Why choose SQL Express over Access?

Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application to
work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no dependencies?

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed application
to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And, since
your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for
your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.

So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
1) It's free.
2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.

Short incomplete list of reasons -

- SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple
users.
- It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB
- It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized
backups *.*)
- It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR, better
T-SQL*.*
- It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary)
- You won't have to compact it as often
- Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc.
- Other reasons.

The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And frankly
SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these name
changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications anyway.

- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com

"ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=blue]
> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application
> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
> dependencies?
>
>
>[/color]

I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb files
with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that you
install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound.

In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute it with
my app, is there a silent install available?

<james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...[color=blue]
> Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed application
> to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And, since
> your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for
> your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.
>
> So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
> 1) It's free.
> 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
>[/color]

I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site.

The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you
something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) -
http://www.sybase.com/products/mobil...ns/sqlanywhere .

I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the
whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they have
abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so.

They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be about
it.

"Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Short incomplete list of reasons -
>
> - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple
> users.
> - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB
> - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized
> backups *.*)
> - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR,
> better T-SQL*.*
> - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary)
> - You won't have to compact it as often
> - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc.
> - Other reasons.
>
> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And
> frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these
> name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications
> anyway.
>
> - Sahil Malik
> http://www.winsmarts.com
>
>
> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
> news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=green]
>> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application
>> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
>> dependencies?
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

ljh wrote:[color=blue]
> I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site.
>
> The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you
> something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) -
> http://www.sybase.com/products/mobil...ns/sqlanywhere .[/color]

Yeah, they change product names every 5 minutes, which is why they'll
never amount to anything. However, I used the product a couple of years
ago and it is solid. It has all the drivers and easy of use and
surprising performance and all that.
[color=blue]
> I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the[/color]
I don't think Sybase has anything to do with Borland. You got your
vendors confused.

[color=blue]
> whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they have
> abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so.
>
> They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be about
> it.
>
> "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Short incomplete list of reasons -
>>
>> - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple
>> users.
>> - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB
>> - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized
>> backups *.*)
>> - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR,
>> better T-SQL*.*
>> - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary)
>> - You won't have to compact it as often
>> - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc.
>> - Other reasons.
>>
>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And
>> frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these
>> name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications
>> anyway.
>>
>> - Sahil Malik
>> http://www.winsmarts.com
>>
>>
>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>> news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=darkred]
>>> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application
>>> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
>>> dependencies?
>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote:[color=blue]
> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And frankly
> SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these name
> changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications anyway.[/color]

There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home
Edition, while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are
targeting mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick to
MSDE.

Regards

ljh wrote:[color=blue]
> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application to
> work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no dependencies?
>
>
>[/color]
Sql Express is a lot more performant and scaleable than access.
If you get a db size over 1/2 GB or so in access you will probably run
into trouble with corruptions etc.
If you eventually need to upgrade to full Sql Server then its a straight
backup / restore operation of the database and you are up and running.
If you only need and will only ever need a very simple db mechanism then
access might be the way to go.

JB

Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be released this
summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls.
http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/ar...whereInfo.aspx

--
William Stacey [MVP]

"ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
|I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb files
| with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that you
| install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound.
|
| In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute it
with
| my app, is there a silent install available?
|
| <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
| > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed application
| > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And, since
| > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for
| > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.
| >
| > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
| > 1) It's free.
| > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
| >
|
|

It is Sql Everywhere. Check out the faq in the linq I gave above. For the
most part, it is Sql Mobile with a license change that will run anywhere
(XP, etc).

--
William Stacey [MVP]

"ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
news:7t2fg.66189$MM6.15646@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
|I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site.
|
| The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you
| something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) -
| http://www.sybase.com/products/mobil...ns/sqlanywhere .
|
| I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the
| whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they
have
| abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so.
|
| They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be
about
| it.
|
| "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
| news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > Short incomplete list of reasons -
| >
| > - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple
| > users.
| > - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB
| > - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized
| > backups *.*)
| > - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR,
| > better T-SQL*.*
| > - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary)
| > - You won't have to compact it as often
| > - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc.
| > - Other reasons.
| >
| > The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And
| > frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these
| > name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications
| > anyway.
| >
| > - Sahil Malik
| > http://www.winsmarts.com
| >
| >
| > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
| > news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
| >> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed
application
| >> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
| >> dependencies?
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >
| >
|
|

I have a company that runs several (6 - 10) small stores that does the
rent-to-own thing. The software they have now is generic and the service
sucks. They want a personalized solution for thier rather unique product
line.

Thing is......they want all stores to share information (real-time of
course), they want information stored locally in case there is an internet
outgae, and they don't want to buy a SQL Server license for every store.

So.....I need to come up with a free way to have shared, locally replicated
data at each store.

Theoretically it is pretty simple.

Practically, its a pain in the ass.

"John B" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:447ccdf6_1@news.iprimus.com.au...[color=blue]
> ljh wrote:[color=green]
>> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application
>> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
>> dependencies?
>>
>>
>>[/color]
> Sql Express is a lot more performant and scaleable than access.
> If you get a db size over 1/2 GB or so in access you will probably run
> into trouble with corruptions etc.
> If you eventually need to upgrade to full Sql Server then its a straight
> backup / restore operation of the database and you are up and running.
> If you only need and will only ever need a very simple db mechanism then
> access might be the way to go.
>
> JB[/color]

Awesome!

It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under IIS
though.

That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web
development so much easier!

It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot at
succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL Server.

But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small businesses
grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually fatten the bottom line
at MS as the little businesses need more MS licenses and maybe a "grown up"
version of SQL Server.

If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db king.

Thanks for the great link!

"William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Odp%23lzDhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be released
> this
> summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls.
> http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/ar...whereInfo.aspx
>
> --
> William Stacey [MVP]
>
> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
> news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
> |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb
> files
> | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that
> you
> | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound.
> |
> | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute it
> with
> | my app, is there a silent install available?
> |
> | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
> | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed application
> | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And,
> since
> | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for
> | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.
> | >
> | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
> | > 1) It's free.
> | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
> | >
> |
> |
>
>[/color]

You're right..... I got Sybase and Borland mixed up. Must've been that
whole JBuilder collaboration thing that threw me.

They are definitely not the same company.

