By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,190 Members | 802 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,190 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Upgrading Access 97 application to dotNet

P: n/a
Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes.

I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to
upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network
( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the
outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has
approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large
amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a
suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the
..Net world.

I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but data
tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the multi user
capability. It must also be possible to transfer the application and
its database to a standalone laptop for use in other locations.

Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best match for
VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access?

Any advice on the best way to proceed would be most welcome.

Thanks in advance.

Dec 1 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
38 Replies


P: n/a
You can certainly use SQL Server for your data storage, but it may conflict
with your requirement that no "form of central database server" be used.
SQL Server is a database server, as its name implies. Perhaps you mean that
there will not be a machine set up that is solely dedicated to managing the
database. SQL Server can be installed on any workstation and made available
to other users. It sounds like your data interaction needs are simple, so
this should work.

There are some syntax differences between Access SQL and SQL Server SQL,
but you will probably learn and correct those pretty quickly. Also, there
is a little more administration involved in a SQL Server database; it's not
just a single file like Access. But still, give thanks that you aren't considering
Oracle (20MB minimum client-side install with hundreds of files. Boo. Hiss.)

VB2005 includes an "upgrade wizard" that will convert your VB6 program to
VB2005. It doesn't do a complete job, and sometimes not even a great job.
But it will give you a start over writing it from scratch.

I have a book that deals with developing database applications in VB2005
(see my signature below). But if your focus is on the database side, you
may also want to consider the many good books by Bill Vaughn (the "Hitchhiker"
guides).

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes.

I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to
upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network
( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the
outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has
approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large
amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a
suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the
.Net world.

I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but
data tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the
multi user capability. It must also be possible to transfer the
application and its database to a standalone laptop for use in other
locations.

Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best match
for VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access?

Any advice on the best way to proceed would be most welcome.

Thanks in advance.

Dec 1 '06 #2

P: n/a
Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.

Dec 1 '06 #3

P: n/a
Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue.

SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, or as
an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL Server Express
does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file (similar to an MDB file)
directly instead of through the normal server-based methods, but I don't
know if that method would support multiple users. I've never used that file-based
method, and I think it only applies to the Express version of the product.

VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to continue
with that data source.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.

Dec 1 '06 #4

P: n/a
you should just migrate it to Excel.

the fucking retards at your company are obviously retarded

-Aaron

Tim Patrick wrote:
Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue.

SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, or as
an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL Server Express
does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file (similar to an MDB file)
directly instead of through the normal server-based methods, but I don't
know if that method would support multiple users. I've never used that file-based
method, and I think it only applies to the Express version of the product.

VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to continue
with that data source.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.
Dec 1 '06 #5

P: n/a
You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it.
This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said
you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the
restrictions.

-----
SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments.
It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is physically
limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the installer
doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to be
"secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the install
and you're good to go.
-----

However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so easy
to manage (assuming the database isn't huge).

Robin S.
-----------------------------

"Tim Patrick" <in*****@invalid.com.invalidwrote in message
news:e3*************************@newsgroups.comcas t.net...
Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue.

SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, or as
an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL Server
Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file (similar to an
MDB file) directly instead of through the normal server-based methods, but
I don't know if that method would support multiple users. I've never used
that file-based method, and I think it only applies to the Express version
of the product.

VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to continue
with that data source.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
>Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.


Dec 1 '06 #6

P: n/a
Robin;

no wonder you're such a VB crybaby.. lol

You're an Acccess wannabe programmer!

RobinS wrote:
You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it.
This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said
you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the
restrictions.

-----
SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments.
It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is physically
limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the installer
doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to be
"secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the install
and you're good to go.
-----

However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so easy
to manage (assuming the database isn't huge).

Robin S.
-----------------------------

"Tim Patrick" <in*****@invalid.com.invalidwrote in message
news:e3*************************@newsgroups.comcas t.net...
Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue.

SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, or as
an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL Server
Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file (similar to an
MDB file) directly instead of through the normal server-based methods, but
I don't know if that method would support multiple users. I've never used
that file-based method, and I think it only applies to the Express version
of the product.

VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to continue
with that data source.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.
Dec 1 '06 #7

P: n/a
RobinS and Patrick,

Do you think that it is helpful to show people a wrong way of use of tools.

kavsaks organisation is obvious afraid that he build applications in his
organisation and now we are helping to brake those rules with all kind of
bad advices.

He just need to get his application running on his central organisation
server. If not, then the organisation does not need his application.

Just my idea maybe not so well written but I hope you understand what I want
to say. If not I will repeat it.

Cor

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.noneschreef in bericht
news:kL******************************@comcast.com. ..
You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it.
This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said
you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the
restrictions.

-----
SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments.
It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is physically
limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the
installer
doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to be
"secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the install
and you're good to go.
-----

However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so easy
to manage (assuming the database isn't huge).

Robin S.
-----------------------------

"Tim Patrick" <in*****@invalid.com.invalidwrote in message
news:e3*************************@newsgroups.comcas t.net...
>Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue.

SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, or
as an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL Server
Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file (similar to an
MDB file) directly instead of through the normal server-based methods,
but I don't know if that method would support multiple users. I've never
used that file-based method, and I think it only applies to the Express
version of the product.

VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to continue
with that data source.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
>>Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.



Dec 2 '06 #8

P: n/a

My impression from the original post was that he had a VB6
desktop app with an Access back-end that he wanted to *rewrite*
in VB.Net, and he wanted to know what we thought he should use
for the database back-end.

It has to be something he can take on his laptop, and the
database must reside on the network server, but the server
can't "run" database server software, like SQLServer.

Are you saying that he should get his company to buy a server and
put SQLServer on it? I thought he said in a subsequent post
that that absolutely was not an option.

So his other choices that I see are Access, or SQLServer Express.
I don't see what's wrong with using Access as the back-end. I'm
assuming they would upgrade it to the most current version, not
use Access97.

Please enlighten me on my misdirection, I'm always willing to
learn.

Robin S.
----------------------------------
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:eu**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
RobinS and Patrick,

Do you think that it is helpful to show people a wrong way of use of
tools.

kavsaks organisation is obvious afraid that he build applications in his
organisation and now we are helping to brake those rules with all kind of
bad advices.

He just need to get his application running on his central organisation
server. If not, then the organisation does not need his application.

Just my idea maybe not so well written but I hope you understand what I
want to say. If not I will repeat it.

Cor

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.noneschreef in bericht
news:kL******************************@comcast.com. ..
>You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it.
This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said
you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the
restrictions.

-----
SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments.
It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is physically
limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the
installer
doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to be
"secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the install
and you're good to go.
-----

However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so easy
to manage (assuming the database isn't huge).

Robin S.
-----------------------------

"Tim Patrick" <in*****@invalid.com.invalidwrote in message
news:e3*************************@newsgroups.comca st.net...
>>Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue.

SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, or
as an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL Server
Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file (similar to an
MDB file) directly instead of through the normal server-based methods,
but I don't know if that method would support multiple users. I've never
used that file-based method, and I think it only applies to the Express
version of the product.

VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to continue
with that data source.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005

Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.



Dec 2 '06 #9

P: n/a
I think you read the postings incorrectly. He said that he can NOT let the
database run on the central server. Also, my advice included a continued
use of the Access database with just an updated front end in VB2005. Without
knowing the full specifics of his situation, all we can do is offer general
advice and options. It is up to him to make the right choice.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
RobinS and Patrick,

Do you think that it is helpful to show people a wrong way of use of
tools.

kavsaks organisation is obvious afraid that he build applications in
his organisation and now we are helping to brake those rules with all
kind of bad advices.

