By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,473 Members | 3,504 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,473 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Need Access database on the web

P: n/a
Hi there,
I have a database in Access that I need on the web. The web page
should connect to the database and write records for certain tables
and view records for others. I want to know a reliable way of
connecting Access to a server. I am willing to switch to any version
of Access which might solve the problem. Which server would you
recommend and what are the advanatages and disadvantatges of the
server you propose? Please also inlcude the number of people that can
access the database simultaneously. Thanks

Nihad

Feb 13 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
21 Replies


P: n/a
>Which server would you recommend and what are the
advanatages and disadvantatges of theserver you propose?
I would go with Sql Server because it was specifically designed for
enterprise operations - which anything on the web is an enterprise
operation. Access was not designed for enterprise operations - it was
designed for desktop usage.
>>Please also inlcude the number of people that can
access the database simultaneously
Access can handle one user at a time on an intranet. Sql server can
handle thousands of users at a time on intranet/internet.

Note: Access is not inferior to Sql Server. Both products are designed
by the same company (Microsoft), but they serve different purposes.
There is some minor overlap in purpose, but for enterprise operations,
sql Server is the product of choice.

Rich

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Feb 13 '07 #2

P: n/a
On Feb 13, 5:58 pm, Rich P <rpng...@aol.comwrote:
Which server would you recommend and what are the
advanatages and disadvantatges of theserver you propose?

I would go with Sql Server because it was specifically designed for
enterprise operations - which anything on the web is an enterprise
operation. Access was not designed for enterprise operations - it was
designed for desktop usage.
>Please also inlcude the number of people that can
access the database simultaneously

Access can handle one user at a time on an intranet. Sql server can
handle thousands of users at a time on intranet/internet.

Note: Access is not inferior to Sql Server. Both products are designed
by the same company (Microsoft), but they serve different purposes.
There is some minor overlap in purpose, but for enterprise operations,
sql Server is the product of choice.

Rich

*** Sent via Developersdexhttp://www.developersdex.com***

If you're entertaining upgrading to Sql Server you might as well look
at some of the other database programs that are a little more tailored
for the web - if only to compare. Some take a bit of learning, but
they tend to be a little easier to maintain. Depending on your
circumstances it may even be free to use. MySql is a popular one and
integrates well with most web languages.

Feb 14 '07 #3

P: n/a
Hi, Rich.
Access can handle one user at a time on an intranet.
Access is a multiuser application and can usually handle half a dozen up to
about 100 (generally about 25 comfortably), but the number of concurrent
users depends upon the data needs of the users (data readers vs. data
inputers, where many more data readers can be accommodated than data
inputers), the database design complexity, the network capabilities, and the
skill level of the Access developer.

If your Access databases are only capable of one user at a time, then I
recommend that you read Access MVP Tom Wickerath's article, "Implementing a
Successful Multiuser Access/JET Application" on the following Web page for
some very helpful tips:

http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/mu...lications.html

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blog: http://DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"Rich P" <rp*****@aol.comwrote in message
news:45*********************@news.qwest.net...
>
>>Which server would you recommend and what are the
advanatages and disadvantatges of theserver you propose?

I would go with Sql Server because it was specifically designed for
enterprise operations - which anything on the web is an enterprise
operation. Access was not designed for enterprise operations - it was
designed for desktop usage.
>>>Please also inlcude the number of people that can
access the database simultaneously

Access can handle one user at a time on an intranet. Sql server can
handle thousands of users at a time on intranet/internet.

Note: Access is not inferior to Sql Server. Both products are designed
by the same company (Microsoft), but they serve different purposes.
There is some minor overlap in purpose, but for enterprise operations,
sql Server is the product of choice.

Rich

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

Feb 14 '07 #4

P: n/a
If you're entertaining upgrading to Sql Server you might as well look
at some of the other database programs that are a little more tailored
for the web - if only to compare. Some take a bit of learning, but
they tend to be a little easier to maintain. Depending on your
circumstances it may even be free to use. MySql is a popular one and
integrates well with most web languages.
The problem with MySql is that it is not free for commercial use. You can
use it for testing..but, for any commercial use, then you must pay for a
license.