"Frank Rizzo" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:%23rBSlsDhGHA.4284@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> ljh wrote:[color=green]
>> I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site.
>>
>> The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you
>> something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) -
>> http://www.sybase.com/products/mobil...ns/sqlanywhere .[/color]
>
> Yeah, they change product names every 5 minutes, which is why they'll
> never amount to anything. However, I used the product a couple of years
> ago and it is solid. It has all the drivers and easy of use and
> surprising performance and all that.
>[color=green]
>> I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the[/color]
> I don't think Sybase has anything to do with Borland. You got your
> vendors confused.
>
>[color=green]
>> whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they
>> have abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so.
>>
>> They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be
>> about it.
>>
>> "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Short incomplete list of reasons -
>>>
>>> - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple
>>> users.
>>> - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB
>>> - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized
>>> backups *.*)
>>> - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR,
>>> better T-SQL*.*
>>> - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary)
>>> - You won't have to compact it as often
>>> - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc.
>>> - Other reasons.
>>>
>>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And
>>> frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these
>>> name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> - Sahil Malik
>>> http://www.winsmarts.com
>>>
>>>
>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>> news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed
>>>> application to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which
>>>> has no dependencies?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color][/color]

If you really are looking for a lightweight, fast, no - deployment database
then why not look into SQLite? There's an ADO.NET and an ADO.NET 2.0 provider
(thanks to Robert Simpson) and it screams compared to MS Access. Not even an
MDAC dependency.
Peter

--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com

"ljh" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application to
> work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no dependencies?
>
>
>
>[/color]

"Frank Rizzo" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:%23j9fctDhGHA.4284@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[color=blue]
> There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home Edition,
> while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro).[/color]

Huh? SQL Express works OK on XP Home.

I'm trying it out. But, I can't even get it to create an empty db so that
I can use the VS.Net 2005 tools to create the tables, columns, etc.

I type "sqlite3 test.db" at the C:\ prompt (where I have a copy of
sqlite3.exe. Then, I type ".exit" and look for the empyt db....but there is
nothing there.

Any suggestions?

"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <pbromberg@yahoo.nospammin.com> wrote in message
news:EAA36952-A294-48B8-9AC0-698C8852E184@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> If you really are looking for a lightweight, fast, no - deployment
> database
> then why not look into SQLite? There's an ADO.NET and an ADO.NET 2.0
> provider
> (thanks to Robert Simpson) and it screams compared to MS Access. Not even
> an
> MDAC dependency.
> Peter
>
> --
> Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com
> UnBlog:
> http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> "ljh" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application
>> to
>> work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
>> dependencies?
>>
>>
>>
>>[/color][/color]

Yup thats it .. SQL Everywhere.

SM :)

"William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23RVmO%23DhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> It is Sql Everywhere. Check out the faq in the linq I gave above. For
> the
> most part, it is Sql Mobile with a license change that will run anywhere
> (XP, etc).
>
> --
> William Stacey [MVP]
>
> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
> news:7t2fg.66189$MM6.15646@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
> |I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site.
> |
> | The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you
> | something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) -
> | http://www.sybase.com/products/mobil...ns/sqlanywhere .
> |
> | I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with the
> | whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they
> have
> | abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so.
> |
> | They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be
> about
> | it.
> |
> | "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
> | news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > Short incomplete list of reasons -
> | >
> | > - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to multiple
> | > users.
> | > - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB
> | > - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized
> | > backups *.*)
> | > - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR,
> | > better T-SQL*.*
> | > - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary)
> | > - You won't have to compact it as often
> | > - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc.
> | > - Other reasons.
> | >
> | > The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And
> | > frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all
> these
> | > name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications
> | > anyway.
> | >
> | > - Sahil Malik
> | > http://www.winsmarts.com
> | >
> | >
> | > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
> | > news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
> | >> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed
> application
> | >> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
> | >> dependencies?
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>[/color]

AHA .. good one !!

- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
http://blah.winsmarts.com

"Frank Rizzo" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:%23j9fctDhGHA.4284@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote:[color=green]
>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And
>> frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these
>> name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications
>> anyway.[/color]
>
> There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home Edition,
> while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are targeting
> mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick to MSDE.
>
> Regards[/color]

Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking compatability
with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".

Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be able
to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it to
deploy them at all - easy or not).

This goes right along with my experience with every single MS product I have
ever purchased. Thier slogan should be "When you need it *almost* right."

Oh well.....I'm still looking into the free SQLite. It has an add-in for
VS.Net 2005 support and is not limited to 4GB of data. Oh yeah...it's only
one file (no dependencies) and it's completely free.

I'll let you know how my testing with it goes.

"Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23YpMqGFhGHA.5104@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Yup thats it .. SQL Everywhere.
>
> SM :)
>
>
> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23RVmO%23DhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> It is Sql Everywhere. Check out the faq in the linq I gave above. For
>> the
>> most part, it is Sql Mobile with a license change that will run anywhere
>> (XP, etc).
>>
>> --
>> William Stacey [MVP]
>>
>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>> news:7t2fg.66189$MM6.15646@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>> |I can't find anything on SQL Anywhere - even on the Sybase site.
>> |
>> | The closest I can get is a SQL Anywhere link that actually shows you
>> | something called "Remoteware" (whatever the hell that is) -
>> | http://www.sybase.com/products/mobil...ns/sqlanywhere .
>> |
>> | I don't really trust Borland anyway. They jumped right in line with
>> the
>> | whole .Net mantra - when they had a better way of doing things and they
>> have
>> | abandoned Kylix without ever admitting to doing so.
>> |
>> | They do enough to keep the Borland name alive....but that seems to be
>> about
>> | it.
>> |
>> | "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in
>> message
>> | news:uARMMlChGHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> | > Short incomplete list of reasons -
>> | >
>> | > - SQL Express (or SQL Server in general) will scale better to
>> multiple
>> | > users.
>> | > - It will give you a "way out" when your DB exceeds 4GB
>> | > - It will be easier to maintain from a DBA point of view (centralized
>> | > backups *.*)
>> | > - It will give you a much richer feature set - notification, SQLCLR,
>> | > better T-SQL*.*
>> | > - It will give you better performance (No OleDb necessary)
>> | > - You won't have to compact it as often
>> | > - Better support for data types/indexes etc. etc.
>> | > - Other reasons.
>> | >
>> | > The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And
>> | > frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all
>> these
>> | > name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications
>> | > anyway.
>> | >
>> | > - Sahil Malik
>> | > http://www.winsmarts.com
>> | >
>> | >
>> | > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>> | > news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>> | >> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed
>> application
>> | >> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
>> | >> dependencies?
>> | >>
>> | >>
>> | >>
>> | >
>> | >
>> |
>> |
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

| It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under IIS
| though.

