Re: MS Access usefulness and size restrictions

"wayne" <no_at_email.please.com> wrote in message <news:9ft7vq$c55_at_dispatch.concentric.net>...

> > Ok, I understand now...however, I am not convinced on that one. Clipper
> > stored data as a fixed length, where as Access uses a variable length
 record
> > structure.
>
> Given all the data corruption that results, I would say this is a huge
> liability.

What version of Access? Did you conveniently "forget" to install the service pack? I suppose Oracle has no need of service packs or even hot-fixes? Or is the support program an *additional* Lear for Larry?

> Also, if I import Clipper data into MS Access I end up taking up more space.
> What's the great thing about that?

Indexes may speed up queries, but they do take up space. Boo hoo. Those system tables, part of all relational databases, so help me Codd, also have a cost. I suppose the overhead is significant if all you can handle is storing grandma's recipes before having to call an Oracle salesman.

> > To come here and boast about clipper being solid, and then ignore people
 who
> > have had in excess 100 people using access without a server is really
> > puffing.
>
> Just talking about my own experiences with it. I have had crises inthe past
> with Access and the best solution has been to turn Access-based application
> into Oracle ones. Access simply buckles under heavier loads.

No, it buckles under incompetent loads, a very different situation. Cheer up, Microsoft Marketing conflates them too, since Jet can and does cannibalize SQL Server sales. Whoops!

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Sign the Check! <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!