Re: MS Access usefulness and size restrictions

Larry Linson wrote:

> 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
> >

The head of the team that developed Jet left Microsoft and formed his own company last year. What operating system and database do you think he chose? I'll give you a hint ... I was retained as a consultant.

Daniel A. Morgan Received on Sat Jul 21 2001 - 15:50:49 CDT