Couldn't you use SQL Express for that?

| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking compatability
| with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".

Not sure how they would do that other then via license. I mean a sql query
is not going to look any different coming from asp.net page or from your own
host?

| Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be able
| to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it to
| deploy them at all - easy or not).

Again, I think you should at least be able to use SQL Express and it is
free. IMHO, that product is a sweet and generous gift from MS.
--
wjs

Yep....but that defeats the whole ease-of-use thing that a no-install
solution like SQLite or SQL\e provides.

Especially when you have a hosted web-app.....SQL\e would be perfect for
that. Nothing to "install" (i.e. register) on the hosts servers.

It's just that MS wants you to pay to do a decent web-app. IMHO, it helps
them control competition somewhat (at least from the little guys) to thier
web-centric offerings. What other reasons could thier be to specifically
disable it under any IIS process? Greed?

As far as I can see....if you're small and have a great idea, MS SQL is
probably NOT the thing to use (at least SQLite is easier to deploy and has
greater capacity than SQL\e or SQL\x).

"William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uycu0lFhGHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>| It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under IIS
> | though.
>
> Couldn't you use SQL Express for that?
>
>[/color]

"William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eE$gLoFhGHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking compatability
> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".
>
> Not sure how they would do that other then via license. I mean a sql
> query
> is not going to look any different coming from asp.net page or from your
> own
> host?[/color]

Not sure.....that's the word I got back from Steve Lasker when I emailed him
earlier today.
[color=blue]
>
> | Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be
> able
> | to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it to
> | deploy them at all - easy or not).
>
> Again, I think you should at least be able to use SQL Express and it is
> free. IMHO, that product is a sweet and generous gift from MS.[/color]

It is....for machines where you can install anything you want. For ASP.Net
hosted webservers, it sucks.

Okay .. why does SQL express suck? It doesn't suck .. !!! It runs on a full
fledged SQL engine, sure deployment is a pain, but migrating to a fullblown
SQL Server is relatively painless.

Also, can you elaborate -
[color=blue][color=green]
>>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking
>>compatability
>> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".[/color][/color]

?

- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
http://blah.winsmarts.com

"ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
news:mo7fg.66883$MM6.52917@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=blue]
>
> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eE$gLoFhGHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking
>>compatability
>> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".
>>
>> Not sure how they would do that other then via license. I mean a sql
>> query
>> is not going to look any different coming from asp.net page or from your
>> own
>> host?[/color]
>
> Not sure.....that's the word I got back from Steve Lasker when I emailed
> him earlier today.
>[color=green]
>>
>> | Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be
>> able
>> | to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it to
>> | deploy them at all - easy or not).
>>
>> Again, I think you should at least be able to use SQL Express and it is
>> free. IMHO, that product is a sweet and generous gift from MS.[/color]
>
> It is....for machines where you can install anything you want. For
> ASP.Net hosted webservers, it sucks.
>
>[/color]

Ljh,
[color=blue]
> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application
> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
> dependencies?
>[/color]

I see not much reasons why you cannot use better the Jet Engine over SQL
Express, if you want:

That every user can remove the database file at any time he wants
That your data is processed relatively slow
That you cannot use it as an InterNet database withouth webservice or
other webpart
To tell the path at deployment time
Create extra program parts for as the user wants to relocate his
database
Not much security of the data.
To deploy an empty database (wich is great if a user reinstalls and
overwrites his exising database)

Just my thought,

Cor

Ah SQL Express can be used with an IIS web site. SQL Everywhere cannot. It's
not designed to do so but SQL Express (still free) is.
Microsoft has done more for small business than any company I know. It now
offers three versions of its database technology for free. SQL Everywhere,
SQL Express and SQL Express Advanced Services that includes the Reporting
Services engine as well as Full Text Search.

If you just want to bash Microsoft, find some other forum.

--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________

"ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
news:_J4fg.66487$MM6.19820@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=blue]
> Awesome!
>
> It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under IIS
> though.
>
> That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web
> development so much easier!
>
> It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot at
> succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL Server.
>
> But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small businesses
> grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually fatten the bottom
> line at MS as the little businesses need more MS licenses and maybe a
> "grown up" version of SQL Server.
>
> If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db king.
>
> Thanks for the great link!
>
>
>
> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Odp%23lzDhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be released
>> this
>> summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls.
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/ar...whereInfo.aspx
>>
>> --
>> William Stacey [MVP]
>>
>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>> news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>> |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb
>> files
>> | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that
>> you
>> | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound.
>> |
>> | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute it
>> with
>> | my app, is there a silent install available?
>> |
>> | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> | news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>> | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed
>> application
>> | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And,
>> since
>> | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for
>> | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.
>> | >
>> | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
>> | > 1) It's free.
>> | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
>> | >
>> |
>> |
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

The fact that you can't control SQL Express (due to the fact that you
usually don't control the HOSTED servers) and that you could get more data
into SQL Everywhere (or SQLite for that matter) simply by using the
available disk space than you do with most hosted website's db plans (which
will include hosted SQL Express servers) sucks!

The fact that MS has an edition of Mobile SQL that they are making available
for everything except IIS use sucks!

The fact that Micrsoft added code to SQL Everywhere to PREVENT it from being
used in an IIS process sucks! What about that don't you get?

Microsoft again makes a valiant run downfield with the ball.....only to stop
and sit on the 1 yard line.

"Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OrGZK8GhGHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Okay .. why does SQL express suck? It doesn't suck .. !!! It runs on a
> full fledged SQL engine, sure deployment is a pain, but migrating to a
> fullblown SQL Server is relatively painless.
>
>
> Also, can you elaborate -
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking
>>>compatability
>>> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".[/color][/color]
>
>
> ?
>
> - Sahil Malik
> http://www.winsmarts.com
> http://blah.winsmarts.com
>
>
>
>
> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
> news:mo7fg.66883$MM6.52917@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=green]
>>
>> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eE$gLoFhGHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking
>>>compatability
>>> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".
>>>
>>> Not sure how they would do that other then via license. I mean a sql
>>> query
>>> is not going to look any different coming from asp.net page or from your
>>> own
>>> host?[/color]
>>
>> Not sure.....that's the word I got back from Steve Lasker when I emailed
>> him earlier today.
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> | Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be
>>> able
>>> | to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it
>>> to
>>> | deploy them at all - easy or not).
>>>
>>> Again, I think you should at least be able to use SQL Express and it is
>>> free. IMHO, that product is a sweet and generous gift from MS.[/color]
>>
>> It is....for machines where you can install anything you want. For
>> ASP.Net hosted webservers, it sucks.
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

"INETA Speaker" - at least you're unbiased.

