How about sql down sizing? !!
GBA
gobbles up the bigger more expensive software.....
PCs are alot more powerful now that way back in the ~1990 era when Access
was beginning....today's laptop is as powerful as the servers of those days...
Shouldn't we Access developers look to assist customers in downsizing them
off that expensive & complicated sqlserver license??
Nobody
"GBA" <G...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D63CFB49-0561-45D0...@microsoft.com...
> Shouldn't we Access developers look to assist customers in downsizing them
> off that expensive & complicated sqlserver license??
MySQL...
Gina Whipp
Your question has so many variables it would take a good hour and ALOT of
typing to answer... However, in short, it comes down to this... As an
Access Developer I wouldn't have recommended an SQL Server UNLESS they
needed security and want to use Access 2007 or above. wouldn't have
recommended an SQL Server UNLESS their needs exceeded and MDB or ACCB file
size. I wouldn't have recommended an SQL Server UNLESS they needed
functionality that I could only get via an SQL Server. Get the idea? Your
question suggest Access Developers are just shoving this down their Clients
throat willy nilly when I know this is not the case.
As a side note, I am not going to downsize a Client if they already have an
SQL Server UNLESS it is not being utilized. I will suggest that there is no
sense in maintaining it as no one uses it but that's about it. Oh and I
never found SQL Server licensing complicated.
--
Gina Whipp
"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" - Tremors
II
http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm
"GBA" <G...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D63CFB49-0561-45D0...@microsoft.com...
Tony Toews [MVP]
>In the software industry generally the norm is the low cost or free software
>gobbles up the bigger more expensive software.....
Hmm, I don't see any evidence of that statement. Windows 7? Going
strong. Office 2007? Going strong.
>PCs are alot more powerful now that way back in the ~1990 era when Access
>was beginning....today's laptop is as powerful as the servers of those days...
Actually today's laptop is much more powerful than the servers ten
years ago let alone 19 years ago.
>Shouldn't we Access developers look to assist customers in downsizing them
>off that expensive & complicated sqlserver license??
Sure, it's called SQL Server Express and is free.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files
updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
Alex Dybenko
> PCs are alot more powerful now that way back in the ~1990 era when Access
> was beginning....today's laptop is as powerful as the servers of those
> days...
But software also get changed, as I remember Pentium 300MHz/256Mb PC with
Access 97 (or 2.0?) on window nt4 in general had better response then my
current laptop with 2.5 GHz and 4 gig of ram
--
Best regards,
___________
Alex Dybenko (MVP)
http://accessblog.net
http://www.PointLtd.com
Armen Stein
<NotInt...@InViruses.com> wrote:
>As an
>Access Developer I wouldn't have recommended an SQL Server UNLESS they
>needed security and want to use Access 2007 or above.
Hi Gina, I know you're just throwing out some quick points. But we
use Access 2003 + SQL Server all the time, when the client needs more
security for the database. What did you mean about using Access 2007
or above?
Armen Stein
Microsoft Access MVP
www.JStreetTech.com
Armen Stein
<tto...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>Shouldn't we Access developers look to assist customers in downsizing them
>>off that expensive & complicated sqlserver license??
>
>Sure, it's called SQL Server Express and is free.
Thanks for mentioning Express, Tony.
Let me reiterate for anyone reading this: There is a FREE
downloadable version of SQL Server Express. It runs just like the
other versions of SQL Server, with some memory and disk limitations
that probably won't affect you. It will likely do what you need, and
can be much more powerful and secure than a JET/ACE back-end. There's
also a free downloadable version of SQL Server Management Studio so
that you can manage that free SQL Server database.
Here are two charts comparing the features of different versions of
SQL Server. Both of them include SQL Server Express, which is a FREE
downloadable version. Did I mention that it's FREE? :)
SQL Server 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/compare-features.aspx
SQL Server 2008:
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/editions.aspx
If you're interested, I've written a PowerPoint presentation on
techniques for using Access as a client-server front-end to SQL Server
databases. It's called "Best of Both Worlds" at our J Street
Downloads page: http://ow.ly/M2WI. It includes some thoughts on when
to use SQL Server, performance and security considerations,
concurrency approaches, and techniques to help everything run
smoothly.
Gina Whipp
In Access 2007 they have removed Security with no plans to bring it back
(that I am aware of). So if a Client wants Security your only options are
leaving your database in MDB format OR SQL Server.
