Is Access my man?

[Luvin lunch]

Hi All,

People keep saying things like "Access is a nightmare" or "Access is
hell" but the only people I hear this from are peopel who aren't that
experienced in using Access. The most I can tie these people down to
is that Access isn't robust, that it only allows a few users and that
the locking on it is terrible.

I used it before for a single user worklist system and it was
excellent. I'm now developing a system for a charity organisation so
I've to think of money and I'm wondering can access handle my
requirement. The system is:

Approx 15 concurrent users (I plan to split the db)
Currently 17,000 rows not likely to grow beyond 30,000
Will be used for the next 5 years.

Can Access handle this? I'm asking because I wonder how much of what
I hear about Access is urban myth and how much is true. I'd be using
2003. Has Access improved?

Thanks for any comments

LL

[lyle fairfield]

Luvin lunch <ma************ @o2.iewrote in news:f09fea6a-38d7-4192-866e-
8d**********@e6 0g2000hsh.googl egroups.com:

Hi All,

People keep saying things like "Access is a nightmare" or "Access is
hell" but the only people I hear this from are peopel who aren't that
experienced in using Access. The most I can tie these people down to
is that Access isn't robust, that it only allows a few users and that
the locking on it is terrible.

I used it before for a single user worklist system and it was
excellent. I'm now developing a system for a charity organisation so
I've to think of money and I'm wondering can access handle my
requirement. The system is:

Approx 15 concurrent users (I plan to split the db)
Currently 17,000 rows not likely to grow beyond 30,000
Will be used for the next 5 years.

Can Access handle this? I'm asking because I wonder how much of what
I hear about Access is urban myth and how much is true. I'd be using
2003. Has Access improved?

Thanks for any comments

LL

Access, just like every other RAD, is a good as the developer.

It sounds to me that your 15 users can't be using all that intensively if
there never will be more than 30000 records.

I don't know of any issues with Access/JET locking other than DD (dumb
developer).

[Luvin lunch]

On Feb 27, 12:40*pm, lyle fairfield <lylef...@yah00 .cawrote:

Luvin lunch <martina_mul... @o2.iewrote in news:f09fea6a-38d7-4192-866e-
8de42d06b...@e6 0g2000hsh.googl egroups.com:

Hi All,

People keep saying things like "Access is a nightmare" or "Access is
hell" *but the only people I hear this from are peopel who aren't that
experienced in using Access. *The *most I can tie these people down to
is that Access isn't robust, that it only allows a few users and that
the locking on it is terrible.

I used it before for a single user worklist system and it was
excellent. *I'm now developing a system for a charity organisation so
I've to think of money and I'm wondering can access handle my
requirement. *The system is:

Approx 15 concurrent users (I plan to split the db)
Currently 17,000 rows not likely to grow beyond 30,000
Will be used for the next 5 years.

Can Access handle this? *I'm asking because I wonder how much of what
I hear about Access is urban myth and how much is true. I'd be using
2003. *Has Access improved?

Thanks for any comments

LL

Access, just like every other RAD, is a good as the developer.

It sounds to me that your 15 users can't be using all that intensively if
there never will be more than 30000 records.

I don't know of any issues with Access/JET locking other than DD (dumb
developer).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Lyle,

Thanks for that answer. I didn't mean to imply that I think Access is
a nightmare. The reason I'm posting is that that rumour goes around
but I want to hear from people who actually use Access because the
only people who ever say Access is a nightmare is people who don't
really use it. No one seems to be able to substantiate their claim
when I ask them to. They always say things like the locking is
terrible etc.

So basically it sounds like you're fairly confident that access if
split could handle fifteen concurrent users entering not more than
30,000 records. Is that correct?

I would be consciuos that I might suffer from a touch of the DDs (and
unfortunately I'm not talking about my bra size ;-)) I presume if I
use transactions for my inserts and updates I'll be alright. Like you
say, it's not that heavily hit and I find the VBA really handy for
validation.

I am still curious as to where all these rumours are coming from. Is
it that access 97 was trouble and that all the problems have been
resolved?

