Hi All;

I work for a company which is currently utlizing MS Access on a shared drive
where people from all over the country access. Because all are wishing to
view a single database maintained solely by us (in Florida), each region
cannot have their own individual database on their local servers (otherwise
we would have to update several databases as opposed to one central database).
We have tried splitting the database, but it is still too slow. We are now
considering a web-based application. What would be the best alternative for
us? What they are looking for is an application we can access on the company
intranet. Any suggestions appreciated.

Thanks In Advance. :)

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

You could write an entire ASP.NET (or any other language) front-end for
your database system, but if you want a quick 'n' dirty, you can try
Data Access Pages.

I work with school districts. When I run into a situation like yours, I
put the backend on the server and place a shortcut to a batch file on
each user's PC. The batch file copies a front-end down to the user's
computer. The user can make changes to data on the backend, and if
there's an update all that has to be changed is the front-end on the
server.

Per Pamela via AccessMonster.com:[color=blue]
>I work for a company which is currently utlizing MS Access on a shared drive
>where people from all over the country access. Because all are wishing to
>view a single database maintained solely by us (in Florida), each region
>cannot have their own individual database on their local servers (otherwise
>we would have to update several databases as opposed to one central database).
>We have tried splitting the database, but it is still too slow. We are now
>considering a web-based application. What would be the best alternative for
>us? What they are looking for is an application we can access on the company
>intranet. Any suggestions appreciated.[/color]

Distinguish between back and front ends. Back end being the tables that those
people are going after.

Sounds to me like a classic case for moving the tables to SQL Server.
--
PeteCresswell

I explain some possible solutions here..and some involve keeping ms-access
as is

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal//Wan/Wans.html

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

Hi Pamela,

I have been faced with a similar problem. The solution I implemented
was to keep the original database on the server and install/setup
Microsoft Terminal Server. The overall cost was cheaper than re-writing
the database front end as a set of web pages and upsizing access to SQL
Server. Be aware that Access is not the fastest/reliable database when
used on a web server IE you need to upsize.

Good luck,
Craig L
www.directory-base.com

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in
news:07a0t1tbasejhk112mo9o2bgodm754n8oe@4ax.com:
[color=blue]
> Per Pamela via AccessMonster.com:[color=green]
>>I work for a company which is currently utlizing MS Access on a
>>shared drive where people from all over the country access.
>>Because all are wishing to view a single database maintained
>>solely by us (in Florida), each region cannot have their own
>>individual database on their local servers (otherwise we would
>>have to update several databases as opposed to one central
>>database). We have tried splitting the database, but it is still
>>too slow. We are now considering a web-based application. What
>>would be the best alternative for us? What they are looking for
>>is an application we can access on the company intranet. Any
>>suggestions appreciated.[/color]
>
> Distinguish between back and front ends. Back end being the
> tables that those people are going after.
>
> Sounds to me like a classic case for moving the tables to SQL
> Server.[/color]

Sounds to me like a classic case of needing Terminal Server.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"Pamela via AccessMonster.com" <u11418@uwe> wrote in
news:5a9a6a1a7b038@uwe:
[color=blue]
> I work for a company which is currently utlizing MS Access on a
> shared drive where people from all over the country access.
> Because all are wishing to view a single database maintained
> solely by us (in Florida), each region cannot have their own
> individual database on their local servers (otherwise we would
> have to update several databases as opposed to one central
> database). We have tried splitting the database, but it is still
> too slow. We are now considering a web-based application. What
> would be the best alternative for us? What they are looking for
> is an application we can access on the company intranet. Any
> suggestions appreciated.[/color]

Windows Terminal Server. Period. End of Statement.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Per David W. Fenton:[color=blue]
>Sounds to me like a classic case of needing Terminal Server.[/color]

I jumped to the (unwarranted upon re-reading the OP) conclusion that the app was
getting hit by a large number of concurrent users.
--
PeteCresswell

Wow! Thanks for all the replies! The database is a fairly simple one (not
much behind the scenes programming) & is hit by a fair number of users. I
would say ~20, but that's just a guess, may be more. Managers as well as
recruiters will be using it. I'm not sure who I can convinve to try these
alternative methods, but I'll give it a go. It is a needed database & the
slowness is an issue of growing concern, especially in California where they
are trying to use the database which is housed on a server in Florida over
the network.

