A family of Microsoft relational database management systems designed for ease of use.
Access 2013 - Dbase (.dbf) Table Import option
I need to be able to import read/write Dbase dbf tables - yes they are still around so why has the standard option that was in Access 2010 gone?
I have seen mention of ISAM, which is gobbledegook to me. So please a simple answer - what do I need to install or change and how do I do it?
Microsoft 365 and Office | Access | For home | Windows
Locked Question. This question was migrated from the Microsoft Support Community. You can vote on whether it's helpful, but you can't add comments or replies or follow the question.
158 additional answers
Sort by: Newest
-
Anonymous
2013-05-10T21:45:42+00:00 I need to be able to import read/write Dbase dbf tables - yes they are still around so why has the standard option that was in Access 2010 gone?
I have seen mention of ISAM, which is gobbledegook to me. So please a simple answer - what do I need to install or change and how do I do it?
Is Microsoft addressing their error?
OR are they simply ignoring this?
The last post on this thread was in March - it's now May 2013.
Come on Microsoft --- FIX IT !!!!!
I need the ability to import dBASE files ...
-
Anonymous
2013-03-18T20:47:34+00:00 I'm working my way through Access 2007 Programming by Example using Access 2013. In chapter 10, used a "DSN-less ODBC connection" (Hands-On 10-2) to access a Customer.dbf file. I was able to view the table information in the immediate window. Not sure if this helps anyone...:)
-
Anonymous
2013-02-19T16:53:40+00:00 The silence from MS is deafening!
For those of you who have committed to 2013 and don't have 2010 to fall back on, rather than using a 3rd Party vendor you can of course open your dbf tables in Excel and save in Excel Worksheet format, which can then be imported to Access 2013.
I only regard this as a temporary solution if you don't have 2010 and not a cop out for MS, who should be pulling out the stops to fix this.
-
Anonymous
2013-02-11T04:26:02+00:00 This is the right focus on the issue. It doesn't make sense to have battalions of users and vendors making indirect "solutions" to a problem Microsoft can fix so much more easily either by publishing a manual fix or better by putting this function back in the product they mistakenly crippled.