--
Gina Whipp
"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" - Tremors
II
http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm
"Armen Stein" <Armen...@removethisgmail.com> wrote in message
news:onr1j5pg41dr52cpg...@4ax.com...
Armen Stein
<NotInt...@InViruses.com> wrote:
>In Access 2007 they have removed Security with no plans to bring it back
>(that I am aware of). So if a Client wants Security your only options are
>leaving your database in MDB format OR SQL Server.
Hi Gina,
I see, you were referring specifically to User Level Security (ULS). I
was thinking about (lower case) security in general. Thanks for
clarifying.
In any case, SQL Server doesn't replace the Access ULS functionality -
it's a different paradigm that covers data permissions and protection
of the database container, not Access objects like forms and reports.
I know you know this - I'm just clarifying for other readers.
Cheers,
Gina Whipp
Yes, I do and you are correct and I SHOULD clarify the difference for
Posters as we ALL know what happens when we Ass-U-Me the Posters know what
was meant and ot what I typed! Thank you for doing so!
--
Gina Whipp
"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" - Tremors
II
http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm
"Armen Stein" <Armen...@removethisgmail.com> wrote in message
news:7j02j5dg262i6qtsd...@4ax.com...
Sylvain Lafontaine
only real difference between SQL-Server and Access/JET is a difference of
speed and consequently, as newer hardware is running faster and cheaper, the
need to switch to or to use SQL-Server should be diminishing.
If this is so, then you are totally wrong. There is a lot more of
difference between Access and SQL-Server than a simple question of speed and
to answer your question, when was the last time that you have seen someone
asking the question about downsizing?
Even if it costs more in many situations, even with the Express Edition -
for example, on a web hosting service - or that administrying it is more
difficult (and costly!), people are usually coming here on the newsgroups to
asking about switching from Jet/Access to SQL-Server and practically never
the other way. Maybe there is some reason to it?
I can tell you, even if a database had only a few thousands rows and was
running locally on a super-computer, there would still be a lot of good
reason to switch from Access to SQL-Server.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Windows Live Platform
Blog/web site: http://coding-paparazzi.sylvainlafontaine.com
Independent consultant and remote programming for Access and SQL-Server
(French)
"GBA" <G...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D63CFB49-0561-45D0...@microsoft.com...
David W. Fenton
news:#7TbAQng...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
> I wouldn't have recommended an SQL Server UNLESS they needed
> functionality that I could only get via an SQL Server. Get the
> idea? Your question suggest Access Developers are just shoving
> this down their Clients throat willy nilly when I know this is not
> the case.
I have a hard time convincing clients to upsize, to be honest, and
it has sometimes been in situations where I was *very* uncomfortable
continuing to use a Jet back end. But from the client's point of
view, it was running smoothly and reliably, they weren't losing
data, the app was efficient and responsive, so why did they need to
invest in the upsizing project?
I went for years with one such client before I finally convinced
them that as part of some significant revisions to the data
structure that it was an appropriate time to upsize as part of the
project. They did, and they've been relatively happy, though it
didn't particularly improve performance overall (though it did so
for some parts of the app). But it is more reliable now (though I
recently discovered that they had no valid backups of their SQL
Server! I changed that immediately!).
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
David W. Fenton
news:#8Miz7ug...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>> PCs are alot more powerful now that way back in the ~1990 era
>> when Access was beginning....today's laptop is as powerful as the
>> servers of those days...
>
> But software also get changed, as I remember Pentium 300MHz/256Mb
> PC with Access 97 (or 2.0?) on window nt4 in general had better
> response then my current laptop with 2.5 GHz and 4 gig of ram
We lose a lot of the benefit of your modern hardware to the
anti-virus tax.
I find the lack of efficiency of the AV monitoring software to be
quite annoying, as well as the fact that the AV makers still use
signature-based scanning and very little in the way of heuristics
that should be able to identify virus-like behavior. I feel like the
whole thing is a massive scam, that is that the AV makers
purposefully make their software not as effective as it could be
just so the fear of infection remains real enough so that people
continue to buy their offerings.
Of course, mostly these days it's not strictly speaking "viruses"
that are the danger, but other exploits that take over various parts
of your computer's functionality, Trojans, worms, etc. Internet
Explorer is the worst vector for this (it's better, but since it
still supports ActiveX, it's still a terrible vulnerability), and I
get all my clients on FireFox whenever I have the sway to make that
happen.
