 1992, AAMOF).


Quote:
> Now this is going to be a tough decision....
> All of the sites that I am currently aware have Office97 installed so
there
> is no additional charge there.
> Here are the business circumstances:
>     We are a 3rd party distribution center and develop add-on programs to
> enhance a WMS that our customer requires. We are nearing a point where we
> will be selling our programs to our customer's other distributors.
> The questions:
>     I am 90% positive that the other companies have Access installed since
> Office97 is required for communication with our customer.
>     Do I develop a program and use Crystal? This would require the other
> distributors to purchase Crystal or pay us a fee to develop custom
reports.
>     Do I develop for Access reports? No problem, no hassle.
> The issue:
>     The Director of our department is stuck on using Crystal since it is
> "the industry standard". I am familiar with Access reports and know
nothing
> of Crystal. This would be a training issue for me with a limited time
frame
> to learn.

> If I go with Crystal are there any good sites the help my learning curve?
> Any other arguments one way or the other?

> Thanks for the input, I really need it!

> Paul


> > "Bill Johnson" wrote >
> >  > Paul:
> >  >  This one's a no-brainer.  If you choose MS Access in your
> >  > situation you inflict an additional proprietary database platform on
> >  > development and a M$ Access license on every client.  Don't even
think
> >  > it.  Access reporting is only appropriate for Access databases.  If
> >  > you've already got a database then it's bordering on ridiculous to
> >  > bring in another just because it has a decent report writer.  I would
> >  > definitely be kicking and screaming if I was subject to that.

> >  > The easy best choice is a dedicated report writer like Crystal
> >  > Reports or a competitor.  Good luck.

> > Au contraire, Bill.

> > Paul said that one user would be generating the reports and that user
> > preferred Access -- seems to me, there's a pretty high probablity that
> user
> > already has Access installed. There is a free-for-the-download "Snapshot
> > Viewer" for Access reports that can be used by the people who only need
to
> > look at them.

> > Thus, with no additonal cost for Access and no cost for the copies of
the
> > viewer, it'll be _less_ expensive than purchasing Crystal or some other
> > dedicated report generator.



Tue, 11 Nov 2003 03:53:39 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
Geez Larry, What kind of computer were you using back there in 1957?  A
sliderule?

-Brian


Quote:
> Well, if Crystal is, in your director's eyes, "the Industry Standard",
that
> may, in fact, _make_ it "the Industry Standard" as far as you are
concerned.
> Depending on the manager's attitude and the strength of the manager's
> opinion, there are times when it's folly for an employee or contractor
_not_
> to say, "Yes, sir. As you say, sir. It shall be so, sir." However, there
are
> far, far more installations of Access than of Crystal. And, since I am
> neither an employee nor contractor in this situation, I'll be happy to
state
> that I certainly do not agree that there is _any_ product that would be
> called _the_ industry standard. I suspect that ReportSmith and others
would
> support my view, including, probably, even Microsoft who could make a much
> stronger case for Access being the standard. (It's just that Microsoft
does
> not consider Access to be a "report generator" even though it _includes_
> what is, IMNSHO, the best report generator in all computing history.)

> And with Access, there is no learning curve for users who already use
> Access, Access' connectivity is better than any other product I know
about,
> Access has no additional cost for people who have Office Pro or better
> installed -- unless your users have Crystal already installed, which is
far
> less likely, there will be additional cost and learning curve. And, as
I've
> said, those people I know personally who have done both, by an almost
> infinite ratio, think Access reporting is (1) easier to learn (2) easier
to
> do, and (3) more capable than Crystal is.

> Feel free to convey my opinion to your director. And, to give some
credence
> to my opinion, you can tell him/her I have nearly 44 years in the computer
> business, and have used both Visual Basic and Access since their
respective
> first releases (1991 and 1992, AAMOF).



> > Now this is going to be a tough decision....
> > All of the sites that I am currently aware have Office97 installed so
> there
> > is no additional charge there.
> > Here are the business circumstances:
> >     We are a 3rd party distribution center and develop add-on programs
to
> > enhance a WMS that our customer requires. We are nearing a point where
we
> > will be selling our programs to our customer's other distributors.
> > The questions:
> >     I am 90% positive that the other companies have Access installed
since
> > Office97 is required for communication with our customer.
> >     Do I develop a program and use Crystal? This would require the other
> > distributors to purchase Crystal or pay us a fee to develop custom
> reports.
> >     Do I develop for Access reports? No problem, no hassle.
> > The issue:
> >     The Director of our department is stuck on using Crystal since it is
> > "the industry standard". I am familiar with Access reports and know
> nothing
> > of Crystal. This would be a training issue for me with a limited time
> frame
> > to learn.