[lyle fairfield]

Luvin lunch <ma************ @o2.iewrote in
news:a9******** *************** ***********@p43 g2000hsc.google groups.com:

On Feb 27, 12:40*pm, lyle fairfield <lylef...@yah00 .cawrote:

>Luvin lunch <martina_mul... @o2.iewrote in
news:f09fea6 a-38d7-4192-866e-
8de42d06b...@e 60g2000hsh.goog legroups.com:

Hi All,

People keep saying things like "Access is a nightmare" or "Access
is hell" *but the only people I hear this from are peopel who
aren't that

experienced in using Access. *The *most I can tie these people down

to

is that Access isn't robust, that it only allows a few users and
that the locking on it is terrible.

I used it before for a single user worklist system and it was
excellent. *I'm now developing a system for a charity organisation
so I've to think of money and I'm wondering can access handle my
requirement. *The system is:

Approx 15 concurrent users (I plan to split the db)
Currently 17,000 rows not likely to grow beyond 30,000
Will be used for the next 5 years.

Can Access handle this? *I'm asking because I wonder how much of
what I hear about Access is urban myth and how much is true. I'd be
using 2003. *Has Access improved?

Thanks for any comments

LL

Access, just like every other RAD, is a good as the developer.

It sounds to me that your 15 users can't be using all that
intensively if there never will be more than 30000 records.

I don't know of any issues with Access/JET locking other than DD
(dumb developer).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Lyle,

Thanks for that answer. I didn't mean to imply that I think Access is
a nightmare. The reason I'm posting is that that rumour goes around
but I want to hear from people who actually use Access because the
only people who ever say Access is a nightmare is people who don't
really use it. No one seems to be able to substantiate their claim
when I ask them to. They always say things like the locking is
terrible etc.

So basically it sounds like you're fairly confident that access if
split could handle fifteen concurrent users entering not more than
30,000 records. Is that correct?

I would be consciuos that I might suffer from a touch of the DDs (and
unfortunately I'm not talking about my bra size ;-)) I presume if I
use transactions for my inserts and updates I'll be alright. Like you
say, it's not that heavily hit and I find the VBA really handy for
validation.

I am still curious as to where all these rumours are coming from. Is
it that access 97 was trouble and that all the problems have been
resolved?

Some computer people think that it adds to one's prestige if one can off
a program.

I hope there will be other opinions here about what you plan to do; I
develop calculation specific and intensive applications which may not be
similar to your plans; while they have multile users, typically each user
has his/her own data. You may benefit from advice from developers whose
work is closer to what you describe.

[Bob Alston]

l

>
I hope there will be other opinions here about what you plan to do; I
develop calculation specific and intensive applications which may not be
similar to your plans; while they have multile users, typically each user
has his/her own data. You may benefit from advice from developers whose
work is closer to what you describe.

Access can certainly handle what you are proposing to do - and more.
But make sure you build it properly to ensure a robust application. You
have already said you are going to split it into front end and back end.
that is a good start.

Lots of "profession al programmers" look down on Access but generally
they have virtually no first hand experience with it nor do they have
any solid second hand experience - they just hear rumors from other
people like themselves.

Will your app really have 15 concurrent users? That seems a lot for a
nonprofit, unless it is a fairly large nonprofit?

One other thing you might do is tell us what kind of application you are
planning to build. Someone might stear you to something already built.

Bob

[bobh]

On Feb 27, 10:25*am, Luvin lunch <martina_mul... @o2.iewrote:

On Feb 27, 12:40*pm, lyle fairfield <lylef...@yah00 .cawrote:

Luvin lunch <martina_mul... @o2.iewrote in news:f09fea6a-38d7-4192-866e-
8de42d06b...@e6 0g2000hsh.googl egroups.com:

Hi All,

People keep saying things like "Access is a nightmare" or "Access is
hell" *but the only people I hear this from are peopel who aren't that
experienced in using Access. *The *most I can tie these people down to
is that Access isn't robust, that it only allows a few users and that
the locking on it is terrible.

I used it before for a single user worklist system and it was
excellent. *I'm now developing a system for a charity organisation so
I've to think of money and I'm wondering can access handle my
requirement. *The system is:

Approx 15 concurrent users (I plan to split the db)
Currently 17,000 rows not likely to grow beyond 30,000
Will be used for the next 5 years.

Can Access handle this? *I'm asking because I wonder how much of what
I hear about Access is urban myth and how much is true. I'd be using
2003. *Has Access improved?

