Data Base used in Mac?
 

Dear All,

I want to know which is the better data base to be used in Mac.
Please give your suggestion.

Thanks.
Vishal Chauhan

Use PostgreSQL. It's excellent - and it's free. You can get it at: http://www.postgresql.org/

Use MySql. It's excellent - and it's free. You can get it at: http://www.mysql.com//

:D

Thanks for Reply.
I will definitely will look for the above suggestion.
Is there any comparison list which will show how many user use a particular data base on macintosh.
What about FileMaker Pro and Open Office and apple works?

If you're talking about spreadsheet apps (as opposed to databases) that's a different matter. Spreadsheet apps are database programs with sophisticated graphical user interfaces, designed mostly for individual or small croup collaborative work; databases are usually command line apps designed for rapid access. for instance, a corporation will generally use a spreadsheet app like Excel or Filemaker for maintaining centralized records and producing numerical or visual data for projects, but it will use a database program like one of the SQLs listed above to drive its website. what's the purpose that you plan on putting this to? that will determine which approach you want to take.

Ok.
Yes I am talking about spreadsheet apps like access in Windows.
But do not know much about mac apps.

FileMaker Pro and Microsoft Excel are the biggest commercial-grade spreadsheet apps, so far as I know. Excel has some freeware mimics in Open Office and NeoOffice - not quite as powerful and not 100% compatible, but good for most purposes. Numbers (part of iWork) is a more light-weight, mac-savvy spreadsheet app, but I haven't used it extensively so I can't tell you much about it except that it's much cheaper than Excel or FileMaker, and it's os X native (open and Neo office run under x11, which I personally find annoying).

there are probably a few minor players (MarinerCalc and Papyrus used to be in the field, but I don't know if they are still living projects).

Neither OpenOffice nor NeoOffice run in X11. They are both normal Mac apps. NeoOffice is "more so", offering support for OS X Services, Dictionaries, and other stuff.

Both of them have Access-style database programs as well as Excel-style spreadsheet programs.

FileMaker is the best database overall on any platform.

The various SQL based systems will scale up a bit higher (more concurrent users, faster, work better with larger data sets) but they are klunky to work with and cumbersome to modify. The free versions are very popular because, well, they're FREE.

But FileMaker is worth the price tag.

:confused:

NeoOffice is not an X11 app (it's a Java app) but my copy of OpenOffice is very definitely an X11 app.

Is there an Aqua version of it out now? (& does it require 10.5+ to run, perhaps?)

OpenOffice Aqua requires 10.3. It's been aqua since v3.0, IIRC.

Hmm. Wonder how I missed that?

Aqua version of Open Office is Intel only....

If you want a real database, get PostgreSQL. To find out why, click here: http://www.postgresql.org/about/

As with most things, the software that is best for you depends on what tasks you're trying to perform.

Maybe a little more info about ends will make suggestions about means a bit less scattergun. :)

No one thinks much (good) of Bento then?

well, I've never heard of it. :D

It depends on the application. I hope we here more about that. :)

Access isn't a spreadsheet app. While the record tables within Access may look like spreadsheets, they aren't spreadsheets at all. The difference is that a data table only static information, while a spreadsheet is constantly performing active calculations. A database's calculations are done via queries. If you only have one or two data tables and one or two queries doing very simple summation-type things with them, then you're cutting an orange with a claymore. You're better off using Excel for those kinds of things in Windows.

With that said, Access is actually pretty much a poor man's database. It works well for small businesses, but larger ones will be better served with OpenSQL or Oracle, or even SAP for certain functions.

If you're looking for a spreadsheet app, the answer is different depending on what you want to do. If you want something that's easily crossed over to Excel 2003, you want NeoOffice (for free). If you want something that's more along the lines of Mac innovation, then give Numbers a shot (iWork '09 is $79).

A few things to be aware of:

NeoOffice uses semicolons, not commas, to seperate fields within a function.

Excel's little trick of changing a sheet's tab color is still proprietary and does not work on any other program.

Numbers does not have macro functionality. NeoOffice does, but the code editor is a bit dodgy.

Numbers is a completely different animal than Excel, but they're both spreadsheet solutions. Some of the formulas may have names similar to formulas in Excel, but they do something completely different (DURATION, for example, is a financial formula in Excel while it is a time-based formula in Numbers). Also, Numbers allows the use of dynamic table names in addition to cell references. If you give Numbers a cell reference, then it will eventually replace it with a dynamic name.

Food for thought.

FileMaker, like Access, is not a spreadsheet app, but rather a relational database application.

FileMaker and Access are often compared. Unlike Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, and PostGresQL, they both have their own built-in user interface; the environment in which you design your data schema is also where you design your GUI and your scripted routines such as report and stored finds ("queries") and so on, whereas with the beforementioned SQL apps you have to generate a front end in yet another environment such as Crystal Reports, Brio, or a homegrown front end in PHP.