He just need to get his application running on his central
organisation server. If not, then the organisation does not need his
application.

Just my idea maybe not so well written but I hope you understand what
I want to say. If not I will repeat it.

Cor

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.noneschreef in bericht
news:kL******************************@comcast.com. ..
>You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it.
This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said
you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the
restrictions.
-----
SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments.
It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is
physically
limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the
installer
doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to
be
"secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the
install
and you're good to go.
-----
However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so
easy to manage (assuming the database isn't huge).

Robin S.
-----------------------------
"Tim Patrick" <in*****@invalid.com.invalidwrote in message
news:e3*************************@newsgroups.comca st.net...
>>Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue.

SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access,
or as an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL
Server Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file
(similar to an MDB file) directly instead of through the normal
server-based methods, but I don't know if that method would support
multiple users. I've never used that file-based method, and I think
it only applies to the Express version of the product.

VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to
continue with that data source.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be
no server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.

Dec 2 '06 #10

P: n/a
mg
kavsak,
Your stated requirements are in conflict. You state:

-you >need< to upgrade this application
-you >want< to re-write in VB/C# Net
-you >can't< run a central database server

So based on your stated requirements, you can only port your VB6
application to dotNet and keep the data in Access mdb.

You should be trying to persuade the decision maker to relax the
requirement for no database server. SQLExpress 2005 would be perfect
for your situation.

One method is to list out all the problems of the current application
(the reasons why they asked you to re-write the current application)
and then match them with specific answers as to how a new configuration
using a database server would solve them. Explain to them the cost
(free for SQLExpress) upgrade path, expected performance changes,
differences in reliability, limitations of Jet/MDB.

For example:

-Problem: Application is slow when 5 people use it at the same time
-Answer: SQLExpress will improve performance because... Then describe
limitations of Jet and Access MDB...

-Problem: Access tables getting corrupted
-Answer: SQLExpress is more robust than JET for multi user because...

-Problem: VB6 application interface looks 'dated' or requires new
functionality
-Answer: dotNet provides new and updated controls, functionality and is
designed to allow disconnected data, etc...

So if the customer is not willing to entertain changes to the data
hosting, I would question the need to re-write in dotNet if the
application works as is.

mg

kavsak wrote:
Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes.

I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to
upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network
( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the
outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has
approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large
amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a
suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the
.Net world.

I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but data
tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the multi user
capability. It must also be possible to transfer the application and
its database to a standalone laptop for use in other locations.

Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best match for
VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access?

Any advice on the best way to proceed would be most welcome.

Thanks in advance.
Dec 2 '06 #11

P: n/a
Tim.

Exactly he cannot run on the central server, but he is not telling why.

That was especially my point, it seems so strange to me.

However feel free to answer what you want, I am not a newsgroup moderator or
whatever, I only thought to bring it to your attention.

Cor

"Tim Patrick" <in*****@invalid.com.invalidschreef in bericht
news:e3*************************@newsgroups.comcas t.net...
>I think you read the postings incorrectly. He said that he can NOT let the
database run on the central server. Also, my advice included a continued
use of the Access database with just an updated front end in VB2005.
Without knowing the full specifics of his situation, all we can do is offer
general advice and options. It is up to him to make the right choice.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
>RobinS and Patrick,

Do you think that it is helpful to show people a wrong way of use of
tools.

kavsaks organisation is obvious afraid that he build applications in
his organisation and now we are helping to brake those rules with all
kind of bad advices.

He just need to get his application running on his central
organisation server. If not, then the organisation does not need his
application.

Just my idea maybe not so well written but I hope you understand what
I want to say. If not I will repeat it.

Cor

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.noneschreef in bericht
news:kL******************************@comcast.com ...
>>You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it.
This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said
you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the
restrictions.
-----
SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments.
It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is
physically
limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the
installer
doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to
be
"secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the
install
and you're good to go.
-----
However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so
easy to manage (assuming the database isn't huge).