Thanks for any comments

LL

Access, just like every other RAD, is a good as the developer.

It sounds to me that your 15 users can't be using all that intensively if
there never will be more than 30000 records.

I don't know of any issues with Access/JET locking other than DD (dumb
developer).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Lyle,

Thanks for that answer. *I didn't mean to imply that I think Access is
a nightmare. *The reason I'm posting is that that rumour goes around
but I want to hear from people who actually use Access because the
only people who ever say Access is a nightmare is people who don't
really use it. *No one seems to be able to substantiate their claim
when I ask them to. *They always say things like the locking is
terrible etc.

So basically it sounds like you're fairly confident that access if
split could handle fifteen concurrent users entering not more than
30,000 records. Is that correct?

I would be consciuos that I might suffer from a touch of the DDs (and
unfortunately I'm not talking about my bra size ;-)) I presume if I
use transactions for my inserts and updates I'll be alright. *Like you
say, it's not that heavily hit and I find the VBA really handy for
validation.

I am still curious as to where all these rumours are coming from. *Is
it that access 97 was trouble and that all the problems have been
resolved?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

IMO, rumors come from people who are un-informed, inexperienced, know
nothing about Relational data nor Programming Theory/Methodology and
several other practicies and/or are afraid of anything that's not 'Big
Mainframe'.
Secondly, it's no the software, Access can not do anything unless I
program it to do whatever so, Access or any other product for that
matter is only as good as the developer's capabilities with that
particular software.
Access will handle your need without any issue provided you have a
competent developer doing the developing. I have built a few large
Access db applications which housed up to 1/2 million records and had
100+ authorized users(of course, not all users had the db application
open at the same time but, at any given time I could exspect to see
20, 30 user having it open and it functioned just fine).

ps: this is just My Opinion and I don't mean to offend anyone
bobh.

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

Luvin lunch <ma************ @o2.iewrote:

>Approx 15 concurrent users (I plan to split the db)
Currently 17,000 rows not likely to grow beyond 30,000
Will be used for the next 5 years.

I had a client, until I fired them, who is running an app with 25 users and 100,000
records in at least 15 tables and 400K to 800K rows in about four tables. The BE MDB
is about 300 Mb. It's working quite well.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

Luvin lunch <ma************ @o2.iewrote:

>Can Access handle this?

Also see fellow MVP Steve Schapel's excellent set of pages Microsoft Office Access
Makes a Difference at http://accesstips.datamanagementsolutions.biz/apps.htm.

Mine is at Tony Toews's welding shop
http://blog.datamanagementsolutions....-access-6.html

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Luvin lunch:

>People keep saying things like "Access is a nightmare" or "Access is
hell" but the only people I hear this from are peopel who aren't that
experienced in using Access. The most I can tie these people down to
is that Access isn't robust, that it only allows a few users and that

In my experience IT people tend to spit on MS Access - but for
the wrong reasons - mainly because they don't get the distinction
between MS-Access-The-Front-End-Development-Tool and
MS-Access-The-File-Based-DB (AKA JET).
--
PeteCresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Luvin lunch:

>I am still curious as to where all these rumours are coming from. Is
it that access 97 was trouble and that all the problems have been
resolved?

You'd have to list them one-by-one for anybody to address them.

I'd offer up what might be one of the most prevalent ones: "MS
Access back ends can get corrupted."

This is 100% true. But so can SQL Server DBs... and you can
recover from an Access corruption by restoring last night's
backup - as opposed to having to wait for a server team to
restore the DB for you.

It can get bad with an Access back end if/when there's a flaky
NIC or a file server with problems. Then it truly can be a
nightmare - with the back end corrupting every hour or so... or
even more frequently. Been there once and it was *bad*.

But, in my experience there's a very very low chance of that
happening - and if you're not in a huge organization where
everything's locked down, you just move the DB to another server.
But, like they say, "If you can't afford to lose, don't play the
game."
I've been developing MS Access applications for small workgroups
(less than 20 concurrent users) for about 15 years now and I
think MS Access definitely has it's place. It definitely offers
the most bang for the developer man hour and the shortest
calendar time turnaround for a single developer.
--
PeteCresswell