Re: What database shall I use???

"corey lawson" <corey.lawson_at_worldnet.att.com> wrote in message news:3c8c288a.32696508_at_netnews.att.net...
> Better front-ends?
>
> VB. Delphi. Kylix. PowerBuilder.

What makes them better? Faster development? More stable? Easier to learn? Easier report design? Cheaper? Better support?

I've had pretty good success with Access as a front end app and would like to know what those others offer.

--
Randy Harris




>

> On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:16:35 GMT, "Randy Harris"

> <randy.harris_at_nospam.net> wrote:

>

> >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

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

>