David W. Fenton wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> I work for a company which is currently utlizing MS Access on a
>> shared drive where people from all over the country access.[/color]
>[quoted text clipped - 7 lines][color=green]
>> is an application we can access on the company intranet. Any
>> suggestions appreciated.[/color]
>
>Windows Terminal Server. Period. End of Statement.
>[/color]

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

Speed issues can greatly be reduced by eliminating linked tables and using
all ADO/DAO calls. 20 users is not many. As long as the network is fast
enough, speed should not be an issue - it will never be SQL Server, but it
should be "fast enough". But if the network is anything less than 100%
reliable, you *will* get occasional corruption and downtime while you
manually repair what a server database does automatically.

--
Darryl Kerkeslager

Hum. www.realvnc.com

There is an entreprise edition. Cheap and light. My biggest client
(largest steelmaker in the world) uses it.

[color=blue]
>
> Windows Terminal Server. Period. End of Statement.
>
> --
> David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
> usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/[/color]

Anoter possibility is the data base software
Alpha Five V7 from
www.alphasoftware.com

It is similar to MS Access, but also has integrated web development. You
either must purchase their web server software and install it on your own
machine, or host your site on their web server ($30/mo)

"Saintor" <saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in
news:NGsAf.56299$lf2.484658@wagner.videotron.net:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Windows Terminal Server. Period. End of Statement.[/color]
>
> Hum. www.realvnc.com[/color]

VNC is not comparable at all. It doesn't allow multiple users to run
independent sessions on a single machine, and it's not even close to
performing well enough for someone to work in it full-time.
[color=blue]
> There is an entreprise edition. Cheap and light. My biggest
> client (largest steelmaker in the world) uses it.[/color]

Windows Terminal Server uses native GDI graphics calls, and thus is
very, very fast. VNC just pushes bits across the wire, which makes
it substantially slower. Unless the enterprise edition also uses
Windows GDI calls (something I'd doubt, given VNC's multi-platform
origins), then it can't possibly perform as well as Terminal Server
at any cost.

And Windows Terminal Server is not all that expensive in terms of
licensing costs (there would be corresponding hardware and
telecommunications infrastructure costs for a VNC-based solution),
since we're talking about a circumstance where the users already
have Access, so there'd be no need to acquire the Office licenses
necessary to run an Office app in WTS. The TS CALs are around $40
apiece, which is not a very high fee. There is no additional server
cost, as WTS is built into Win2K Server and Win2K3 Server.

In short, much as I like and use VNC (for support, troubleshooting,
etc., with individual users), it is simply not even close to being
comparable as a solution.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Good infos. Txs.
[color=blue]
> Windows Terminal Server uses native GDI graphics calls, and thus is
> very, very fast. VNC just pushes bits across the wire, which makes
> it substantially slower. Unless the enterprise edition also uses
> Windows GDI calls (something I'd doubt, given VNC's multi-platform
> origins), then it can't possibly perform as well as Terminal Server
> at any cost.
>
> And Windows Terminal Server is not all that expensive in terms of
> licensing costs (there would be corresponding hardware and
> telecommunications infrastructure costs for a VNC-based solution),
> since we're talking about a circumstance where the users already
> have Access, so there'd be no need to acquire the Office licenses
> necessary to run an Office app in WTS. The TS CALs are around $40
> apiece, which is not a very high fee. There is no additional server
> cost, as WTS is built into Win2K Server and Win2K3 Server.
>
> In short, much as I like and use VNC (for support, troubleshooting,
> etc., with individual users), it is simply not even close to being
> comparable as a solution.
>
> --
> David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
> usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/[/color]