"William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:OmWkZkHhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Ah SQL Express can be used with an IIS web site. SQL Everywhere cannot.
> It's not designed to do so but SQL Express (still free) is.
> Microsoft has done more for small business than any company I know. It now
> offers three versions of its database technology for free. SQL Everywhere,
> SQL Express and SQL Express Advanced Services that includes the Reporting
> Services engine as well as Full Text Search.
>
> If you just want to bash Microsoft, find some other forum.
>
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> __________________________________
>
> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
> news:_J4fg.66487$MM6.19820@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=green]
>> Awesome!
>>
>> It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under IIS
>> though.
>>
>> That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web
>> development so much easier!
>>
>> It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot at
>> succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL Server.
>>
>> But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small businesses
>> grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually fatten the bottom
>> line at MS as the little businesses need more MS licenses and maybe a
>> "grown up" version of SQL Server.
>>
>> If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db king.
>>
>> Thanks for the great link!
>>
>>
>>
>> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Odp%23lzDhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be released
>>> this
>>> summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls.
>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/ar...whereInfo.aspx
>>>
>>> --
>>> William Stacey [MVP]
>>>
>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>> news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>> |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb
>>> files
>>> | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that
>>> you
>>> | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound.
>>> |
>>> | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute it
>>> with
>>> | my app, is there a silent install available?
>>> |
>>> | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> | news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>>> | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed
>>> application
>>> | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And,
>>> since
>>> | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify for
>>> | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.
>>> | >
>>> | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
>>> | > 1) It's free.
>>> | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
>>> | >
>>> |
>>> |
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Let's see:

Ability to do asynch apps (Service Broker)
Server model instead of file system model
Complete support for stored procedures
Full SQL Server security model
Ability to run queries as another user, completely isolating the database
from the user
Better support for types in SQL Server than Access (in .NET)
Ability to schedule backups within the engine
Support for more types than Access
Ability to use XML as a datatype with querying capabilities

Is that enough, or should I go on?

--
Gregory A. Beamer

*************************************************
Think Outside the Box!
*************************************************
"ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=blue]
> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application
> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
> dependencies?
>
>
>[/color]

> The fact that Micrsoft added code to SQL Everywhere to PREVENT it from[color=blue]
> being used in an IIS process sucks! What about that don't you get?[/color]

First of all "CALM DOWN".
[color=blue]
> The fact that you can't control SQL Express (due to the fact that you
> usually don't control the HOSTED servers) and that you could get more data
> into SQL Everywhere (or SQLite for that matter) simply by using the
> available disk space than you do with most hosted website's db plans
> (which will include hosted SQL Express servers) sucks![/color]

Moving SQL Express to SQL Server is a peice of cake. I don't see what the
big unsolvable problem here is.

- Sahil Malik [MVP]
http://blah.winsmarts.com

"ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
news:ogbfg.1420$EX2.833@bignews5.bellsouth.net...[color=blue]
> The fact that you can't control SQL Express (due to the fact that you
> usually don't control the HOSTED servers) and that you could get more data
> into SQL Everywhere (or SQLite for that matter) simply by using the
> available disk space than you do with most hosted website's db plans
> (which will include hosted SQL Express servers) sucks!
>
> The fact that MS has an edition of Mobile SQL that they are making
> available for everything except IIS use sucks!
>
> The fact that Micrsoft added code to SQL Everywhere to PREVENT it from
> being used in an IIS process sucks! What about that don't you get?
>
> Microsoft again makes a valiant run downfield with the ball.....only to
> stop and sit on the 1 yard line.
>
>
> "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OrGZK8GhGHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Okay .. why does SQL express suck? It doesn't suck .. !!! It runs on a
>> full fledged SQL engine, sure deployment is a pain, but migrating to a
>> fullblown SQL Server is relatively painless.
>>
>>
>> Also, can you elaborate -
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking
>>>>compatability
>>>> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".[/color]
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> - Sahil Malik
>> http://www.winsmarts.com
>> http://blah.winsmarts.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>> news:mo7fg.66883$MM6.52917@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eE$gLoFhGHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>| Got confirmation from MS that they're deliberately breaking
>>>>compatability
>>>> | with SQL\e running under IIS - they call it "soft-blocking".
>>>>
>>>> Not sure how they would do that other then via license. I mean a sql
>>>> query
>>>> is not going to look any different coming from asp.net page or from
>>>> your own
>>>> host?
>>>
>>> Not sure.....that's the word I got back from Steve Lasker when I emailed
>>> him earlier today.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> | Sounds all fluffy and sweet....but what it means is that you won't be
>>>> able
>>>> | to use SQL\e to easily deploy webservices (actually you can;t use it
>>>> to
>>>> | deploy them at all - easy or not).
>>>>
>>>> Again, I think you should at least be able to use SQL Express and it is
>>>> free. IMHO, that product is a sweet and generous gift from MS.
>>>
>>> It is....for machines where you can install anything you want. For
>>> ASP.Net hosted webservers, it sucks.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...seoverview.asp

"ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=blue]
> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application to
> work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no dependencies?
>
>
>[/color]

Just curious......can you tell me a situation where using XML as a datatype
would come into play in a database application?

Why would you store XML in its native format instead of breaking it down
into its component fields for storage and seaarch?

"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:O6q4onKhGHA.4144@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Let's see:
>
> Ability to do asynch apps (Service Broker)
> Server model instead of file system model
> Complete support for stored procedures
> Full SQL Server security model
> Ability to run queries as another user, completely isolating the database
> from the user
> Better support for types in SQL Server than Access (in .NET)
> Ability to schedule backups within the engine
> Support for more types than Access
> Ability to use XML as a datatype with querying capabilities
>
> Is that enough, or should I go on?
>
> --
> Gregory A. Beamer
>
> *************************************************
> Think Outside the Box!
> *************************************************
> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
> news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=green]
>> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed application
>> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which has no
>> dependencies?
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

> Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote:[color=blue]
>
> There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home
> Edition, while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are
> targeting mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick
> to MSDE.
>
> Regards
>[/color]

This is not true. SQL Express runs under XP Home as well (at least it does
on my machine). However, it does not support remote connections by default.

Thanks Sahil. I thought it did but did not have a rig here to test it with.
Of course even the home system could host SQL Server as a service if you
throw the right switches.