There are also an awful lot of applications that seem to be designed
on the assumption that they are the only thing running on your
computer, loading up a bunch of mostly completely unnecessary
processes (such as quick-launch utilities) and system services that
aren't really needed when the app is not running. These things need
not significantly impact computer performance, but so many of them
seem to be so badly designed that they eat up significant and
noticeable CPU cycles.
Then there are all the application updaters that insist on running
(I'm looking at you, Adobe and JRE!), even though there is no
utility to the end user to constantly update the apps -- I see these
more as marketing than anything else, a Hey! Look! You have Adobe
Reader installed! There seems to be a failure on the part of the
people creating these apps to understand that an end user sees their
apps as utilities, like plumbing, something that should be invisible
behind the walls and just work.
Thus endeth the rant...
David W. Fenton
news:e1B5g33g...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
> I can tell you, even if a database had only a few thousands rows
> and was running locally on a super-computer, there would still be
> a lot of good reason to switch from Access to SQL-Server.
I would agree with that statement if you changed "there would still
be a lot of good reasons" to "there COULD still be a lot of good
reasons".
Sylvain Lafontaine
into it some commentaries in order to make it both more readable and
understantable?
Shouldn't this count an as argument which should always be valid on every
situation?
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Windows Live Platform
Blog/web site: http://coding-paparazzi.sylvainlafontaine.com
Independent consultant and remote programming for Access and SQL-Server
(French)
"David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEAA7F439D7Af9...@74.209.136.98...
Gina Whipp
Which is precisely why I said *recommend*. Sometimes it is a *hard sell*
but if they say no, then no. I do not recommend it for increased speed
because the speed increase is minimal, at least in my experience. It just
seemed as though GBA was saying as Access Developers we *force* Clients to
upsize when I felt that was an unfair statement. I don't *force* my Clients
do anything. Based on their needs I make recommendations. My job is to
give them the right tools for the job, not over sell.
--
Gina Whipp
"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" - Tremors
II
http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm
"David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEAA6074C03Bf9...@74.209.136.98...
GBA
code if one wishes. you don't have to use the query design feature if you
don't want to...
"Sylvain Lafontaine" wrote:
> .
>
David W. Fenton
> Which is precisely why I said *recommend*.
You seem to be interpreting my followup to your post as disagreement
-- I meant it as *agreement*!
> Sometimes it is a *hard sell*
> but if they say no, then no.
I agree, as should have been clear from what I wrote, no?
> I do not recommend it for increased speed
> because the speed increase is minimal, at least in my experience.
I agree. But certain particular bottlenecks can be vastly improved
if they can be moved server-side.
> It just
> seemed as though GBA was saying as Access Developers we *force*
> Clients to upsize when I felt that was an unfair statement.
I agree!
> I don't *force* my Clients
> do anything. Based on their needs I make recommendations. My job
> is to give them the right tools for the job, not over sell.
I agree!
I sometimes fire clients if their intransigence puts me in the
position of doing something that I think is doomed to failure (and
for which I'll end up getting blamed), or that endangers their data
(for which I'll end up getting blamed if any is lost) or that is
something unethical or illegal (such as not following HIPAA
regulations, or balking at encrypting credit card numbers, etc.).
David W. Fenton
> "David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CEAA7F439D7Af9...@74.209.136.98...
>> "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvainlaf...@yahoo.ca> wrote in
>> news:e1B5g33g...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> I can tell you, even if a database had only a few thousands rows
>>> and was running locally on a super-computer, there would still
>>> be a lot of good reason to switch from Access to SQL-Server.
>>
>> I would agree with that statement if you changed "there would
>> still be a lot of good reasons" to "there COULD still be a lot of
>> good reasons".
>
> And what about the possibility of correctly formating a query and
> inserting into it some commentaries in order to make it both more
> readable and understantable?
As a reason to upgrade? Way, way down the list, in my opinion. while
increased developer convenience improves maintainability and can be
an additional checkbox in favor of upgrading, absent a scalability,
concurrency, security or reliability requirement, it would be far
from sufficient (in my opinion) to justify upsizing.
> Shouldn't this count an as argument which should always be valid
> on every situation?
As one small point, sure. But certainly not by itself!
Gina Whipp
Hmmm, no... I was actually reiterating what we both said for GBA's sake.
Must have been my tone... sorry!
Fortunately, I have not yet had to fire a Client for not listening when it
comes to *securing* information, that as we all know, the Developer will get
blamed for. Though I agree, I would fire them in heartbeat!
--
Gina Whipp
"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" - Tremors
II
http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm
"David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF1B08EAF233f9...@74.209.136.90...