Robin S.
-----------------------------
"Tim Patrick" <in*****@invalid.com.invalidwrote in message
news:e3*************************@newsgroups.comc ast.net...

Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue.

SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access,
or as an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL
Server Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file
(similar to an MDB file) directly instead of through the normal
server-based methods, but I don't know if that method would support
multiple users. I've never used that file-based method, and I think
it only applies to the Express version of the product.

VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to
continue with that data source.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be
no server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.
>


Dec 2 '06 #12

P: n/a

I guess that's really the question -- why won't they let
them do SLQServer? Maybe they don't have anyone who can support it.
Maybe they don't want to deal with it. Maybe they're short-sighted.

I worked for a company that used Oracle as their standard. A
small business unit in the company wanted me to write them
a desktop app with a database backend.

It took a month to talk the Oracle people into setting up a
database for me, and letting me write to it. They didn't want
anyone else using the IT department's resources w/o having the
IT department write the application, although they didn't have
any manpower to devote to it. It was a dog-in-the-manger thing.

The problem was the performance across their network was *so*
abysmal, if I tried to write, say, 2000 records to Oracle,
it took 40 minutes.

If I tried to write the same records to an Access database
on a local server, it took less than 2 minutes.

My small business unit could not pay for having Oracle
on a server that was geographically closer (and I don't think
the IT group would let them), they could not get the network
fixed (huge company, too shortsighted to fix the problem), and
I couldn't run SQLServer.

At that point, in order to make the application work, and my
clients happy, I had to implement an Access database back-end.
It had 50 users -- only a handful had update access -- and it
worked fine.

Sometimes you're constrained, and you have to do whatever you
can do to make your clients happy.

Robin S.
-------------------------------

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Tim.

Exactly he cannot run on the central server, but he is not telling why.

That was especially my point, it seems so strange to me.

However feel free to answer what you want, I am not a newsgroup moderator
or whatever, I only thought to bring it to your attention.

Cor

"Tim Patrick" <in*****@invalid.com.invalidschreef in bericht
news:e3*************************@newsgroups.comcas t.net...
>>I think you read the postings incorrectly. He said that he can NOT let the
database run on the central server. Also, my advice included a continued
use of the Access database with just an updated front end in VB2005.
Without knowing the full specifics of his situation, all we can do is
offer general advice and options. It is up to him to make the right
choice.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
>>RobinS and Patrick,

Do you think that it is helpful to show people a wrong way of use of
tools.

kavsaks organisation is obvious afraid that he build applications in
his organisation and now we are helping to brake those rules with all
kind of bad advices.

He just need to get his application running on his central
organisation server. If not, then the organisation does not need his
application.

Just my idea maybe not so well written but I hope you understand what
I want to say. If not I will repeat it.

Cor

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.noneschreef in bericht
news:kL******************************@comcast.co m...

You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it.
This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said
you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the
restrictions.
-----
SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments.
It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is
physically
limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the
installer
doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to
be
"secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the
install
and you're good to go.
-----
However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so
easy to manage (assuming the database isn't huge).

Robin S.
-----------------------------
"Tim Patrick" <in*****@invalid.com.invalidwrote in message
news:e3*************************@newsgroups.com cast.net...

Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue.
>
SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access,
or as an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL
Server Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file
(similar to an MDB file) directly instead of through the normal
server-based methods, but I don't know if that method would support
multiple users. I've never used that file-based method, and I think
it only applies to the Express version of the product.
>
VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to
continue with that data source.
>
-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
>Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be
>no server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
>Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
>There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
>organisation.
>>



Dec 2 '06 #13

P: n/a
mg

we could use you in the Access newsgroup most of the people there don't
understand the limits of MS Access / JET db.

