Re: MS Access usefulness and size restrictions

Daniel, if members of the Access development team support the contention that Access is only useful for single-user standalone update applications or only for read-only multiuser applications, or that Jet databases fall over with 5 users, then that proves that they do not _use_ the product they develop, or that Washington's enforcement of laws on controlled substances are far too lax.

Perhaps you are confusing the Access/Jet database engine with the Microsoft Data Engine (MSDE) and Desktop/Developer Edition of SQL Server, which _are_ purposely limited to 5 active connections. That does not, of course, mean you cannot have more users logged in, only that only 5 operations can be executing at a time. The reliable report on that is in _Special Edition - Using Access 2000_ by Roger Jennings published by QUE. He reported seeing 25 concurrent users on Access - MSDE with adequate performance. That was not a stress test, just running and testing. He did not claim that as a practical limit, but I've heard no other reports of more.

Wherever you are located, whoever your friends, or friends of friends are, blaming Access for failures with a handful of users means that you don't know what you're talking about, because there are many in the "real world of Access" who, without jumping through flaming hoops, using Access and the Jet database engine, create applications used by many more users. Some of them, like the fellow you feel insulted you, handle over a hundred (but, as I've said before, few experienced, knowledgeable Access developers would recommend Access to a user who said "there'll be a hundred users", not because it necessarily _could not be done_, but simply because (1) there are tools that can reliably support over 100 users without having to have "all factors right" and (2) every initial user audience estimate I have ever heard has later increased by at least 100% and usually more.

However, if I were asked for a server database recommendation for a 100-user audience, even though I am an Oracle stockholder, I don't think Oracle would be the one. It's for the really heavy-duty, industrial-strength applications, and its ease of installation, use, and maintenance reflects that. The exception would be if that user had Oracle already installed, with a DBA available to assist. Otherwise, there are several other server databases I'd suggest first for an audience of that size.

Oh, I forgot. You may not see this, as you indicated that you were going to PLONK me, didn't you? Never mind. Others will see it.

FYI, I work in the Dallas - Fort Worth area. I lead a Microsoft Access user group. I have friends who've worked on the development of Access. I have even more friends, here and elsewhere, who make a living developing Access applications -- standalone, multiuser, and clients for server databases (including Oracle). And, even more colleagues, around the world, with whom I haven't reached the stage of "friendship", yet, all of whom will support the contention that not being able to support more than 5 users with Access is completely ludicrous and unarguably indicative of someone who did not know what he/she was doing and who was unwilling or unable to learn the basics of what he/she should do from information readily available.

You may be the world's best Oracle developer, but with the attitude you indicate here, I find that difficult to believe. Certainly it is needful to "know what you are doing" when using Oracle, too, and if you do not, and are not willing to learn with one product, what would lead anyone to believe you do and are with some other one?

"Daniel A. Morgan" <Daniel.Morgan_at_attws.com> wrote in message news:3B3B94B6.3737E184_at_attws.com...
> BammBamm wrote:
>
> > I had over 100 on Access, smoking crack ah?
> >
> > It is how you develop the db as with anything, you didn't know what you
 were
> > doing so you got poor results.
> >
> > "wayne" <no_at_email.please.com> wrote in message
> > news:9fs2ie$5nm_at_dispatch.concentric.net...
> > > > See my response to Daniel. You must be out of your gourd to suggest
 using
> > > > MSDE, limited to 5 concurrent queries, in preference to Jet which
 routinely
> > > > supports 50-70 concurrent users (and that's _over networks_).
> > >
> > > HAHA! I almost choked laughing at your statement! What the hell are
 you
> > > telling me that Acces performs so well when I have barely survived
 over
 it's
> > > limitations (with many users less than 50). You are ABSOLUTELY OUT OF
 YOUR
> > > MIND!
> > >
> > > Access starts to falter when you go over 5 users (this was actually
 measured
> > > by us) and when you start to go to a large number of records and/or
 large
> > > database file size.
> > >
> > > Maybe I am pampered because we switched to Oracle, but your statement
 is
> > > absolutely false. Access crumbles way too easily. It is by far the
 least
> > > stable and least capable database I have ever used.
> > >
> > > My old Clipper programs are still running (one with 30 million records
 and
> > > counting), the Access systems have all been replaced by more robust
> > > solutions.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> Lets see. I work in Redmond Washington. Friends of mine work for Bill on
 the
> team developing Access. Based on your definition ... they don't know what
> they're doing either.
>
> Thanks for the insult. Good to know I am in the best of company.
>
> Daniel A. Morgan
>
Received on Thu Jun 28 2001 - 18:59:18 CDT