It turns out that Microsoft has two free database systems you can use. Their
is the MSDE that been included on the office disk for the last 3 versions
of ms-access. And, also, now there is the free edition of sql server
express. You can freely use either of these database engines, where as
MySql you must pay for a license to use.
--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
Feb 14 '07 #5

P: n/a
"Albert D. Kallal" <Pl*******************@msn.comwrote in
news:P1DAh.977449$1T2.413140@pd7urf2no:
The problem with MySql is that it is not free for commercial use.
You can use it for testing..but, for any commercial use, then you
must pay for a license.
Huh? MySQL is open source software. You can download the source code
and compile it yourself. You don't have to pay for the source code.

Now, there is now an Enterprise Version of MySQL that is for pay,
but I see no evidence that anyone has to pay anything for use of the
"community" builds of MySQL, no matter what use you make of it.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Feb 14 '07 #6

P: n/a
>>
Access is a multiuser application and can usually handle half a dozen up
to about 100 (generally about 25 comfortably), but the number of
concurrent users depends upon the data needs of the users (data readers
vs. data
inputers, where many more data readers can be accommodated than data
inputers), the database design complexity, the network capabilities, and
the skill level of the Access developer.
<<
Access was a premier RDBMS in its early days, but those days came and
went. I participate in this NG to stay up on the latest developments
with Access. But I think there is a message to be received when it is
noted that Access is part of the Microsoft OFFICE suite - not an
enterprise development suite - that would be .Net.

For enterprise level stuff, Access has been long overtaken by Sql Server
and .Net. Every project that I have undertaken for the last 3 years
that involved Access was to migrate the Access project/application to
.Net.

Access, combined with the MS Office suite serves the same purpose as the
ACT system - a database with a Office suite of applications where ACT is
that but rolled up into one application. These are great systems at the
office level, but for enterprise level they can't compete with Sql
Server/.Net or Java, Oracle/.Net or Java.
Rich

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Feb 14 '07 #7

P: n/a
Hi, Rich.
But I think there is a message to be received when it is
noted that Access is part of the Microsoft OFFICE suite - not an
enterprise development suite
The message to be received is that Access can do most of what desktop
database applications need to do in most offices at a very reasonable
cost -- not the high costs and higher-costing skills required of an
enterprise level development suite. That's why Access is the most popular
database in the world. Organizations don't need to spend tens of thousands
of dollars in licensing costs and for computer equipment and have expensive,
trained professionals to maintain their data in an Access database.
For enterprise level stuff, Access has been long overtaken by Sql Server
and .Net.
Check the statistics. The majority of enterprise level applications is
still on Unix and IBM machines, not Windows. SQL server and .Net don't run
on anything but Windows. The market is using Oracle, Java, and other
technologies that run on multiple platforms, not just Windows.
Every project that I have undertaken for the last 3 years
that involved Access was to migrate the Access project/application to
.Net.
If those migration projects were due to the Access database applications
only handling one user at a time and weren't due to mission critical,
security, 24/7 availability, or scalability issues, then I'm sure many of
the Access experts who post in this newsgroup would have gladly offered to
improve the Access database applications at a far lower cost than the .Net
migrations.
These are great systems at the
office level, but for enterprise level they can't compete with Sql
Server/.Net or Java, Oracle/.Net or Java.
Likewise, the enterprise level development suites' high costs and long
development schedules usually make them impractical at the office level.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blog: http://DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"Rich P" <rp*****@aol.comwrote in message
news:45***********************@news.qwest.net...
>
>>>
Access is a multiuser application and can usually handle half a dozen up
to about 100 (generally about 25 comfortably), but the number of
concurrent users depends upon the data needs of the users (data readers
vs. data
inputers, where many more data readers can be accommodated than data
inputers), the database design complexity, the network capabilities, and
the skill level of the Access developer.
<<
Access was a premier RDBMS in its early days, but those days came and
went. I participate in this NG to stay up on the latest developments
with Access. But I think there is a message to be received when it is
noted that Access is part of the Microsoft OFFICE suite - not an
enterprise development suite - that would be .Net.

For enterprise level stuff, Access has been long overtaken by Sql Server
and .Net. Every project that I have undertaken for the last 3 years
that involved Access was to migrate the Access project/application to
.Net.

Access, combined with the MS Office suite serves the same purpose as the
ACT system - a database with a Office suite of applications where ACT is
that but rolled up into one application. These are great systems at the
office level, but for enterprise level they can't compete with Sql
Server/.Net or Java, Oracle/.Net or Java.
Rich

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

Feb 15 '07 #8

P: n/a
On Feb 14, 5:44 pm, Rich P <rpng...@aol.comwrote:
Access is a multiuser application and can usually handle half a dozen up
to about 100 (generally about 25 comfortably), but the number of
concurrent users depends upon the data needs of the users (data readers
vs. data
inputers, where many more data readers can be accommodated than data
inputers), the database design complexity, the network capabilities, and
the skill level of the Access developer.
<<

Access was a premier RDBMS in its early days, but those days came and
went. I participate in this NG to stay up on the latest developments
with Access. But I think there is a message to be received when it is
noted that Access is part of the Microsoft OFFICE suite - not an
enterprise development suite - that would be .Net.

