I realise that this posting will be a little bit off-the-point, but here goes.
Access vs SQL Server...
Comparing these two is a bit like comparing Access and Visual Basic.
In both cases Access will deliver a level of functionality that will work
in a simple and cost effective manner. But if you want to bet your business
on the solution you need to pay more (both in time and license fees).
If you want a simple solution to a desktop application for small numbers
of users then Access's default bound-forms are great. They are far more intuitive
than VB. Similarly with Access and SQL Server - I'm sure that many newcomers
to SQL Server have struggled with MDF's and wondered why you can't simply
copy and paste them like MDB's.
if you want to build an application with 10 lumps of functionality it may
take 10 hours in total (1 hour each). But if you want 100 lumps of functionality
this is likely to be a lot more than 1 hour each.
More "Serious" tools (SQL Server / VB) take more work but "Easier" tools
are more limited. Access CAN'T be an alternative to SQL Server for every
application - if it was then Microsoft wouldn't sell it.
If you want to scale an application then you need serious technology - you
need ADO / Stored Procedure / n-tier / data-layer / COM+ - and you need all
these even if you are changing on value in one record. So 2-3 lines in Access
equates to maybe 100 lines if you add all these different technologies together
One last thought - Don't let anyone from the Access bb read any of these
last few days postings - they'll never believe that we write all those 100
lines of code..
"john" <johnny> wrote:
>If you want cheap and cheerful then go for Linux and PostgreSQL. If you
>still want cheap and Windows, then get MySQL.
>"Gary" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>> "David Jones" <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >There's lots of reasons why SQL is a good choice, these are :
>> >1 - Reliability. If the Server crashes when running SQL you can 99.99%
>> >that you won't lose data. But is Access crashes you'll only be 99% sure.
>> >(I made these figure up - but you get the picture)
>> >2 - Scalability. SQL server is a great product for multi-user systems
>> >it can run fast, but only if you use Stored Procedures. Otherwise SQL
>> >is slower than Access.
>> >3 - Bells & Whistles. There loads of tools that you get with SQL Server
>> >you don't get with Access. Will you use them ? Probably not.
>> >But Access has got a few things going for it as well :
>> >1 - Speed. Access is faster (this is because all the complex stuff that
>> >SQL great take RAM and processing power - In Access all these Resources
>> >not required)
>> >2 - Simplicity. Access is easy to get going. SQL isn't.
>> >CONCLUSION ?
>> >On your intranet the ASP (running on the Server) will probably be doing
>> >the database updating. This will mean that record locking (one of the
>> >reasons that Access has trouble with multiuser systems) MAY NOT be a
>> >So look at the skills you have and if you have lots of Access skill then
>> >stick with Access.
>> >If you need a mission critical system go for SQL Server (but VERY few
>> >need to be 100% reliable).
>> >Alternatively you could start with Access and then migrate to SQL Server,
>> >this will certainly take more time, but provided you choose your column
>> >table names carefully you can make the migration easier. If the system
>> >a success then you'll be able to justify the time of the migration.
>> >David Jones
>> I agree. I have written numerous Intranet and Internet apps based just
>> Access. I always start with the lowest denominator and work up. After
>> a data mdb costs nothing to distribute. You can migrate an Access
>> to SQL server in a matter of minutes if you know what you are doing. OK
>> eventually will want to write stored procedures to replace sql statements
>> but this can be done in a phased approach.
>> Another factor to consider is that most people who have NT hosting
>> by an ISP don't have access to SQL server. Its fine in a Corporate
>> but for smaller companies MS Access is the only way forward. Cheap and