Microsoft spent years and years trying to get people to not use Excel as a database, until they eventually had to give up hope that anyone who doesn't know the difference would voluntarily use Access, so they started adding database-like functionality to Excel to meet their customer's demands and try to make the experience at least a little bit less painful.

This is a real-life case of "meet the user where they are" despite the designer's wishes, because even within Microsoft, there is strong agreement on not using Excel as a DB.

[–] supercriticalcheese@feddit.it 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I only ever encountered Access was once many years ago and I was warned that it had issues with multiple users.

[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, to be fair to Access, it's not like Excel is such a great multi-user database either, now is it? ;-)

[–] supercriticalcheese@feddit.it 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well excel nowadays doesn't have issues with concurrent users if you have office 365 like many companies do.

At that time it was Access with the files located at a company shared drive, the issue was concurrent writes I believe.

[–] filcuk@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Better yet, put your access backend to OneDrive to acquire an un-openable, un-deletable file.

[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I actually ran this setup for a pretty long while without major issues. YMMV but OneDrive is not a terrible way to store a single user database backend if you don't have a lot of sequential writes going into it in a short timespan.

[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, but at the time Excel didn't support concurrency either ;-)

Anyway, you are correct about the issue with concurrent writes, but that's only because Access was intended as a single user DB. If you wanted a multi-user DB you should be getting MS SQL server.

Not saying this product strategy worked (it clearly didn't, otherwise people would not be using Excel), but that's how they envisioned it to work.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

i...isn't that the entire point of excel? what is it for if not to store data?

similarly i remember a reddit comment that broke my brain, saying no one should be using excel, they should be using a 'cell matrix organizer' or similar. we all can name 5 off the top of our heads

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago

Excel is this weird mix of storing small amounts of data but so good for visualizing data. If people are saying it shouldn't be used to store data they mean massive amounts of data as opposed to something like some small scale accounting for a fund raiser.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 10 points 1 year ago

Excel has a purpose, but storing data long term isn't it. It's for calculating data. It shouldn't be the single source of truth.

One of the things Microsoft did to make it work was extending the row limit from 65k to 1M. Apparently, Economics professors were very excited about that one, which explains a lot.

[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Storing data is only one of the parts to the formula of what makes a database. Proper databases require structured storage of the data and some way to query the data constructively. Excel did not have those features until Microsoft gave up trying to convince people to not use it as a DB and added it to Excel.

[–] blackbirdbiryani@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No simple way to join tables though, which is still pretty shocking to me.