Re: MS Access usefulness and size restrictions

"Tunnel vision"? No, Wayne, it is not the Access developers recommending inappropriate technology here. Oracle for a handful of users, as specified, is significant overkill. We are quoting facts about what has been, and is, routinely, done with "normal" implementations in Access. You are the one who implied that because _you_ couldn't do it, that it couldn't be done, but we have, and we do.

It takes someone who's done almost everything wrong to create a database that falls over with only 5 users, and the one who will not admit to not knowing what he was doing (and clearly not knowing "whereof he speaks") is you, who I assume are an "Oracle person".

Access and Oracle are two quite different levels of database, so far different that there is no valid "comparison". No Access person worth his salt would say "Access is better than Oracle" as a general statement -- certainly you will not find such a statement from me, no matter how long and hard you search the newsgroup archives; but your recommeding Oracle over Access for any user audience over five _is_ making the general statement that "Oracle is better than Access". In fact, each is better for certain loads and situations.

If someone came into my business and made the statement that you made, he'd have eliminated himself and his employer from my list of vendors, irrevocably and permanently.

"wayne" <no_at_email.please.com> wrote in message news:9fu7l6$emq_at_dispatch.concentric.net...
> That's funny... I though Oracle users had tunnel vision... Access people
> take the prize. They'll do anything to circumvent the real issues,
> specially shifting the topic!
>
> Anyway, things are waaay to subjective and sentimental about Access!
>
>
Received on Mon Jun 11 2001 - 16:36:36 CDT