Good move, mate

-Aaron

mg wrote:
kavsak,
Your stated requirements are in conflict. You state:

-you >need< to upgrade this application
-you >want< to re-write in VB/C# Net
-you >can't< run a central database server

So based on your stated requirements, you can only port your VB6
application to dotNet and keep the data in Access mdb.

You should be trying to persuade the decision maker to relax the
requirement for no database server. SQLExpress 2005 would be perfect
for your situation.

One method is to list out all the problems of the current application
(the reasons why they asked you to re-write the current application)
and then match them with specific answers as to how a new configuration
using a database server would solve them. Explain to them the cost
(free for SQLExpress) upgrade path, expected performance changes,
differences in reliability, limitations of Jet/MDB.

For example:

-Problem: Application is slow when 5 people use it at the same time
-Answer: SQLExpress will improve performance because... Then describe
limitations of Jet and Access MDB...

-Problem: Access tables getting corrupted
-Answer: SQLExpress is more robust than JET for multi user because...

-Problem: VB6 application interface looks 'dated' or requires new
functionality
-Answer: dotNet provides new and updated controls, functionality and is
designed to allow disconnected data, etc...

So if the customer is not willing to entertain changes to the data
hosting, I would question the need to re-write in dotNet if the
application works as is.

mg

kavsak wrote:
Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes.

I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to
upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network
( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the
outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has
approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large
amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a
suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the
.Net world.

I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but data
tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the multi user
capability. It must also be possible to transfer the application and
its database to a standalone laptop for use in other locations.

Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best match for
VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access?

Any advice on the best way to proceed would be most welcome.

Thanks in advance.
Dec 2 '06 #14

P: n/a
Thanks guys.

I need to rewrite it sooner rather than later to maintain my sanity,
because it is expected to last for another 20 years. The front end has
40000 lines of code and and the back end stores 100000 records with a
regular need to import and manipulate external Access databases of up
to 500Mb in size. What runs where is mandated by men in black.

Access it has to be then. Best have a look at Office 2007 I suppose.

Thanks again.

Dec 2 '06 #15

P: n/a
THEN JUST USE ACCESS DATA PROJECTS

lose the fucking training wheels; and don't bother with .NET

from what I hear; VB.net is going to be discontinued in the next
release
I had a friend from Microsoft that told me about this

VB6 was a 'more complete package' and VB.net can't compete with C#
because those geniuses didn't understand that they could just call it
VB# and everyone would have been 10 times happier

-Aaron


kavsak wrote:
Thanks guys.

I need to rewrite it sooner rather than later to maintain my sanity,
because it is expected to last for another 20 years. The front end has
40000 lines of code and and the back end stores 100000 records with a
regular need to import and manipulate external Access databases of up
to 500Mb in size. What runs where is mandated by men in black.

Access it has to be then. Best have a look at Office 2007 I suppose.

Thanks again.
Dec 2 '06 #16

P: n/a
or seriously here

Dreamweaver / PHP should work just perfectly for another 20 years.

MDB format has already been dead for 10 years; so I sure wouldn't
continue with that format lol

-Aaron


aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
THEN JUST USE ACCESS DATA PROJECTS

lose the fucking training wheels; and don't bother with .NET

from what I hear; VB.net is going to be discontinued in the next
release
I had a friend from Microsoft that told me about this

VB6 was a 'more complete package' and VB.net can't compete with C#
because those geniuses didn't understand that they could just call it
VB# and everyone would have been 10 times happier

-Aaron


kavsak wrote:
Thanks guys.

I need to rewrite it sooner rather than later to maintain my sanity,
because it is expected to last for another 20 years. The front end has
40000 lines of code and and the back end stores 100000 records with a
regular need to import and manipulate external Access databases of up
to 500Mb in size. What runs where is mandated by men in black.

Access it has to be then. Best have a look at Office 2007 I suppose.

Thanks again.
Dec 2 '06 #17

P: n/a
That sounds like the right way to go. Sounds like fun, actually.

(Ignore that Aaron guy; he's got a bug up his a** about .Net).