--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________

"Jos Roijakkers" <j.roijakkers@qred-it.nl> wrote in message
news:5d4a1f3de97e8c852fad9beee28@news.microsoft.co m...[color=blue][color=green]
>> Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote:
>>
>> There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home
>> Edition, while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are
>> targeting mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick
>> to MSDE.
>>
>> Regards
>>[/color]
>
> This is not true. SQL Express runs under XP Home as well (at least it does
> on my machine). However, it does not support remote connections by
> default.
>
>[/color]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:49:50 -0700, Frank Rizzo <none@none.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote:[color=green]
>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And frankly
>> SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these name
>> changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications anyway.[/color]
>
>There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home
>Edition, while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are
>targeting mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick to
>MSDE.[/color]

There are lots of places where an app that normally runs on high-end
XP Pro machines would have to run on XP Home as well. Does this mean
that applications must fit the common denominator: MSDE? I didn't
think MSDE was still supported.

And what about XP Media Center? I'd love to find out about future
plans to adapt to MC and Home editions, assuming there is no way to
target them now.

Frank,
Can you point to something that documents your assertion that SQL Express
does not run on XP Home? Runs fine on my XP Home test machine....Haven't
been able to test access across a network to SQL/e on XP Home.

"Frank Rizzo" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:%23j9fctDhGHA.4284@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote:[color=green]
>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And
>> frankly SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these
>> name changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications
>> anyway.[/color]
>
> There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home Edition,
> while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are targeting
> mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick to MSDE.
>
> Regards[/color]

Well, both INETA speakers and MVPs are unbiased.

I'm an INETA speaker and MVP myself, and nearly don't have the same pedigree
as Bill Vaughn, but I must agree with his views on Microsoft.

- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
http://blah.winsmarts.com

"ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
news:aibfg.1442$EX2.652@bignews5.bellsouth.net...[color=blue]
> "INETA Speaker" - at least you're unbiased.
>
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message
> news:OmWkZkHhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Ah SQL Express can be used with an IIS web site. SQL Everywhere cannot.
>> It's not designed to do so but SQL Express (still free) is.
>> Microsoft has done more for small business than any company I know. It
>> now offers three versions of its database technology for free. SQL
>> Everywhere, SQL Express and SQL Express Advanced Services that includes
>> the Reporting Services engine as well as Full Text Search.
>>
>> If you just want to bash Microsoft, find some other forum.
>>
>> --
>> ____________________________________
>> William (Bill) Vaughn
>> Author, Mentor, Consultant
>> Microsoft MVP
>> INETA Speaker
>> www.betav.com/blog/billva
>> www.betav.com
>> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> __________________________________
>>
>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>> news:_J4fg.66487$MM6.19820@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=darkred]
>>> Awesome!
>>>
>>> It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under
>>> IIS though.
>>>
>>> That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web
>>> development so much easier!
>>>
>>> It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot at
>>> succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL Server.
>>>
>>> But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small businesses
>>> grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually fatten the bottom
>>> line at MS as the little businesses need more MS licenses and maybe a
>>> "grown up" version of SQL Server.
>>>
>>> If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db king.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the great link!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Odp%23lzDhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be released
>>>> this
>>>> summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls.
>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/ar...whereInfo.aspx
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> William Stacey [MVP]
>>>>
>>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>>> news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>> |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb
>>>> files
>>>> | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires that
>>>> you
>>>> | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound.
>>>> |
>>>> | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute
>>>> it
>>>> with
>>>> | my app, is there a silent install available?
>>>> |
>>>> | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> | news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>>>> | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed
>>>> application
>>>> | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And,
>>>> since
>>>> | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify
>>>> for
>>>> | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.
>>>> | >
>>>> | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
>>>> | > 1) It's free.
>>>> | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
>>>> | >
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Of course you must....

"Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u3xKRLRhGHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Well, both INETA speakers and MVPs are unbiased.
>
> I'm an INETA speaker and MVP myself, and nearly don't have the same
> pedigree as Bill Vaughn, but I must agree with his views on Microsoft.
>
> - Sahil Malik
> http://www.winsmarts.com
> http://blah.winsmarts.com
>
>
>
> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
> news:aibfg.1442$EX2.652@bignews5.bellsouth.net...[color=green]
>> "INETA Speaker" - at least you're unbiased.
>>
>>
>> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message
>> news:OmWkZkHhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Ah SQL Express can be used with an IIS web site. SQL Everywhere cannot.
>>> It's not designed to do so but SQL Express (still free) is.
>>> Microsoft has done more for small business than any company I know. It
>>> now offers three versions of its database technology for free. SQL
>>> Everywhere, SQL Express and SQL Express Advanced Services that includes
>>> the Reporting Services engine as well as Full Text Search.
>>>
>>> If you just want to bash Microsoft, find some other forum.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ____________________________________
>>> William (Bill) Vaughn
>>> Author, Mentor, Consultant
>>> Microsoft MVP
>>> INETA Speaker
>>> www.betav.com/blog/billva
>>> www.betav.com
>>> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>> rights.
>>> __________________________________
>>>
>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>> news:_J4fg.66487$MM6.19820@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>> Awesome!
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under
>>>> IIS though.
>>>>
>>>> That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web
>>>> development so much easier!
>>>>
>>>> It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot at
>>>> succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL Server.
>>>>
>>>> But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small
>>>> businesses grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually fatten
>>>> the bottom line at MS as the little businesses need more MS licenses
>>>> and maybe a "grown up" version of SQL Server.
>>>>
>>>> If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db king.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the great link!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Odp%23lzDhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be
>>>>> released this
>>>>> summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls.
>>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/ar...whereInfo.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> William Stacey [MVP]
>>>>>
>>>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>>> |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the .mdb
>>>>> files
>>>>> | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires
>>>>> that you
>>>>> | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound.
>>>>> |
>>>>> | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute
>>>>> it
>>>>> with
>>>>> | my app, is there a silent install available?
>>>>> |
>>>>> | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> | news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>>>>> | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed
>>>>> application
>>>>> | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And,
>>>>> since
>>>>> | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify
>>>>> for
>>>>> | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.
>>>>> | >
>>>>> | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
>>>>> | > 1) It's free.
>>>>> | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
>>>>> | >
>>>>> |
>>>>> |
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

SQL Express will run on XP Media center.

