Re: What database shall I use???

Better front-ends?

VB. Delphi. Kylix. PowerBuilder.

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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sun Mar 10 2002 - 21:49:00 CST