For enterprise level stuff, Access has been long overtaken by Sql Server
and .Net. Every project that I have undertaken for the last 3 years
that involved Access was to migrate the Access project/application to
.Net.

Access, combined with the MS Office suite serves the same purpose as the
ACT system - a database with a Office suite of applications where ACT is
that but rolled up into one application. These are great systems at the
office level, but for enterprise level they can't compete with Sql
Server/.Net or Java, Oracle/.Net or Java.
Access is just fine. Using Access with ASP on the web is just fine. As
there are no persistent connections (or should not be) and each hit is
likely to take a small fraction of a second, hundreds of users can
work with a JET database on the web at the same time. Thousands of
such sites were built and thousands are still percolating merrily
along.
I use SQL Server extensively and .Net less so. There is nothing magic
about these and in 99% of the cases I have come across JET and a COM
application such as Access or ASP would work just as well and possible
better with many fewer headaches and much less expense. IMO there are
two reasons many businesses and other organizations have gone to
something heavier duty than JET and something more exotic than Access
or ASP: first is the MS hype machine which convinces us that we must
have the newest and secondly is the paucity of capable programmers
(witness this thread in particular and CDMA in general over the past
few years). If JET were slowly dying then why would it be necessary to
terminate it? It might be necessary if you thought it interfered with
sales of your SQL goose that lays the golden egg.
To the original poster I say that Gunny's comments, as usual, are
thoughtful,on topic and correct. Others are off-topic or wrong.

Feb 15 '07 #9

P: n/a
Thank you for all your replies.

Some one mentioned that SQL Server cannot run on any operating system
other than windows. I don't recall exactly but isn't MS SQL 2005 cross-
platform?
Yeah I know SQL is great but how much would it cost me approximately
and what about ASP? Is it good? Is there any tool to transfer my ms
access database to the sql server or any other server easily without
losing data? Thanks

Nihad
On Feb 14, 8:04 pm, "'69 Camaro" <ForwardZERO_SPAM.To.
69Cam...@Spameater.orgZERO_SPAMwrote:
Hi, Rich.
But I think there is a message to be received when it is
noted that Access is part of the Microsoft OFFICE suite - not an
enterprise development suite

The message to be received is that Access can do most of what desktop
database applications need to do in most offices at a very reasonable
cost -- not the high costs and higher-costing skills required of an
enterprise level development suite. That's why Access is the most popular
database in the world. Organizations don't need to spend tens of thousands
of dollars in licensing costs and for computer equipment and have expensive,
trained professionals to maintain their data in an Access database.
For enterprise level stuff, Access has been long overtaken by Sql Server
and .Net.

Check the statistics. The majority of enterprise level applications is
still on Unix and IBM machines, not Windows. SQL server and .Net don't run
on anything but Windows. The market is using Oracle, Java, and other
technologies that run on multiple platforms, not just Windows.
Every project that I have undertaken for the last 3 years
that involved Access was to migrate the Access project/application to
.Net.

If those migration projects were due to the Access database applications
only handling one user at a time and weren't due to mission critical,
security, 24/7 availability, or scalability issues, then I'm sure many of
the Access experts who post in this newsgroup would have gladly offered to
improve the Access database applications at a far lower cost than the .Net
migrations.
These are great systems at the
office level, but for enterprise level they can't compete with Sql
Server/.Net or Java, Oracle/.Net or Java.

Likewise, the enterprise level development suites' high costs and long
development schedules usually make them impractical at the office level.

HTH.
Gunny

Seehttp://www.QBuilt.comfor all your database needs.
Seehttp://www.Access.QBuilt.comfor Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blog: http://DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.comhttp...utors2.htmlfor contact
info.

"Rich P" <rpng...@aol.comwrote in message

news:45***********************@news.qwest.net...


