Recommend a Free simple Database program for Windows XP

[pschroeter]

My CD music database started out many years ago on a Mac in Filemaker Pro 2, moved to Provue Panorama, then when I came over to Windows wound up in Microsoft Works.

All the talk of SQL gives me a headache and I probably don't even need a relational database. I'm trying to avoid the extra apps and the size of downloading Open Office or Libre Office, which usually get recommended. I would like a list view and record view. The main reason I don't just use a Microsoft Word (2002) table is there is no way to filter the table and perform queries.

I posted this question on Yahoo Answers and all I got is recommendations for MySQL, Server Express, the type of database programs that are too complex for me to understand.

I have since installed LibreOffice, but there was no way to import my data into Base without it being read-only. I also just can't figure it out. A program called Glom looked promising, promising to be like Filemaker, but I couldn't get it to work.

I just find it hard to believe there isn't something free and open source which is a bit better than Microsoft Works and more like Filemaker.

[wraith808]

Have you looked at SnapDB?  For simple stuff, it works really well IMO.  It's only flat files/single table- but for cataloging sometimes that's all that's required...

[Ath]

And if SnapDB is a bit too simple/limited (though quite useful in itself), then maybe DataCrow could be of your liking?

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You really have to decide whether any relations are needed.  ListPro is possible, flat-file, it has a limit of about 30 fields to a file.  

For heftier stuff, maybe there are discounts on older Filemakers but it might be hard to justify for a limited app.

============================

I don't think it is that MYSQL etc are complicated per se, it is that:

1) they think in terms of server-client, which is unnecessary. Technically an app could probably do that transparently using local host giving a sort of equivalent to the .dbf .fp7 etc files.  (experts, your comments ?)

I am curious if there is any real, innate difference.  When a program like Alpha 5 runs on an MYSQL file instead of DBF or something else .. what is the actual difference in your puters functioning ?  MYSQL is able to have relations and structures built-in, but it could also simply be used as flat file(s) with optionally simple index relationships, afaik (which presumably are some type of join). And does your program have to actually work through a server traffic cop ?  Does anything prevent it from being simply accessed directly.

2) they have not built much in terms of Listpro and Filemaker type ease-of-use products, being more involved in small programs like Navicat "administration", thinking that you are concerned about a web-site in far-off cloud land.  And trying to integrate with PHP and other web languages in fair to middling development tools that have no relevance to a local database.

What I may be saying is that the problem is more historical than structural.  And programs like Filemaker and Alpha will possibly work directly on MYSQL (and maybe other similar databases).

Just throwing out some thoughts.  This has puzzled me for awhile, since I have not done much in that SQL database realm.

Steven

[Renegade]

I posted this question on Yahoo Answers and all I got is recommendations for MySQL, Server Express, the type of database programs that are too complex for me to understand.

-pschroeter (April 03, 2012, 11:41 PM)

Those are totally overkill.

What you *could* do is search for a front end to one of those that does what you want...

I have since installed LibreOffice, but there was no way to import my data into Base without it being read-only. I also just can't figure it out.

-pschroeter (April 03, 2012, 11:41 PM)

Most databases will let you export data, and choose the format. If you can export as a CSV or tab delimited file, then you're pretty much golden to import that to other databases.

But you have some good recommendations from others above.

Hope all goes well for you there.

[AndyM]

The main reason I don't just use a Microsoft Word (2002) table is there is no way to filter the table and perform queries.

-pschroeter (April 03, 2012, 11:41 PM)

If a "filterable and queriable" Word table would do the job, then why not use Excel?

[Renegade]

The main reason I don't just use a Microsoft Word (2002) table is there is no way to filter the table and perform queries.

-pschroeter (April 03, 2012, 11:41 PM)

If a "filterable and queriable" Word table would do the job, then why not use Excel?

-AndyM (April 04, 2012, 08:57 PM)

Excel is pretty clunky. You could do some basic stuff in it, but it's still a spreadsheet and not a database, so you end up with something that's easy to create, but clunky to use, and long term, likely more of a stumbling block when the database grows in size.

[AndyM]

Sounded like basic stuff was all that was required.  If the level of functionality required would be met by a Word table that one could filter and query, a database manager might be overkill.

[Target]

Sounded like basic stuff was all that was required.  If the level of functionality required would be met by a Word table that one could filter and query, a database manager might be overkill.

-AndyM (April 04, 2012, 11:48 PM)

+1 - I think we're a bit short on detail to make any sort of worthwhile recommendations

the requirement for a DB might be justified if the OP was doing lots of complex filtering and/or analysis (though I can't imagine what or why), but otherwise it's more like cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer.

there are also plenty of cataloguing suites around that would probably fill the bill without building a custom solution