--

- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
http://blah.winsmarts.com

"_DD" <_@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:octr72ll2st47a5ocsnrohkfepa60karu4@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:49:50 -0700, Frank Rizzo <none@none.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Sahil Malik [MVP C#] wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment". And
>>> frankly
>>> SQL Anywhere (or was it everywhere - I loose track in all these name
>>> changes) should be a better choice for desktop-ish applications anyway.[/color]
>>
>>There is one more Access advantage: it'll run on Windows XP Home
>>Edition, while SQL Express will not (requires XP Pro). So if you are
>>targeting mom&pop shops or the home market, either do Access or stick to
>>MSDE.[/color]
>
> There are lots of places where an app that normally runs on high-end
> XP Pro machines would have to run on XP Home as well. Does this mean
> that applications must fit the common denominator: MSDE? I didn't
> think MSDE was still supported.
>
> And what about XP Media Center? I'd love to find out about future
> plans to adapt to MC and Home editions, assuming there is no way to
> target them now.
>[/color]

Excuse me? Are you accusing us of something? I would make pretty sure you're
on solid ground before impugning our honesty in a public forum. If you
really knew me, if you really understood where I have stood for the last 20
years, you would not be saying anything about how I coddle Microsoft or show
bias toward their products. From time to time I have been highly critical of
Microsoft--even as an employee (for 14 years). Microsoft has not always
liked to hear what I have said, but they have listened--just as they listen
to every one with any credibility at all. I for one have just finished my
11th book on this subject and yes, this book like all the others talks about
what works and what does not.

Do you think you fall into that category?

--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
__________________________________

"ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
news:3Cqfg.4977$8e2.2263@bignews1.bellsouth.net...[color=blue]
> Of course you must....
>
> "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:u3xKRLRhGHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Well, both INETA speakers and MVPs are unbiased.
>>
>> I'm an INETA speaker and MVP myself, and nearly don't have the same
>> pedigree as Bill Vaughn, but I must agree with his views on Microsoft.
>>
>> - Sahil Malik
>> http://www.winsmarts.com
>> http://blah.winsmarts.com
>>
>>
>>
>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>> news:aibfg.1442$EX2.652@bignews5.bellsouth.net...[color=darkred]
>>> "INETA Speaker" - at least you're unbiased.
>>>
>>>
>>> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OmWkZkHhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Ah SQL Express can be used with an IIS web site. SQL Everywhere cannot.
>>>> It's not designed to do so but SQL Express (still free) is.
>>>> Microsoft has done more for small business than any company I know. It
>>>> now offers three versions of its database technology for free. SQL
>>>> Everywhere, SQL Express and SQL Express Advanced Services that includes
>>>> the Reporting Services engine as well as Full Text Search.
>>>>
>>>> If you just want to bash Microsoft, find some other forum.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ____________________________________
>>>> William (Bill) Vaughn
>>>> Author, Mentor, Consultant
>>>> Microsoft MVP
>>>> INETA Speaker
>>>> www.betav.com/blog/billva
>>>> www.betav.com
>>>> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>>> rights.
>>>> __________________________________
>>>>
>>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>>> news:_J4fg.66487$MM6.19820@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>>> Awesome!
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under
>>>>> IIS though.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web
>>>>> development so much easier!
>>>>>
>>>>> It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot at
>>>>> succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL Server.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small
>>>>> businesses grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually fatten
>>>>> the bottom line at MS as the little businesses need more MS licenses
>>>>> and maybe a "grown up" version of SQL Server.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db king.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the great link!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Odp%23lzDhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be
>>>>>> released this
>>>>>> summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls.
>>>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/ar...whereInfo.aspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> William Stacey [MVP]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>>>> |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the
>>>>>> .mdb files
>>>>>> | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires
>>>>>> that you
>>>>>> | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to redistribute
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> | my app, is there a silent install available?
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> | news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>>>>>> | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed
>>>>>> application
>>>>>> | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked. And,
>>>>>> since
>>>>>> | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.
>>>>>> | >
>>>>>> | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
>>>>>> | > 1) It's free.
>>>>>> | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
>>>>>> | >
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> |
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Bill, it took me a while to realize this, but I think you're wrestling with
a pig. He is enjoying it, and you're getting dirty.

- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
http://blah.winsmarts.com

"William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:O8K6C0RhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Excuse me? Are you accusing us of something? I would make pretty sure
> you're on solid ground before impugning our honesty in a public forum. If
> you really knew me, if you really understood where I have stood for the
> last 20 years, you would not be saying anything about how I coddle
> Microsoft or show bias toward their products. From time to time I have
> been highly critical of Microsoft--even as an employee (for 14 years).
> Microsoft has not always liked to hear what I have said, but they have
> listened--just as they listen to every one with any credibility at all. I
> for one have just finished my 11th book on this subject and yes, this book
> like all the others talks about what works and what does not.
>
> Do you think you fall into that category?
>
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> __________________________________
>
> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
> news:3Cqfg.4977$8e2.2263@bignews1.bellsouth.net...[color=green]
>> Of course you must....
>>
>> "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:u3xKRLRhGHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Well, both INETA speakers and MVPs are unbiased.
>>>
>>> I'm an INETA speaker and MVP myself, and nearly don't have the same
>>> pedigree as Bill Vaughn, but I must agree with his views on Microsoft.
>>>
>>> - Sahil Malik
>>> http://www.winsmarts.com
>>> http://blah.winsmarts.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>> news:aibfg.1442$EX2.652@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>> "INETA Speaker" - at least you're unbiased.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:OmWkZkHhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Ah SQL Express can be used with an IIS web site. SQL Everywhere
>>>>> cannot. It's not designed to do so but SQL Express (still free) is.
>>>>> Microsoft has done more for small business than any company I know. It
>>>>> now offers three versions of its database technology for free. SQL
>>>>> Everywhere, SQL Express and SQL Express Advanced Services that
>>>>> includes the Reporting Services engine as well as Full Text Search.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you just want to bash Microsoft, find some other forum.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ____________________________________
>>>>> William (Bill) Vaughn
>>>>> Author, Mentor, Consultant
>>>>> Microsoft MVP
>>>>> INETA Speaker
>>>>> www.betav.com/blog/billva
>>>>> www.betav.com
>>>>> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>>>> rights.
>>>>> __________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_J4fg.66487$MM6.19820@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>>>> Awesome!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under
>>>>>> IIS though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web
>>>>>> development so much easier!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot
>>>>>> at succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL
>>>>>> Server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small
>>>>>> businesses grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually
>>>>>> fatten the bottom line at MS as the little businesses need more MS
>>>>>> licenses and maybe a "grown up" version of SQL Server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db
>>>>>> king.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the great link!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Odp%23lzDhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be
>>>>>>> released this
>>>>>>> summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls.
>>>>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/ar...whereInfo.aspx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> William Stacey [MVP]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>>>>> |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the
>>>>>>> .mdb files
>>>>>>> | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires
>>>>>>> that you
>>>>>>> | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to
>>>>>>> redistribute it
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> | my app, is there a silent install available?
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> | news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>>>>>>> | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed
>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>> | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked.
>>>>>>> And, since
>>>>>>> | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.
>>>>>>> | >
>>>>>>> | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
>>>>>>> | > 1) It's free.
>>>>>>> | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
>>>>>>> | >
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:34:56 -0400, "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Of course you must....[/color]

Just curious...what are you getting out of this? Mr Malik and Mr
Vaughn have complete credibility and both have written books on
database programming. Still, you've answered your own question: You
should use Access. Just make sure it's not Microsoft Access cause
that would be bad.