> > If I go with Crystal are there any good sites the help my learning
curve?
> > Any other arguments one way or the other?

> > Thanks for the input, I really need it!

> > Paul


> > > "Bill Johnson" wrote >
> > >  > Paul:
> > >  >  This one's a no-brainer.  If you choose MS Access in your
> > >  > situation you inflict an additional proprietary database platform
on
> > >  > development and a M$ Access license on every client.  Don't even
> think
> > >  > it.  Access reporting is only appropriate for Access databases.  If
> > >  > you've already got a database then it's bordering on ridiculous to
> > >  > bring in another just because it has a decent report writer.  I
would
> > >  > definitely be kicking and screaming if I was subject to that.

> > >  > The easy best choice is a dedicated report writer like Crystal
> > >  > Reports or a competitor.  Good luck.

> > > Au contraire, Bill.

> > > Paul said that one user would be generating the reports and that user
> > > preferred Access -- seems to me, there's a pretty high probablity that
> > user
> > > already has Access installed. There is a free-for-the-download
"Snapshot
> > > Viewer" for Access reports that can be used by the people who only
need
> to
> > > look at them.

> > > Thus, with no additonal cost for Access and no cost for the copies of
> the
> > > viewer, it'll be _less_ expensive than purchasing Crystal or some
other
> > > dedicated report generator.



Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:14:39 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
It's hard to remember back so many aeons ago, but I think it was something
more than an advanced abacus. <G>  Actually, I was running programs to
generate tapes for numerical control of machine tools on the IBM 704, 705,
and Univac 1103A Scientific. And taking a programming class on the IBM 650.
All full of vacuum tubes like the integer 32767 is full of one-bits, only
maybe if you count all of the vacuum tubes in all of those, there might be
more than 32,767 of them. In 1959, I began working on the A/N FSQ-7 and A/N
FSQ-8 computers (SAGE Air Defense*) which each had something over 80,000
vacuum tubes and filled two floors of a large building. It was 1962 before I
worked on any machines that were transistorized rather than vacuum-tube
powered.

And, each of those had, considerably less compute power than the original,
vintage-1982 IBM PC. AAMOF, I have one fixed and two notebook computers,
none "up-to-the-minute", and one "marginally obsolescent", and each of them
has more compute power than existed in the world when I started in the
business. Hehehe. If it wasn't so much fun, I'd consider retiring for the
second time, but for real this time.

   * Don't laugh -- it kept North America safe from Soviet manned bomber
attack.
      And, our Soviet counterparts had something similar that their
programmers can
      claim kept them safe from U.S. and Canadian manned bomber attack. <G>
      Both they and we can grin about it now, but it was serious business
back then.


Quote:
> Geez Larry, What kind of computer were you using back there in 1957?  A
> sliderule?

> -Brian



> > Well, if Crystal is, in your director's eyes, "the Industry Standard",
> that
> > may, in fact, _make_ it "the Industry Standard" as far as you are
> concerned.
> > Depending on the manager's attitude and the strength of the manager's
> > opinion, there are times when it's folly for an employee or contractor
> _not_
> > to say, "Yes, sir. As you say, sir. It shall be so, sir." However, there
> are
> > far, far more installations of Access than of Crystal. And, since I am
> > neither an employee nor contractor in this situation, I'll be happy to
> state
> > that I certainly do not agree that there is _any_ product that would be
> > called _the_ industry standard. I suspect that ReportSmith and others
> would
> > support my view, including, probably, even Microsoft who could make a
much
> > stronger case for Access being the standard. (It's just that Microsoft
> does
> > not consider Access to be a "report generator" even though it _includes_
> > what is, IMNSHO, the best report generator in all computing history.)

> > And with Access, there is no learning curve for users who already use
> > Access, Access' connectivity is better than any other product I know
> about,
> > Access has no additional cost for people who have Office Pro or better
> > installed -- unless your users have Crystal already installed, which is
> far
> > less likely, there will be additional cost and learning curve. And, as
> I've
> > said, those people I know personally who have done both, by an almost
> > infinite ratio, think Access reporting is (1) easier to learn (2) easier
> to
> > do, and (3) more capable than Crystal is.