Access is a multiuser application and can usually handle half a dozen up
to about 100 (generally about 25 comfortably), but the number of
concurrent users depends upon the data needs of the users (data readers
vs. data
inputers, where many more data readers can be accommodated than data
inputers), the database design complexity, the network capabilities, and
the skill level of the Access developer.
<<
Access was a premier RDBMS in its early days, but those days came and
went. I participate in this NG to stay up on the latest developments
with Access. But I think there is a message to be received when it is
noted that Access is part of the Microsoft OFFICE suite - not an
enterprise development suite - that would be .Net.
For enterprise level stuff, Access has been long overtaken by Sql Server
and .Net. Every project that I have undertaken for the last 3 years
that involved Access was to migrate the Access project/application to
.Net.
Access, combined with the MS Office suite serves the same purpose as the
ACT system - a database with a Office suite of applications where ACT is
that but rolled up into one application. These are great systems at the
office level, but for enterprise level they can't compete with Sql
Server/.Net or Java, Oracle/.Net or Java.
Rich
*** Sent via Developersdexhttp://www.developersdex.com***- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Feb 15 '07 #10

P: n/a
Hi, Nihad.
Some one mentioned that SQL Server cannot run on any operating system
other than windows. I don't recall exactly but isn't MS SQL 2005 cross-
platform?
No. Microsoft SQL Server is about the only one that _isn't_ cross-platform
these days. It only runs on Windows.
Yeah I know SQL is great but how much would it cost me approximately
It doesn't have to cost anything. Several of the most popular database
vendors, including Microsoft, have a free edition, which size-wise, if you
were planning to put the data in an Access database file, would suit your
needs. Please see the following Web site for download links and
descriptions for SQL Server 2005 Express, Oracle 10g Express, IBM DB2
Express-C, and MySQL:

http://www.backends.QBuilt.com/
and what about ASP? Is it good?
Yes. It's popular. So is ASP.Net. However, these only run on Windows
servers with IIS. And these aren't the only dynamic Web scripting language
out there. The most popular ones are probably PHP and Perl.
Is there any tool to transfer my ms
access database to the sql server or any other server easily without
losing data?
Access has a built-in SQL Server upsizing wizard, but you'll have to do some
manual tweaking, too. As I recall, Oracle has a free migration tool
(Migration Workbench?), and I believe Microsoft has a new free one, as well.
Perhaps someone else can recommend some links to them.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blog: http://DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
<ni*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@v33g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...
Thank you for all your replies.

Some one mentioned that SQL Server cannot run on any operating system
other than windows. I don't recall exactly but isn't MS SQL 2005 cross-
platform?
Yeah I know SQL is great but how much would it cost me approximately
and what about ASP? Is it good? Is there any tool to transfer my ms
access database to the sql server or any other server easily without
losing data? Thanks

Nihad
On Feb 14, 8:04 pm, "'69 Camaro" <ForwardZERO_SPAM.To.
69Cam...@Spameater.orgZERO_SPAMwrote:
>Hi, Rich.
But I think there is a message to be received when it is
noted that Access is part of the Microsoft OFFICE suite - not an
enterprise development suite

The message to be received is that Access can do most of what desktop
database applications need to do in most offices at a very reasonable
cost -- not the high costs and higher-costing skills required of an
enterprise level development suite. That's why Access is the most
popular
database in the world. Organizations don't need to spend tens of
thousands
of dollars in licensing costs and for computer equipment and have
expensive,
trained professionals to maintain their data in an Access database.
For enterprise level stuff, Access has been long overtaken by Sql
Server
and .Net.

Check the statistics. The majority of enterprise level applications is
still on Unix and IBM machines, not Windows. SQL server and .Net don't
run
on anything but Windows. The market is using Oracle, Java, and other
technologies that run on multiple platforms, not just Windows.
Every project that I have undertaken for the last 3 years
that involved Access was to migrate the Access project/application to
.Net.

If those migration projects were due to the Access database applications
only handling one user at a time and weren't due to mission critical,
security, 24/7 availability, or scalability issues, then I'm sure many of
the Access experts who post in this newsgroup would have gladly offered
to
improve the Access database applications at a far lower cost than the
.Net
migrations.
These are great systems at the
office level, but for enterprise level they can't compete with Sql
Server/.Net or Java, Oracle/.Net or Java.

Likewise, the enterprise level development suites' high costs and long
development schedules usually make them impractical at the office level.

HTH.
Gunny

Seehttp://www.QBuilt.comfor all your database needs.
Seehttp://www.Access.QBuilt.comfor Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blog:
http://DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.comhttp...utors2.htmlfor
contact
info.