Where Access and FileMaker differ, aside from the fact that Access only runs on Windows (FileMaker runs on both platforms), is loosely as follows:

a) Access comes with a large and decently varied set of built-in templates and modules. FileMaker's templates are a lot more bare-bones. FileMaker sells more full-grown prebuilt "applications" but frankly they are badly written from a developer point of view.

b) On the other hand, striking out on your own and developing your own routines from scratch in Access is a formidable task with a nasty learning curve, whereas FileMaker is far far easier to learn; most experienced FM developers do start completely from scratch and hardly ever use a template for anything.

c) Under the hood, Access does its own queries using an offshoot of Structured Query Language (from which the acronym SQL comes). FileMaker is not a SQL environment. It came from a different origin and has its own totally different way of doing things. I am currently employed working directly for a long-term Oracle developer and this is her first time using FileMaker and she is constantly saying how amazed she is at how much easier it is to do anything in FileMaker and how much more transparent the result is after you are done, that it just makes more sense. Access is different from MySQL and the other "big iron" SQL systems in that you DO have a context, that you are ON a record and IN a table and perhaps IN a field, at least when you are just browsing through records; this is less true for "reports". In FileMaker that sense of always having a context is even more absolute.

d) Access is a multi-user environment but only to a limited extent; a dozen concurrent users is pushing it. To deploy for a full sized workgroup, you have to convert it to Microsoft SQL Server and then it is no longer an Access database. (MS SQL developers often say converted Access db's require a lot of cleanup, too). FileMaker scales up more smoothly; when hosted on FileMaker Server, a FileMaker db (which continues to be a FileMaker db) can be used by 250 concurrent FileMaker clients (Mac and Windows); and when hosted on FileMaker Server Advanced, by 999 concurrent FileMaker clients (Mac and Windows) plus another 100 using web browsers.

e) FileMaker can't manage data sets as large as what MySQL, MS SQL, Oracle, and PostGres can deal with, but it can cope with considerably larger data sets than Access can, with max file size of 8 TB, a million tables per file, and 64 quadrillion records per table.

f) FileMaker is probably the best db platform at overall integration with other environments; for any given environment there may be other db's that integrate better, but it has the widest range. It can serve as a front end for a SQL data source (Oracle, MySQL, MS SQL Server) just like Access can, can display web data, can interact with Mac apps using AppleScript, an interoperate with the operating system from either platform's command line, can reference files, pictures, movies, or sounds that are external to the db or can store them directly within the db structure, can send email, can dial out Skype, open any file in the appropriate application, can edit the Windows registry, can perform visual basic scripts (with a bit of finagling), and can reference other FileMaker tables that are not part of the current solution simply by adding the relevant files as file references, including files that are physically on entirely different continents. That's all natively supported; it also has an extensible plug-in architecture like Photoshop does so you can easily add the ability to receive emails, scan directly from a document scanner and edit the image with image editing tools, control peripheral devices via the serial port (including brewing you a cup of coffee and answering the landline telephone with a voicemail greeting and recording the message as an .mp3 file) or almost anything else you can think of.

g) But you can just install it and start using it without taking the manual out of ths shrinkwrap; at a simple level it's still as self-explanatory as a word processor or a web browser or a basic spreadsheet.

Thanks for all reply.
I will definitely give a shot to FileMaker.

Well, not quite accurate. Here is 3.1 for PPC (still requires 10.4)

PPC version of OpenOffice 3.1

This is the file you want: OOo_3.1.0rc2_20090424_MacOSXPowerPC_install.dmg

Or if you want 3.2, then follow this link:

PPC Open Office 3.2
(Scroll down to find the PPC versions)

Just joined this forum so pardon me if this is not the proper way to inject my question/s.

Having switched from PC to Mac I'm looking for a way to use some Access databases I began years ago for reference in the field. AHUNTER3's response to this thread really caught my eye in that s/he renewed my interest in FileMaker as an alternative to Access. I'm currently running Access on my Mac through a virtual machine which noticeably but not prohibitively slows down my Mac. I've previously been told that FM will not import/convert Access files hence my looking elsewhere for a solution. I've also tried to export the Access db's to Excel (or was it importing from Access???). At any rate the result wasn't pretty. Don't know if I missed a step, or did not do something else correctly, but it was another avenue blocked nonetheless.

FYI, these Access databases I made are very basic and have virtually no bells or whistles. They are strictly to enable me to look up statutes and past Court decisions ("case law") while in the field, preferably stored on a smart phone or (I'm gonna show my age here) a PDA since I'm really not too crazy about lugging my MacBook with me in the field. These db's are very text heavy and it seemed (to me anyway) that Excel choked on some of the rather lengthy field (cell) entries. BTW, I made use of these db's on a PDA (many moons ago) using third party apps like HanDBase and their ilk. I'm hoping the iPhone or Droid X environments (which I MIGHT switch to when my contract comes up for renewal) has the ability to work with Access or FM or whatever I can find to get me off Access since it's so darned proprietary.

I would appreciate any suggestions AHUNTER3, or any other forum member, cares to offer.

Thanks for your time.

SDGardella

Bento (from Filemaker, Inc) works just fine and I think would be an excellent choice for home use or other small tasks like tracking reservations for a charity event. It is not Filemaker, but for a home user tracking personal stuff it is fine.

Does pull downs, checkboxes, counts and calculations, easy forms creation and can be shared on a network.

Easy to learn, easy to use (compared to Access or Filemaker).

An Access database will consist of anywhere from one to i number of tables. EACH TABLE has to be exported separately as an Excel document and then imported into FileMaker.

If the Access db contains more than one table, they are presumably related. You need to establish that relationship in FileMaker, it doesn't "just happen".

You can't import "what screens look like" nor can you import "reports" and visual-basic scripted routines and other "verbs"; you need to build them in FileMaker's scriptmaker instead.

You said your Access db was simple so despite these limitations it should not be too bad.

Bento is a cute but rather seriously limited db. Not particularly flexible. An improvement over (for example) the db modules in Microsoft Works or AppleWorks but short by several thousand candlepower of what you can do in FileMaker.