"William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:O8K6C0RhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Excuse me? Are you accusing us of something?[/color]

You accussed me, Billy. Remember this...."If you just want to bash
Microsoft, find some other forum."?

You take an accusatory tone with me. You attack my posts without reading
them (if you had, you'd have seen that the theme here was not one of "just
bashing Microsoft"). And, YOU have the audacity to ask me if I am
questioning YOUR integrity?

Well, I am questioning your integrity.

Not because I have reason to outside what you have posted here, but simply
because of the tact that you used when accusing me of "just bashing
Microsoft". That's something that only a Microsoft zealot could have
possibly read into this entire thread.

You are acting like a zealot. Your reaction to my dissappointment with
Microsoft's decision-to-date on SQL\e and the typical way in which they
price thier products out of reach of many small businesses was one of
etremism and showed a complete lack of understanding of my comments as they
related to the entire thread.

I accept you at your word that you call Microsoft out when need be (as
don't have time to verify this myself). But, for you to characterize my
entire thread as simple "Microsoft bashing" because I expressed my
unflattering opinions about some of Microsoft's actions is both
unprofessional and dishonest.

I am not familiar with your writings. They may be quite well done.
However, they are irrelevant when your actions here have shown you to be
quick to jump to conclusions of "Microsoft bashing" based on less than 10%
of the content of the thread.

Publishing a book niether makes you a scholar nor an adept teacher. It
makes you an author. My congratulations on your publishing feats. I hope
you published works better thought out than your biting response to a single
post of mine.

As for answering your question ("Do you think that you fall into that
category?")... This is both arrogant and ignorant at the same time. Quite
a feat for a published author.

I look forward to your thoughts on anything that I post. But, please do not
characterize me or my threads based on a minority of the postings therein.

Jim Hubbard
[color=blue]
> I would make pretty sure you're on solid ground before impugning our
> honesty in a public forum. If you really knew me, if you really understood
> where I have stood for the last 20 years, you would not be saying anything
> about how I coddle Microsoft or show bias toward their products. From time
> to time I have been highly critical of Microsoft--even as an employee (for
> 14 years). Microsoft has not always liked to hear what I have said, but
> they have listened--just as they listen to every one with any credibility
> at all. I for one have just finished my 11th book on this subject and yes,
> this book like all the others talks about what works and what does not.
>
> Do you think you fall into that category?
>
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> __________________________________
>
> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
> news:3Cqfg.4977$8e2.2263@bignews1.bellsouth.net...[color=green]
>> Of course you must....
>>
>> "Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:u3xKRLRhGHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Well, both INETA speakers and MVPs are unbiased.
>>>
>>> I'm an INETA speaker and MVP myself, and nearly don't have the same
>>> pedigree as Bill Vaughn, but I must agree with his views on Microsoft.
>>>
>>> - Sahil Malik
>>> http://www.winsmarts.com
>>> http://blah.winsmarts.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>> news:aibfg.1442$EX2.652@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>> "INETA Speaker" - at least you're unbiased.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:OmWkZkHhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Ah SQL Express can be used with an IIS web site. SQL Everywhere
>>>>> cannot. It's not designed to do so but SQL Express (still free) is.
>>>>> Microsoft has done more for small business than any company I know. It
>>>>> now offers three versions of its database technology for free. SQL
>>>>> Everywhere, SQL Express and SQL Express Advanced Services that
>>>>> includes the Reporting Services engine as well as Full Text Search.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you just want to bash Microsoft, find some other forum.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ____________________________________
>>>>> William (Bill) Vaughn
>>>>> Author, Mentor, Consultant
>>>>> Microsoft MVP
>>>>> INETA Speaker
>>>>> www.betav.com/blog/billva
>>>>> www.betav.com
>>>>> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>>>> rights.
>>>>> __________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_J4fg.66487$MM6.19820@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>>>> Awesome!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't look like they'll let us use it to power webservices under
>>>>>> IIS though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would suck. Allowing its use under IIS would make hosted web
>>>>>> development so much easier!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would let small companies with big ideas give those ideas a shot
>>>>>> at succeeding without spending several thousand dollars for SQL
>>>>>> Server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, I don't think MS is all that interested in helping small
>>>>>> businesses grow. And, that's too bad. Doing so would actually
>>>>>> fatten the bottom line at MS as the little businesses need more MS
>>>>>> licenses and maybe a "grown up" version of SQL Server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they did, who knows, it might even unseat MySQL as the web db
>>>>>> king.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the great link!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Odp%23lzDhGHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Another option for you may be SQL Everywhere. I think will be
>>>>>>> released this
>>>>>>> summer. 1.4mb with 7 dlls.
>>>>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/stevelasker/ar...whereInfo.aspx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> William Stacey [MVP]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Dm2fg.66188$MM6.13884@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>>>>> |I mean that you can use Access databases simply by including the
>>>>>>> .mdb files
>>>>>>> | with your application, whereas using SQL Server Express requires
>>>>>>> that you
>>>>>>> | install SQL Server Express and have it running in the backgound.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | In the event that I use SQL Server Express and need to
>>>>>>> redistribute it
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> | my app, is there a silent install available?
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | <james.curran@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> | news:1149020977.932902.220830@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>>>>>>> | > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires an installed
>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>> | > to work". I just downloaded it, ran the setup & it worked.
>>>>>>> And, since
>>>>>>> | > your reluctance to do that is the *ONLY* requirement you specify
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> | > your database needs, it's really hard to answer your question.
>>>>>>> | >
>>>>>>> | > So, the advantages of SQLExpress over Access, as I see them.
>>>>>>> | > 1) It's free.
>>>>>>> | > 2) It's directly compatible with Sql Server.
>>>>>>> | >
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

ljh wrote:
[color=blue]
> Just curious......can you tell me a situation where using XML as a
> datatype would come into play in a database application?
>
> Why would you store XML in its native format instead of breaking it
> down into its component fields for storage and seaarch?[/color]

In general, people should avoid Xml typed fields to avoid
'table-in-table' syndrome, which effectively kills your relational
model. However there are situations where it can be helpful. One is the
situation where the user of your software is able to add custom fields
to a table. You can store these in XML and query them as well (although
it's not ideal, I admit)

Another can be to store xml data in an xml column, although you can
also use a Text column for that if you want to of course.