Good luck!
Robin S.
--------------------------------
"kavsak" <st**********@btopenworld.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@73g2000cwn.googlegrou ps.com...
Thanks guys.

I need to rewrite it sooner rather than later to maintain my sanity,
because it is expected to last for another 20 years. The front end has
40000 lines of code and and the back end stores 100000 records with a
regular need to import and manipulate external Access databases of up
to 500Mb in size. What runs where is mandated by men in black.

Access it has to be then. Best have a look at Office 2007 I suppose.

Thanks again.

Dec 2 '06 #18

P: n/a
yeah.. because it's not installed consistently; there's not a common
method to determine which version of the framework you've got.. I
mean.. shit.. get real kids

..NET is the most impractical platform from a deployment standpoint;
from a development standpoint.

They killed off VB because they didn't understand how popular it was..

We have one langauge to write in any program; and VB.net doesn't work
anywhere.

Can I run VB.net CLIENTSIDE in Internet Explorer?
I should be able to

can I run VB.net in Windows PowerShell? I htink that it's C# only..
right?

Can I save a DTS package - from SQL 2000- into VB.net lol

VB.net is the most impractical platform ever; I had heard that they're
discontinuing VB.net.. I htink that they have already actually

that's why they can't come out with VS 2003 and VS 2005 SP1 yet... it's
because they're not ready to explain to us why they're discontinuing
VB.net and going back to VB6

-Aaron

RobinS wrote:
That sounds like the right way to go. Sounds like fun, actually.

(Ignore that Aaron guy; he's got a bug up his a** about .Net).

Good luck!
Robin S.
--------------------------------
"kavsak" <st**********@btopenworld.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@73g2000cwn.googlegrou ps.com...
Thanks guys.

I need to rewrite it sooner rather than later to maintain my sanity,
because it is expected to last for another 20 years. The front end has
40000 lines of code and and the back end stores 100000 records with a
regular need to import and manipulate external Access databases of up
to 500Mb in size. What runs where is mandated by men in black.

Access it has to be then. Best have a look at Office 2007 I suppose.

Thanks again.
Dec 3 '06 #19

P: n/a
This is true, I also have reliable info that VB will be discontinued in
VS 9.0. They (MS) just included a crappy crippled version of VB
temporarily in the current VS version to try to get all of the VB 6.0
programmers to move across to C#. But most VB programmers can't stand
it and (rightly so) feel cheated.

C# (and VB.NET) were created by a load of acedemic type C++ faggots at
Microsoft. They didn't understand thier user base properly. Now MS are
getting royaly shafted as nearly all VB 6.0 users move away to other
languages - as most hate VB.NET.

Steve Ray Irwin
aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
THEN JUST USE ACCESS DATA PROJECTS

lose the fucking training wheels; and don't bother with .NET

from what I hear; VB.net is going to be discontinued in the next
release
I had a friend from Microsoft that told me about this

VB6 was a 'more complete package' and VB.net can't compete with C#
because those geniuses didn't understand that they could just call it
VB# and everyone would have been 10 times happier

-Aaron


kavsak wrote:
Thanks guys.

I need to rewrite it sooner rather than later to maintain my sanity,
because it is expected to last for another 20 years. The front end has
40000 lines of code and and the back end stores 100000 records with a
regular need to import and manipulate external Access databases of up
to 500Mb in size. What runs where is mandated by men in black.

Access it has to be then. Best have a look at Office 2007 I suppose.

Thanks again.
Dec 4 '06 #20

P: n/a
Hi Kavsak

I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I
usualy find Amazon the best place. I would steer clear of the VB book
by Tim Patrick though, I found it over-complex and not very well
written. Also some of the examples did't work properly without a lot of
playing around with the code.

Good Luck
Steve Ray Irwin
kavsak wrote:
Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.
Dec 4 '06 #21

P: n/a
On 1 Dec 2006 12:53:18 -0800, "kavsak" <st**********@btopenworld.comwrote:

Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes.

