Glen, I can't agree that Access is not a true RDBMS. It is by pretty much
every definition that I've seen. What it isn't, is a scalable server, which
Oracle and SQL Server are. The OP posted that he would need the app to
support more than 100 users and implied a lot of concurrent use. If that is
the case he most certainly will need to use a server based model.
I too am curious about the "better alternatives" for a front end that you
recommend.
--
Randy Harris
"Glen A Stromquist" <gstromquist_at_nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AY7h8.78895$Ym3.13140213_at_news0.telusplanet.net...
> My 2 bits worth -
>
> If you are not looking at a huge number of tables/users and/or complexity,
> Access might do the job for you, if you are looking at large numbers of
> users accessing at the same time then definatly not, although Access still
> can be used for a "front-end" for a SQL Server or Oracle database, which
> IMHO is far to "buggy" for this purpose and there are better alternatives.
>
> I have built a few simple applications in Access, quite small database
wise
> and there was enough bugs to keep me busy for quite awhile when they were
> initially deployed. It would give me nightmares to think of a large
mission
> critical application being deployed in Access alone.
>
> If you want rock solid security and data integrity go with a true RDBMS,
> such as SQL Server or Oracle, the latter being my preference ( I
> administrate both of them)
>
> hth
>
>
>
> "Albert D. Kallal" <kallal_at_msn.com> wrote in message
> news:Zz6h8.219319$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 - 18:16:35 CST
