Thinking of MS Access Online. Simple and lucrative. Would you use?

Question

Microsoft Access

Thinking of MS Access Online. Simple and lucrative. Would you use?

skybase.ru - slows down, although functionally
mytaskhelper.ru/ - scary :)

In the west, more
teamdesk.com - scary, but functional.
there is Zoho, but it's kind of monstrous. I didn’t master it, it’s worth it in terms of. I think it's all stuffed with features.

Why not Google Docs?
Because there are no
- links between tables
- reports with grouping
- normal sorting
- types of tables

That is, there is Excel, not an online database

Answer 1

It is necessary, about MTX, besides scary, it’s not very functional there.

Answer 2

I want to give advice, not that I actively use it, but when even the slightest need for any functionality pops up, an understanding of how to do it and how not to do it pops up.
Make the basis and modular extension of the functionality, where the modules should be distributed right there in a kind of online store. Do not try to make a super monster in terms of functionality.

Answer 3

If it’s just like a database (a bunch of interconnected tables), then I don’t see much point - any SQL is now deployed cross-platform and quickly enough (not including the time of the distribution file unpacking stage), there are also a decent amount of web muzzles, even in the cloud, even on hosting, even on your desktop.

Answer 4

Are you sure that you will get an application that “does not slow down and is functional”?

Answer 5

the idea is good if you understand access = gui over the database, that is, forms, code, and so on. I thought about these there was a desire to do something but did not dare. Probably not alone. besides, in this sense access=1C. By the way, even Oracle had an analogue, apex. if anything, we can think together about the functionality and way of working.

Answer 6

Generally speaking, is there a Microsoft LightSwitch with a 3-tier deployment, or do you have to develop in the browser?

Answer 7

In fact, equivalent budget processors.
In those applications where frequency is important, 2020m takes the lead.
In those optimized for multithreading - i3.
ps: not an easy choice, but i would take i3

Answer 8

Of course i3. It is architecturally newer.

Answer 9

OK. The choice is actually very simple, much easier than it looks. If there is a discrete GPU and battery life is NOT important - Pentium XXXXM, if not - Core i3 XXXXU.
Why? Because almost the entire set of goodies that is in Core i3, but not in Pentium is video. Yes, that's it, it's very simple.