"Rich P" <rpng...@aol.comwrote in message

news:45***********************@news.qwest.net.. .


Access is a multiuser application and can usually handle half a dozen
up
to about 100 (generally about 25 comfortably), but the number of
concurrent users depends upon the data needs of the users (data readers
vs. data
inputers, where many more data readers can be accommodated than data
inputers), the database design complexity, the network capabilities,
and
the skill level of the Access developer.
<<
Access was a premier RDBMS in its early days, but those days came and
went. I participate in this NG to stay up on the latest developments
with Access. But I think there is a message to be received when it is
noted that Access is part of the Microsoft OFFICE suite - not an
enterprise development suite - that would be .Net.
For enterprise level stuff, Access has been long overtaken by Sql
Server
and .Net. Every project that I have undertaken for the last 3 years
that involved Access was to migrate the Access project/application to
.Net.
Access, combined with the MS Office suite serves the same purpose as
the
ACT system - a database with a Office suite of applications where ACT
is
that but rolled up into one application. These are great systems at
the
office level, but for enterprise level they can't compete with Sql
Server/.Net or Java, Oracle/.Net or Java.
Rich
*** Sent via Developersdexhttp://www.developersdex.com***- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -


Feb 15 '07 #11

P: n/a
Hi, Nihad.

If you want to see a prime example of heavy usage of ASP with Jet, Michael
Kaplan's Web site used to get more than 100,000 hits per month (and probably
gets a heckuva lot more now). ASP draws the data from a Jet database on a
Web server to display each Web page. Of course these are read-only Web
pages, without data input.

Please see the following Web page:

http://www.trigeminal.com/

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blog: http://DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"'69 Camaro" <Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AMwrote in
message news:12*************@corp.supernews.com...
Hi, Nihad.
>Some one mentioned that SQL Server cannot run on any operating system
other than windows. I don't recall exactly but isn't MS SQL 2005 cross-
platform?

No. Microsoft SQL Server is about the only one that _isn't_
cross-platform these days. It only runs on Windows.
>Yeah I know SQL is great but how much would it cost me approximately

It doesn't have to cost anything. Several of the most popular database
vendors, including Microsoft, have a free edition, which size-wise, if you
were planning to put the data in an Access database file, would suit your
needs. Please see the following Web site for download links and
descriptions for SQL Server 2005 Express, Oracle 10g Express, IBM DB2
Express-C, and MySQL:

http://www.backends.QBuilt.com/
>and what about ASP? Is it good?

Yes. It's popular. So is ASP.Net. However, these only run on Windows
servers with IIS. And these aren't the only dynamic Web scripting
language out there. The most popular ones are probably PHP and Perl.
>Is there any tool to transfer my ms
access database to the sql server or any other server easily without
losing data?

Access has a built-in SQL Server upsizing wizard, but you'll have to do
some manual tweaking, too. As I recall, Oracle has a free migration tool
(Migration Workbench?), and I believe Microsoft has a new free one, as
well. Perhaps someone else can recommend some links to them.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blog: http://DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
<ni*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@v33g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...
>Thank you for all your replies.

Some one mentioned that SQL Server cannot run on any operating system
other than windows. I don't recall exactly but isn't MS SQL 2005 cross-
platform?
Yeah I know SQL is great but how much would it cost me approximately
and what about ASP? Is it good? Is there any tool to transfer my ms
access database to the sql server or any other server easily without
losing data? Thanks

Nihad
On Feb 14, 8:04 pm, "'69 Camaro" <ForwardZERO_SPAM.To.
69Cam...@Spameater.orgZERO_SPAMwrote:
>>Hi, Rich.

But I think there is a message to be received when it is
noted that Access is part of the Microsoft OFFICE suite - not an
enterprise development suite

The message to be received is that Access can do most of what desktop
database applications need to do in most offices at a very reasonable
cost -- not the high costs and higher-costing skills required of an
enterprise level development suite. That's why Access is the most
popular
database in the world. Organizations don't need to spend tens of
thousands
of dollars in licensing costs and for computer equipment and have
expensive,
trained professionals to maintain their data in an Access database.

For enterprise level stuff, Access has been long overtaken by Sql
Server
and .Net.

Check the statistics. The majority of enterprise level applications is
still on Unix and IBM machines, not Windows. SQL server and .Net don't
run
on anything but Windows. The market is using Oracle, Java, and other
technologies that run on multiple platforms, not just Windows.

Every project that I have undertaken for the last 3 years
that involved Access was to migrate the Access project/application to
.Net.