> > Feel free to convey my opinion to your director. And, to give some
> credence
> > to my opinion, you can tell him/her I have nearly 44 years in the
computer
> > business, and have used both Visual Basic and Access since their
> respective
> > first releases (1991 and 1992, AAMOF).



> > > Now this is going to be a tough decision....
> > > All of the sites that I am currently aware have Office97 installed so
> > there
> > > is no additional charge there.
> > > Here are the business circumstances:
> > >     We are a 3rd party distribution center and develop add-on programs
> to
> > > enhance a WMS that our customer requires. We are nearing a point where
> we
> > > will be selling our programs to our customer's other distributors.
> > > The questions:
> > >     I am 90% positive that the other companies have Access installed
> since
> > > Office97 is required for communication with our customer.
> > >     Do I develop a program and use Crystal? This would require the
other
> > > distributors to purchase Crystal or pay us a fee to develop custom
> > reports.
> > >     Do I develop for Access reports? No problem, no hassle.
> > > The issue:
> > >     The Director of our department is stuck on using Crystal since it
is
> > > "the industry standard". I am familiar with Access reports and know
> > nothing
> > > of Crystal. This would be a training issue for me with a limited time
> > frame
> > > to learn.

> > > If I go with Crystal are there any good sites the help my learning
> curve?
> > > Any other arguments one way or the other?

> > > Thanks for the input, I really need it!

> > > Paul


> > > > "Bill Johnson" wrote >
> > > >  > Paul:
> > > >  >  This one's a no-brainer.  If you choose MS Access in your
> > > >  > situation you inflict an additional proprietary database platform
> on
> > > >  > development and a M$ Access license on every client.  Don't even
> > think
> > > >  > it.  Access reporting is only appropriate for Access databases.
If
> > > >  > you've already got a database then it's bordering on ridiculous
to
> > > >  > bring in another just because it has a decent report writer.  I
> would
> > > >  > definitely be kicking and screaming if I was subject to that.

> > > >  > The easy best choice is a dedicated report writer like Crystal
> > > >  > Reports or a competitor.  Good luck.

> > > > Au contraire, Bill.

> > > > Paul said that one user would be generating the reports and that
user
> > > > preferred Access -- seems to me, there's a pretty high probablity
that
> > > user
> > > > already has Access installed. There is a free-for-the-download
> "Snapshot
> > > > Viewer" for Access reports that can be used by the people who only
> need
> > to
> > > > look at them.

> > > > Thus, with no additonal cost for Access and no cost for the copies
of
> > the
> > > > viewer, it'll be _less_ expensive than purchasing Crystal or some
> other
> > > > dedicated report generator.



Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:57:33 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
Quote:


>> "Bill Johnson" wrote >
>>  > Paul:
>>  >  This one's a no-brainer.  If you choose MS Access in your
>>  > situation you inflict an additional proprietary database platform on
>>  > development and a M$ Access license on every client.  Don't even think
>>  > it.  Access reporting is only appropriate for Access databases.  If
>>  > you've already got a database then it's bordering on ridiculous to
>>  > bring in another just because it has a decent report writer.  I would
>>  > definitely be kicking and screaming if I was subject to that.

>>  > The easy best choice is a dedicated report writer like Crystal
>>  > Reports or a competitor.  Good luck.

>> Au contraire, Bill.

>> Paul said that one user would be generating the reports and that user
>> preferred Access -- seems to me, there's a pretty high probablity that
>user
>> already has Access installed. There is a free-for-the-download "Snapshot
>> Viewer" for Access reports that can be used by the people who only need to
>> look at them.

>> Thus, with no additonal cost for Access and no cost for the copies of the
>> viewer, it'll be _less_ expensive than purchasing Crystal or some other
>> dedicated report generator.

Larry:
        My news server didn't pick up this message so I'm glad it got
quoted - gee, wonder what else I'm missing.  

        Yes, if they've got Access then a M$ Access license purchase
would not be needed for every client but either way the M$ Access
license is an assumed cost.  Except in the case of the snapshot viewer
where these clients would not need a license.  I go along with the
fact that this and the training cost associated with a dedicated
report writer make a M$ Access solution plausible.

        OTOH it's always the implementation that really matters and
this I feel, is where the focus should be.  Paul said that "I'm
connecting to an Oracle database (ADO) with VB."  Access apparently
doesn't physically enter into it.  I like Access, but I propose it's
an overweight solution to the requirement for a report writer.

        I would use a dedicated report writer.  I own Crystal Reports
but I don't work for them and I'm not going to do a sales pitch for
them.  Competitive products are also very good and worth a look.  In
general these dedicated report writers are full featured and permit
you to setup a report and send in a dynamic query to generate it.
Good Luck whatever you decide to do Paul.

