Re: What database shall I use???

"Glen A Stromquist" <gstromquist_at_nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<AY7h8.78895$Ym3.13140213_at_news0.telusplanet.net>...
> My 2 bits worth -
 

<snip>
> although Access still
> can be used for a "front-end" for a SQL Server or Oracle database, which
> IMHO is far to "buggy" for this purpose and there are better alternatives.

Can you describe some of the (apparently many) bugs encountered when using Access as a Front-End to a SQL Server database? What is/are the alternative(s) you are proposing and why?

<snip>
> I have built a few simple applications in Access, quite small database wise
> and there was enough bugs to keep me busy for quite awhile when they were
> initially deployed.

What sort of bugs did your simple Access Applications have? Or, did you, perhaps mean to say that the deployment learning curve was steeper than you expected?

<snip>
> If you want rock solid security and data integrity go with a true RDBMS,
> such as SQL Server or Oracle, the latter being my preference ( I
> administrate both of them)

By what measure is Access not a "True" RDBMS, I'm curious?

TIA
Brett

> hth
>
>
>
> "Albert D. Kallal" <kallal_at_msn.com> wrote in message
> news:Zz6h8.219319$A44.13555535_at_news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > Microsoft spent a considerable amount of money and effort on
> > the new versions of this product. The new features allow Access to work
> > as a native front end to sql server. This is a NATIVE CONNECTION
> > with no local tables.
> >
> > This means Access is now a very
> > scalable product, and can be used in the Corporate environment. MS clearly
> > considers the server based database market a key technology in their farm
> > of products. Any product that encourages the use of their server products
> > is clearly a strategic and important product.
> >
> > It is interesting, but Access is now kind of two products. It is possible
> > that the new Access ADP project builder should have been called SQL
> > "CLIENT BUILDER". In fact, they probably should have done this. In other
> > words they should have re-named the product to sell to the corporate
> > market. In addition, they could have kept the Access name (hence, sell the
> > *exact* same product with two different names). Microsoft really missed a
> > big opportunity here.
> >
> > I believe that this name change was not done due to the very large user
> > base that Access already had. It really was a catch 22. The real reason
> > to change the name is that Access has a *very* bad "taste", or "image"
> > in the corporate market. This image was one of Access not being a
> > industrial strength database. It is common to hear many database people
> > say that Access is a toy
> >
> > With the "ADP" feature of Access, it is now
> > a true client product, and thus can be considered a true corporate tool.
> It
> > also means that Access CAN NOW BE used in Mission Critical applications.
> >
> > For large mission critical applications Access is not appropriate
> > when used with *NO* server.
> >
> > You also have to understand that Access is not a database server, but
> really
> > is only a client to some type of database. That database can even be
> Oracle.
> >
> > Thus, even when you choose Oracle as your server, you still have to decide
> > what tools, and what you are going to use for the client.
> > --
> > Albert D. Kallal
> > Edmonton, Alberta Canada
> > kallal_at_msn.com
> >
> >
> >
Received on Tue Mar 05 2002 - 16:03:24 CST