Jack Stockton
My feedback
-
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
57 votes
Jack Stockton supported this idea ·
-
56 votes
Jack Stockton supported this idea ·
-
239 votes
Thank you for the feedback. These requests have been an ongoing discussion with the team, both internally and externally. Especially with our continuously increased focus on establishing a stronger Access-SQL experience, we do plan to have some requests on this work looked further into within the next year. We will keep you posted with specific feature designs in scope as well as timelines. In the interim, you can continue checking our public roadmap for feature updates.
Jack Stockton supported this idea ·
-
136 votes
Jack Stockton supported this idea ·
-
5 votes
Jack Stockton shared this idea ·
-
128 votes
Jack Stockton supported this idea ·
-
34 votes
-
314 votes
Thank you for your feedback.
In terms of setting SQL Server as the default database format, that is currently not in scope for the Access product. We have provided and will continue to provide efficient methods to integrate your Access data with SQL server, and the team will continue to develop more features that streamline the data migration experience (see https://support.office.com/en-us/article/migrate-an-access-database-to-sql-server-7bac0438-498a-4f53-b17b-cc22fc42c979)
However, the ACE database engine has and will continue to be Access’s central data storage unit.
There are new features coming soon that will improve the Access: SQL experience, and we are excited to share this news. Please stay tuned! :)
Jack Stockton supported this idea ·
-
66 votes
Hi Yossi,
Thanks for posing on Access UserVoice.
We are not quite sure we fully understand the suggestion here.
Could you elaborate and provide more details?Thanks,
Michal [MSFT]Jack Stockton supported this idea ·
This is a memory issue with using 32bit Access.