If those migration projects were due to the Access database applications
only handling one user at a time and weren't due to mission critical,
security, 24/7 availability, or scalability issues, then I'm sure many
of
the Access experts who post in this newsgroup would have gladly offered
to
improve the Access database applications at a far lower cost than the
.Net
migrations.

These are great systems at the
office level, but for enterprise level they can't compete with Sql
Server/.Net or Java, Oracle/.Net or Java.

Likewise, the enterprise level development suites' high costs and long
development schedules usually make them impractical at the office level.

HTH.
Gunny

Seehttp://www.QBuilt.comfor all your database needs.
Seehttp://www.Access.QBuilt.comfor Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blog:
http://DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.comhttp...utors2.htmlfor
contact
info.

"Rich P" <rpng...@aol.comwrote in message

news:45***********************@news.qwest.net. ..

Access is a multiuser application and can usually handle half a dozen
up
to about 100 (generally about 25 comfortably), but the number of
concurrent users depends upon the data needs of the users (data
readers
vs. data
inputers, where many more data readers can be accommodated than data
inputers), the database design complexity, the network capabilities,
and
the skill level of the Access developer.
<<

Access was a premier RDBMS in its early days, but those days came and
went. I participate in this NG to stay up on the latest developments
with Access. But I think there is a message to be received when it is
noted that Access is part of the Microsoft OFFICE suite - not an
enterprise development suite - that would be .Net.

For enterprise level stuff, Access has been long overtaken by Sql
Server
and .Net. Every project that I have undertaken for the last 3 years
that involved Access was to migrate the Access project/application to
.Net.

Access, combined with the MS Office suite serves the same purpose as
the
ACT system - a database with a Office suite of applications where ACT
is
that but rolled up into one application. These are great systems at
the
office level, but for enterprise level they can't compete with Sql
Server/.Net or Java, Oracle/.Net or Java.

Rich

*** Sent via Developersdexhttp://www.developersdex.com***- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -



Feb 15 '07 #12

P: n/a
Hmmm, I think I touched off on a sensitive area about Access vs the Big
brothers (sql Server/Oracle...)

Please note this: I love Access - I started my RDBMS career with Access
(I started my DB career with Dbase3+ when I was a way young lad). I
would not be wasting my time with Access if it was not a worthwhile
product. It is. But its field of influence has changed over the years.
It blew the doors off of Dbase for gui based systems in the early days.
But those were the early days.

The uses all boil down to the business requirements. For large
scale/heavy traffic - the 1 gig of usable data that Access can support
at max for hardcore enterprise operations is like contemplating of using
a 4 cylinder pickup truck to haul 100 tons of cement. By the same
token, using a semi truck to haul your groceries would be irrational.
Thus, you have a desktop DB, Access, for office stuff like contact DB,
keep track of office inventory, and stuff like that.

But I assure you, from experience, that multiple users on the web
against access at the same time will kill Access. Access is not
designed for this kind of usage and it is unlikely that Microsoft is
going to change that because they have .Net for the big operations. And
if a business is going to be doing big business operations, the overhead
for .Net will be compensated for by the enhanced operation that .net
offers.

In the original post, the question was -- what server would be
recommended. Yes, windows isn't the mainframe system, but I believe the
post was concerning windows based systems - either that or the question
wasn't very clear.

Rich

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Feb 15 '07 #13

P: n/a
Now, there is now an Enterprise Version of MySQL that is for pay,
but I see no evidence that anyone has to pay anything for use of the
"community" builds of MySQL, no matter what use you make of it.
I actually have quite a good memory.

The above is a change in the licensing policy. I not looked for about 4+
years....

From the older license:

<quote>
If you distribute a proprietary application in any way, and you are not
licensing and distributing your source code under GPL, you need to purchase
a commercial license of MySQL
</quote>

The above quote is what I remember. Further, there was also a quote explains
that for any commercial work, a license was required.
The above is NOT talking about distributing
Mysql..but using it. It was widely known that for any commercial use of any
type in a business, a license was required. Of course, no one followed that,
(no more, or less then the people that freely made copies of office 97!!).

I can't find the above quote on their web site now. The above
quote is here:
(go-back internet archive)

http://web.archive.org/web/200404051...licensing.html
Even today, the license states:

<quote>
If you are a private individual you are free to use MySQL software for your
personal applications as long as you do not distribute them. If you
distribute them, you must make a decision between the Commercial License and
the GPL.

