In my not-so-humble opinion, Microsoft SQL Server is the simplest,
easiest-to-administer "heavy-duty" server database I have encountered. It
has user-friendly and excellent administrative tools. But, every server
database I've encountered requires administration and frequent "tender
loving care".
Access can be used to easily create user-friendly front-ends for this (and
for any other ODBC-compliant server DB). And, as server databases go,
Microsoft SQL Server is not overly expensive -- it comes in several
different versions, from a free version for a few users, a Small Business
Edition for more, and the full version can be expanded to truly impressive
data and user capacity.
Oracle has a good reputation in the heavy-duty, industrial-strength database
arena, but it is not inexpensive, and most of the people I know who have
used it have said that you will likely need to hire Oracle's engineers to
install and tune it (at truly staggering rates).
These are not, of course, the only options. Comparing them all would be
beyond the scope of a newsgroup response, as would a detailed comparison of
MS SQL Server and Oracle -- if you could find someone with the in-depth
experience with both who had the time to create such a response.
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
"John" <so*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
I need to upsize my Access 2002 "database" to a larger database. I
would like to use Access projects to manage the database. With this
preference, it would seem MS SQL Server 2000 is the ideal way to go.
Nothwithstanding scalability, performance, pricing, my question is
this: what are the distinct advantages MS SQL Server [may] have over
Oracle when used in conjunction with Access? What are the drawbacks, if
any, to using an Access project with ODBC links to an Oracle database?