By the way, when I say Replica - I just mean an exact copy of the front end. Not replicated data. Everyone shares one back end set of tables. So the data is not moved around to each person's DB physically.

Because their front end is refreshed every single time they open it, when they close one version it's considered dead. So no compacting needed. Imagine a main front end that's 20 MB. The user opens it and a new 20 mb file is created. They use the file all day and it grows to 25mb. They close it. when they re-open the file, they are opening the original 20mb file that was never used, thus their latest version is 20mb. Then on some regular basis, we keep the back end compacted. Maybe once a month.

Gotta disagree with a couple of your cons. I build large-scale Access projects. Some have 100's of users. stick all those folks in one front end and yea - Access blows. But I don't know any serious people that do that. I use replicas of the front end. Some choose to deploy separate front ends for each user - what a nightmare. I choose to create replicas upon opening (Open from one location, a copy is created, user is pushed to their copy). All pretty seamless and no one is ever in the same copy at the same time and I don't have to push builds to anyone. Can't say I've never had a corrupted record with this method - but it's rare. Especially if the data is housed in a SQL back end. With the right developer, Access is really great in a multi-user environment. I've yet to have a project exceed it's limits. The single limitation for me is that it is not web based. That is a major issue more and more. But I also find developers pushing web based tools when the web is not required. It just ends up costing a lot more.

I do lots of heavy lifting with Access and much more than 30k records. also for really large data sets, a SQL back end solves the issues. Then you use passthrough queries to allow the SQL server to do all of the heavy lifting of searching data and handling calculations. It's a great front end.

I think most issues with Access come from inexperienced developers and a fussy user base. It's easy enough to build some simple things in Access and so people with limited knowledge think they can build high level tools. Those people are dangerous. Again - the problem is with who is developing, not the tool itself. If you know what Access is and you know how to design a proper UI and database, as well as code, then there is nothing that can match the ease and cost efficiency. I make a living at Access development and I have hundreds of applications in use. Many mutli-user environments. Many with massive amounts of data (though the bigger data sets use a SQL back end), and my user base is happy as can be. I can do more in .net, obviously, but the infrastructure is much more expensive. If you have an application that does not need to be online (forms-wise), Access is the cheapest, fastest way to go. And in the right hands, at least as powerful. People should stop blaming Access for the crappy skills of many of the people that try to develop in it.

Yup. I made over $200k last year developing in MS Access. And in ever case, it was just the right tool. If you are good at it, it's a great product. Not without flaws like every tool, and limiting compared to some, of course. But if used in the right situation by someone that knows what they are doing, it's simply a great tool. I build complex applications that save tremendous amounts of time. Multi user environments are just fine. Lots of data. Lots of calculations and automation. Like anything, it sucks in the wrong hands.