Please note that even if you ship a free demo version of your own
application, the above rules apply.

</quote>

http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/l...e-license.html

The key to getting around this was of course to not provide mysql with
your appcation, but have the company download a copy. However, the
license actually used to state for ANY commercial use you need a license
(that would include you asking a company to download a copy).

As far as I can tell, the community builds represent a change in the license
policy now,
and they are free to use mysql now. I was not aware of that change in
licensing for
mysql..

So, it looks like a company can now use MySql, and not have to pay for it,
and
be legal....instead of looking the other way. I was not aware of this
change
for mysql....
--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
Feb 16 '07 #14

P: n/a
"Albert D. Kallal" <Pl*******************@msn.comwrote in
news:gT6Bh.1006124$5R2.905364@pd7urf3no:
So, it looks like a company can now use MySql, and not have to pay
for it, and
be legal....instead of looking the other way. I was not aware of
this change
for mysql....
What the *hell* are you talking about? You seem to be confusing
using MySQL as the database for your application with distributing a
commercial application incorporating MySQL. If you do that you have
a choice between the two different licensing schemes, one of which
requires that you include the source code to your own app.

But that's not really relevant to an Access application, now is it?
Nor is it relevant to using MySQL as the back end for a business
application (which isn't commercially distributed).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Feb 16 '07 #15

P: n/a
"'69 Camaro" <Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AM>
wrote in news:12*************@corp.supernews.com:

[re: ASP and ASP.NET]
However, these only run on Windows
servers with IIS.
Whatever happened to the Linux port of ASP (I forget the name)?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Feb 16 '07 #16

P: n/a
"'69 Camaro" <Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AM>
wrote in news:12*************@corp.supernews.com:
If you want to see a prime example of heavy usage of ASP with Jet,
Michael Kaplan's Web site used to get more than 100,000 hits per
month (and probably gets a heckuva lot more now). ASP draws the
data from a Jet database on a Web server to display each Web page.
Of course these are read-only Web pages, without data input.

Please see the following Web page:

http://www.trigeminal.com/
I would suggest, since Michael is not updating Trigeminal.com any
longer (because he now works for Microsoft and posts on his MS blog
instead), that his website is no longer receiving anything like the
traffic it used to get when it was his main website and when he was
regularly posting in newsgroups referring people to his website.

It's still a great resource, though.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Feb 16 '07 #17

P: n/a
I have ordered a IBM X series 206m Server which I presume will have
Windows Server 2003. The problem is that you all are giving so many
options PHP, ASP, ASP .NET, Jet Engines and various others. Choosing
is hard. The database is for a charitable organization raising
awareness for an issue which is not likely to have too many hits per
day. What is most efficient, cheap and easy when switiching from
Access?

Feb 16 '07 #18

P: n/a
<ni*********@gmail.comwrote
>. . .The problem is that you all are giving so many
options PHP, ASP, ASP .NET, Jet Engines and
various others. Choosing is hard. The database is
for a charitable organization raising awareness for
an issue which is not likely to have too many hits
per day. What is most efficient, cheap and easy
when switiching from Access?
You do realize that is something akin to asking "what's the best brand of
car when switching from my Plymouth", don't you? And, not a great deal of
information on your automotive requirements to assist. I might tell you
"Chrysler Crossfire" -- but if your arthritic 90+ year-old grandmother is a
frequent passenger, you might be dissapointed. Someone else might tell you
"Hummer H1" but if you have a limited budget for purchase and for fuel, you
might be disappointed.

As one of my former colleagues used to say, "You've gotta know what you're
doing." And, that's not a goal you can reach, just from one thread in a
newsgroup.

You should verify what OS the IBM server will use -- many IBM servers do NOT
have Windows installed.

If it does have Windows, and you do have Visual Studio, then .asp Pages, or
ASP.NET, with a Jet (Access) or an MSDE or an SQL Server Express database,
might be a reasonable mid-level solution. If you have very simple needs,
there may be simpler solutions -- Microsoft Front Page with the Database
Interaction Wizard might be one, if you have Front Page software; PHP or
Perl with a non-Microsoft database might be another, though I am not
familiar with the complexity such a configuration could support.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

Feb 16 '07 #19

P: n/a
Hi, David.
Whatever happened to the Linux port of ASP
Thanks for bringing that up. I wasn't aware of any ports to Linux, but I
Googled for it and found the following:

1.) Sun Java System Active Server Pages runs ASP on Red Hat Enterprise
Linux, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, and Windows.

http://www.sun.com/software/chilisoft/index.xml

2.) Mono, which is a cross-platform developing environment based on .Net.
It supports ASP.Net on Linux.

http://www.codeproject.com/cpnet/introtomono2.asp

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blog: http://DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@127.0.0.1 ...
"'69 Camaro" <Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AM>
wrote in news:12*************@corp.supernews.com:

[re: ASP and ASP.NET]
>However, these only run on Windows
servers with IIS.