Bill



Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:58:22 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
And, as I said, I've seen some impressive work done with Crystal... Access
was not an option for my colleague in that case -- he was generating
real-time reports from a Cold Fusion web application using an SQL Server
database. But, he was one of the ones who, given a choice, would have used
Access for reporting.

I can't personally compare the ease of learning/use, as I haven't done
Crystal myself, but if it's easier to learn/use than Access, it's got to be
a "dandy".


Quote:


> >> "Bill Johnson" wrote >
> >>  > Paul:
> >>  >  This one's a no-brainer.  If you choose MS Access in your
> >>  > situation you inflict an additional proprietary database platform on
> >>  > development and a M$ Access license on every client.  Don't even
think
> >>  > it.  Access reporting is only appropriate for Access databases.  If
> >>  > you've already got a database then it's bordering on ridiculous to
> >>  > bring in another just because it has a decent report writer.  I
would
> >>  > definitely be kicking and screaming if I was subject to that.

> >>  > The easy best choice is a dedicated report writer like Crystal
> >>  > Reports or a competitor.  Good luck.

> >> Au contraire, Bill.

> >> Paul said that one user would be generating the reports and that user
> >> preferred Access -- seems to me, there's a pretty high probablity that
> >user
> >> already has Access installed. There is a free-for-the-download
"Snapshot
> >> Viewer" for Access reports that can be used by the people who only need
to
> >> look at them.

> >> Thus, with no additonal cost for Access and no cost for the copies of
the
> >> viewer, it'll be _less_ expensive than purchasing Crystal or some other
> >> dedicated report generator.

> Larry:
> My news server didn't pick up this message so I'm glad it got
> quoted - gee, wonder what else I'm missing.

> Yes, if they've got Access then a M$ Access license purchase
> would not be needed for every client but either way the M$ Access
> license is an assumed cost.  Except in the case of the snapshot viewer
> where these clients would not need a license.  I go along with the
> fact that this and the training cost associated with a dedicated
> report writer make a M$ Access solution plausible.

> OTOH it's always the implementation that really matters and
> this I feel, is where the focus should be.  Paul said that "I'm
> connecting to an Oracle database (ADO) with VB."  Access apparently
> doesn't physically enter into it.  I like Access, but I propose it's
> an overweight solution to the requirement for a report writer.

> I would use a dedicated report writer.  I own Crystal Reports
> but I don't work for them and I'm not going to do a sales pitch for
> them.  Competitive products are also very good and worth a look.  In
> general these dedicated report writers are full featured and permit
> you to setup a report and send in a dynamic query to generate it.
> Good Luck whatever you decide to do Paul.

> Bill



Tue, 11 Nov 2003 06:08:41 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
Thanks for all the input everyone!
Unless anyone minds, I'm going to forward the data onto my boss so he can
make the decision.
Just in case, any good sources for development info on Crystal?
I have considered other report writers and I liked DataDynamics' tools. But
alas the boss isn't even considering it....
Wish me luck.

Paul

Larry:
    The first computer I saw as a kid was an Apple IIE that my uncle had. He
taught me some basic programming which I used to destroy my own computer a
few years later (vic20)....it was never same again - didn't know you
shouldn't play with memory locations ;)


Quote:
> And, as I said, I've seen some impressive work done with Crystal... Access
> was not an option for my colleague in that case -- he was generating
> real-time reports from a Cold Fusion web application using an SQL Server
> database. But, he was one of the ones who, given a choice, would have used
> Access for reporting.

> I can't personally compare the ease of learning/use, as I haven't done
> Crystal myself, but if it's easier to learn/use than Access, it's got to
be
> a "dandy".





> > >> "Bill Johnson" wrote >
> > >>  > Paul:
> > >>  >  This one's a no-brainer.  If you choose MS Access in your
> > >>  > situation you inflict an additional proprietary database platform
on
> > >>  > development and a M$ Access license on every client.  Don't even
> think
> > >>  > it.  Access reporting is only appropriate for Access databases.
If
> > >>  > you've already got a database then it's bordering on ridiculous to
> > >>  > bring in another just because it has a decent report writer.  I
> would
> > >>  > definitely be kicking and screaming if I was subject to that.

> > >>  > The easy best choice is a dedicated report writer like Crystal
> > >>  > Reports or a competitor.  Good luck.

> > >> Au contraire, Bill.