FB
[color=blue]
>
>
> "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld@comcast.netNoSpamM>
> wrote in message news:O6q4onKhGHA.4144@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Let's see:
> >
> > Ability to do asynch apps (Service Broker)
> > Server model instead of file system model
> > Complete support for stored procedures
> > Full SQL Server security model
> > Ability to run queries as another user, completely isolating the
> > database from the user
> > Better support for types in SQL Server than Access (in .NET)
> > Ability to schedule backups within the engine
> > Support for more types than Access
> > Ability to use XML as a datatype with querying capabilities
> >
> > Is that enough, or should I go on?
> >
> > --
> > Gregory A. Beamer
> >
> > *************************************************
> > Think Outside the Box!
> > *************************************************
> > "ljh" <Some@where.else> wrote in message
> > news:kP1fg.66184$MM6.44395@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..[color=darkred]
> >> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed[/color][/color]
> application >> to work) over the simplicity of an Access database
> which has no >> dependencies?[/color]

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ljh wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in
> message news:O8K6C0RhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Excuse me? Are you accusing us of something?[/color]
>
> You accussed me, Billy. Remember this...."If you just want to bash
> Microsoft, find some other forum."?
>
> You take an accusatory tone with me. You attack my posts without
> reading them (if you had, you'd have seen that the theme here was not
> one of "just bashing Microsoft"). And, YOU have the audacity to ask
> me if I am questioning YOUR integrity?
>
> Well, I am questioning your integrity.[/color]

I don't think that's beneficial to the discussion.
[color=blue]
> Not because I have reason to outside what you have posted here, but
> simply because of the tact that you used when accusing me of "just
> bashing Microsoft". That's something that only a Microsoft zealot
> could have possibly read into this entire thread.[/color]

While Bill and I are often not agreeing on a subject, I can tell you
he's honest in what he says. He might have overreacted a bit in his
previous reply, but let me explain abit why I think he did and I fully
understand why he did: we as MVP's are often accused of being biased
towards Microsoft, shutting our eyes for the real problems, ignoring
the difficulties Joe Developer has to fight with because that would
hurt Microsoft etc. etc.

That's not the case, far from it. Sure, there are MVP's who only
preach 'good news' and won't say a bad word about MS or its products.
Though you won't find these MVPs in the newsgroups answering questions
of others. So please re-consider what you said.
[color=blue]
> You are acting like a zealot. Your reaction to my dissappointment
> with Microsoft's decision-to-date on SQL\e and the typical way in
> which they price thier products out of reach of many small businesses
> was one of etremism and showed a complete lack of understanding of my
> comments as they related to the entire thread.[/color]

Perhaps your 'packaging' of the 'message' wasn't matching the message
it was packaging :).
[color=blue]
> I accept you at your word that you call Microsoft out when need be
> (as don't have time to verify this myself). But, for you to
> characterize my entire thread as simple "Microsoft bashing" because I
> expressed my unflattering opinions about some of Microsoft's actions
> is both unprofessional and dishonest.[/color]

Read between the lines. We have to do that with your texts as well. If
I say "This SUCKS!!!", I might be right, but no-one will listen. Trust
me, if you want to get a point across, it's of upmost importancy that
the audience of which you want the attention of is willing to read your
texts to the last line.
[color=blue]
> As for answering your question ("Do you think that you fall into that
> category?")... This is both arrogant and ignorant at the same time.
> Quite a feat for a published author.[/color]

I have to agree in this, but this is usenet, we all forget everyone
can read what we say from time to time.

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ljh wrote:
[color=blue]
> Why would you choose SQL Express (which requires an installed
> application to work) over the simplicity of an Access database which
> has no dependencies?[/color]

If you already know the answer, why ask the question?

Furthermore, MS doesn't include the JET engine anymore in the MDAC
installations (if I'm not mistaken), something to consider in your
decision. (which means effectively, that they want to keep people from
using .mdb files as a database for an application which isn't build in
MS Access, as the JET engine is only distributed with Office today (if
I'm not mistaken).

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Sahil,
[color=blue]
> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment".[/color]

You still have to install jet engine though (dll hell, registry, com, you
name it)...
Or did you mean FBD for database files?

BTW, i liked the pig anecdote :-)

--
Miha Markic [MVP C#]
RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/

I'm not so sure about that.

Isn't the MDAC just a related set of DLLs? In many cases, you can simply
place dependent DLLs in the same directory as your exe and all will run just
fine - no registering amything and no chance that "DLL Hell" (which I don't
believe exists) can getcha.

I may try this out myself on a clean box and see......

"Miha Markic [MVP C#]" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message
news:e8IRFZWhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi Sahil,
>[color=green]
>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment".[/color]
>
> You still have to install jet engine though (dll hell, registry, com, you
> name it)...
> Or did you mean FBD for database files?
>
> BTW, i liked the pig anecdote :-)
>
> --
> Miha Markic [MVP C#]
> RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
> Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/
>[/color]

pig anecdote?

Re: the jet engine etc. - yeah but most machines have it.

- Sahil Malik
http://www.winsmarts.com
http://blah.winsmarts.com

"Miha Markic [MVP C#]" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message
news:e8IRFZWhGHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi Sahil,
>[color=green]
>> The only advantage Access gives you is "File based deployment".[/color]
>
> You still have to install jet engine though (dll hell, registry, com, you
> name it)...
> Or did you mean FBD for database files?
>
> BTW, i liked the pig anecdote :-)
>
> --
> Miha Markic [MVP C#]
> RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
> Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/
>[/color]

"Sahil Malik [MVP C#]" <contactmethrumyblog@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%239j92sXhGHA.3572@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> pig anecdote?[/color]

"Bill, it took me a while to realize this, but I think you're wrestling with
a pig. He is enjoying it, and you're getting dirty. "
[color=blue]
> Re: the jet engine etc. - yeah but most machines have it.[/color]

It is enough if one (target) machine might be missing jet. :-)

--
Miha Markic [MVP C#]
RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/

Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

re: Why choose SQL Express over Access?

Similar Visual Basic .NET bytes

/bytes/development

/bytes/it

/bytes/about