Whatever happened to the Linux port of ASP (I forget the name)?

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

Feb 16 '07 #20

P: n/a
Hi, David.
I would suggest, since Michael is not updating Trigeminal.com any
longer (because he now works for Microsoft and posts on his MS blog
instead), that his website is no longer receiving anything like the
traffic it used to get when it was his main website and when he was
regularly posting in newsgroups referring people to his website.
I hadn't looked at his traffic in quite a while, and it certainly has
dropped according to Alexa's statistics. Based upon this previous week's
statistics (which are admittedly ball-park-figurish) and comparing them to
my domain's traffic, Trigeminal.com is getting about 15,000 page views per
month. But his Web site worked just fine when it had much higher traffic.
Pages loaded very fast on dial-up connections, which is what I used when he
mentioned his site's traffic way back when.
It's still a great resource, though.
Very true.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blog: http://DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/ex...ributors2.html for contact
info.
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...
"'69 Camaro" <Fo**************************@Spameater.orgZERO_SP AM>
wrote in news:12*************@corp.supernews.com:
>If you want to see a prime example of heavy usage of ASP with Jet,
Michael Kaplan's Web site used to get more than 100,000 hits per
month (and probably gets a heckuva lot more now). ASP draws the
data from a Jet database on a Web server to display each Web page.
Of course these are read-only Web pages, without data input.

Please see the following Web page:

http://www.trigeminal.com/

I would suggest, since Michael is not updating Trigeminal.com any
longer (because he now works for Microsoft and posts on his MS blog
instead), that his website is no longer receiving anything like the
traffic it used to get when it was his main website and when he was
regularly posting in newsgroups referring people to his website.

It's still a great resource, though.

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

Feb 17 '07 #21

P: n/a
What the *hell* are you talking about? You seem to be confusing
using MySQL as the database for your application with distributing a
commercial application incorporating MySQL. If you do that you have
a choice between the two different licensing schemes, one of which
requires that you include the source code to your own app.

But that's not really relevant to an Access application, now is it?
Nor is it relevant to using MySQL as the back end for a business
application (which isn't commercially distributed).
No, I am not confused. As I said, I can't find the licensees policy as it
*used* to be.

The policy was clearly that if you use MySql in a commercial environment
(NOT
TALKING ABOUT
DISTRIBUTION), you had to purchase a license.

Here is the quote (you forced me to waste time to find it)

is here:
You need to purchase a license if:

<quote>
Selling software that requires customers to install MySQL themselves on
their own machines.
</quote>

And, also:
<quote>
If you develop and distribute a commercial application and as part of
utilizing your application, the end-user must download a copy of MySQL; for
each derivative work, you (or, in some cases, your end-user) need a
commercial license for the MySQL server and/or MySQL client libraries.

</quote>
http://web.archive.org/web/200601010...l-license.html

Read the above CAREFULLY. It CLEARY states that you need a licenses, EVEN
WHEN you ASK THE CUSTOMER to
download and obtain their OWN copy.

the above quotes would MOST certainly include building appcation in access
that uses mysql.

As I said, the above page is now gone. That go back web archive page is from
2006.

So, I said there seems to be a change in licensing due to the community
builds.

Read the above link carefully, it CLEARY states the SAME thing that I said.
MySql is commercial product that
is open sourced. MySql licensing was that way for many years. Open source
does not necessary mean you can
use it for free, and mysql was one of those examples.
(of course, I don't know many who adhered to licensing for mysql)

ONCE AGAIN, I said I did not realize there has been a change in licensing.

So, yes..it seems they changed their policy since last time I looked...which
was a little more then a year ago...

Those requirements above CLEARY state that even when a company obtains their
own copy, you have to purchase a license. We NOT talking about linked code
here, nor are we talking about distribution of MySql.

Note that now their current texts read *recommend* a license, but not
require.... That is big change in policy. MySql is open source, but is a
commercially owned product. Only recent license changes now allow you to use
the product free for commercial use.

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com

Feb 17 '07 #22

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.