> > >> Paul said that one user would be generating the reports and that user
> > >> preferred Access -- seems to me, there's a pretty high probablity
that
> > >user
> > >> already has Access installed. There is a free-for-the-download
> "Snapshot
> > >> Viewer" for Access reports that can be used by the people who only
need
> to
> > >> look at them.

> > >> Thus, with no additonal cost for Access and no cost for the copies of
> the
> > >> viewer, it'll be _less_ expensive than purchasing Crystal or some
other
> > >> dedicated report generator.

> > Larry:
> > My news server didn't pick up this message so I'm glad it got
> > quoted - gee, wonder what else I'm missing.

> > Yes, if they've got Access then a M$ Access license purchase
> > would not be needed for every client but either way the M$ Access
> > license is an assumed cost.  Except in the case of the snapshot viewer
> > where these clients would not need a license.  I go along with the
> > fact that this and the training cost associated with a dedicated
> > report writer make a M$ Access solution plausible.

> > OTOH it's always the implementation that really matters and
> > this I feel, is where the focus should be.  Paul said that "I'm
> > connecting to an Oracle database (ADO) with VB."  Access apparently
> > doesn't physically enter into it.  I like Access, but I propose it's
> > an overweight solution to the requirement for a report writer.

> > I would use a dedicated report writer.  I own Crystal Reports
> > but I don't work for them and I'm not going to do a sales pitch for
> > them.  Competitive products are also very good and worth a look.  In
> > general these dedicated report writers are full featured and permit
> > you to setup a report and send in a dynamic query to generate it.
> > Good Luck whatever you decide to do Paul.

> > Bill



Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:28:38 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports
On Thu, 24 May 2001 22:08:41 GMT, "Larry Linson"

Quote:

>And, as I said, I've seen some impressive work done with Crystal... Access
>was not an option for my colleague in that case -- he was generating
>real-time reports from a Cold Fusion web application using an SQL Server
>database. But, he was one of the ones who, given a choice, would have used
>Access for reporting.

>I can't personally compare the ease of learning/use, as I haven't done
>Crystal myself, but if it's easier to learn/use than Access, it's got to be
>a "dandy".

Larry:
        When I was 7 or 8 years old my dad would take me into work
with him.  He was a computer operator in the IBM Dept. of a major
manufacturer.  I would help him feed huge stacks of punch cards into
the "sorters" and change out the big birthday cake sized disks from
the top loading "washing machines."

        It's guys like you and him that paved the way and helped keep
the free world safe for the rest of us.  We all owe you a debt of
gratitude.  My respects.  You must be part computer after all that
time.   :^)

        As far as the learning curve for dedicated report writers it's
really not too bad.  They, like everything else over the years have
improved a lot.  Once up and running, a lot depends on how clever the
developer is at writing SQL queries to tie into reports and that seems
to be the limiting factor.       Perhaps Paul can land a trial version
of one of these products to test the waters ahead of time?  For cost
comparison purposes a similar trial can be done using Access then a
best decision can be made.  Take care.

Bill Johnson
WJA Inc.



Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:55:56 GMT  
 Access vs. Crystal for Reports


Quote:
>    It's guys like you and him that paved the way and helped keep
>the free world safe for the rest of us.  We all owe you a debt of

True. I have not a clue how those guys made heads or tails of little
lights showing an octal value and still end up with something that
actually worked.  

Quote:
>gratitude.  My respects.  You must be part computer after all that
>time.       :^)

Larry doesn't just go to te toilet like we do.
He receives a function call, allocates and computes a path to it,
(depending on system priorities this may have to be the shortest
path).
Then he transfers all unused data to the main buffer and flushes the
buffer. Of course the path is kept static, in case there was an
earlier input of invalid data, because that could require that
function to be fully re-entrant and very very quickly.

Just kidding Larry :)

Regards, Frank.



Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:25:12 GMT  
 
 [ 17 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Crystal Reports vs Access Reports

2. Access Report vs Crystal Report

3. Crystal Reports vs Access Report Writer

4. Crystal Reports vs Access Reports

5. Crystal Report 7 ActiveX (craxdrt.dll) vs Crystal Report Engine (CPEAUTO.dll)

6. Access vs. Crystal reports

7. Crystal vs Access Reports

8. MS Access vs. Crystal Reports numeric fields

9. Crystal Reports vs VB reports in code

10. Crystal Report vs MS Data Report Designer

11. Active Reports Vs Crystal Report?

12. Active Reports vs Crystal Reports

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software