I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to
upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network
( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the
outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has
approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large
amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a
suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the
.Net world.

I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but data
tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the multi user
capability. It must also be possible to transfer the application and
its database to a standalone laptop for use in other locations.

Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best match for
VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access?

Given the requirements you've stated I would stick with your Microsoft Access database
implementation. Since you can't operate in a server based environment that would eliminate both SQL
Server and SQL Server Express from consideration. Since you're already using Access you may as well
stick with it instead of moving to another file based database.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Dec 4 '06 #22

P: n/a
Ii totally agree.

even the bumbling kids over in redmond couldn't have done this
accidently

vb.net has almost been killed off already

do you know how they delayed sp5 for windows 2000 and then they delayed
sp3 for windows xp and then they delayed sp1 for visual studio 2003 /
2005??

it's because they're discontinuing the product

in ms parlance, delaying a service pack means that they're killing the
program

read it and weep bitches; there will never be windows xp sp3 or vs 2003
sp1 or vs 2005 sp1

they fucked us all on not coming out with sp5 for windows 2000-- they
just dont give a shit about previous versions and obsolete languages;
and according to ms; vb.net is an obsolete language


Master Programmer wrote:
This is true, I also have reliable info that VB will be discontinued in
VS 9.0. They (MS) just included a crappy crippled version of VB
temporarily in the current VS version to try to get all of the VB 6.0
programmers to move across to C#. But most VB programmers can't stand
it and (rightly so) feel cheated.

C# (and VB.NET) were created by a load of acedemic type C++ faggots at
Microsoft. They didn't understand thier user base properly. Now MS are
getting royaly shafted as nearly all VB 6.0 users move away to other
languages - as most hate VB.NET.

Steve Ray Irwin
aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
THEN JUST USE ACCESS DATA PROJECTS

lose the fucking training wheels; and don't bother with .NET

from what I hear; VB.net is going to be discontinued in the next
release
I had a friend from Microsoft that told me about this

VB6 was a 'more complete package' and VB.net can't compete with C#
because those geniuses didn't understand that they could just call it
VB# and everyone would have been 10 times happier

-Aaron


kavsak wrote:
Thanks guys.
>
I need to rewrite it sooner rather than later to maintain my sanity,
because it is expected to last for another 20 years. The front end has
40000 lines of code and and the back end stores 100000 records with a
regular need to import and manipulate external Access databases of up
to 500Mb in size. What runs where is mandated by men in black.
>
Access it has to be then. Best have a look at Office 2007 I suppose.
>
Thanks again.
Dec 4 '06 #23

P: n/a
That's funny. If you had actually ever read the book, you would know that
there are no "examples" at all. That's one of the main points of the book.
The code presented in the book doesn't depend on short samples. It presents
one large example that is built throughout the entire text.

Just because we disagree on some decisions made by Microsoft, why do you
find it necessary to specifically target my work with lies?

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
Hi Kavsak

I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I
usualy find Amazon the best place. I would steer clear of the VB book
by Tim Patrick though, I found it over-complex and not very well
written. Also some of the examples did't work properly without a lot
of playing around with the code.

Good Luck
Steve Ray Irwin
kavsak wrote:
>Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be
no server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.

Dec 4 '06 #24

P: n/a
I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I
usualy find Amazon the best place.
Hehe, nice one Master Programmer. Although didn't you say in another
post "I don't read tech books, I don't need to"?
I would steer clear of the VB book by Tim Patrick though
I doubt you even read the book, you're probally just "Tim bashing"
because he constantly demonstrates that you don't have any idea what
your talking about when it comes to VB.Net
I found it over-complex
Maybe it's because you're not a good programmer? Oh, and if you want to
prove me wrong please post your real name, and some of the companies
you've worked for. (Although I doubt you'll go into any verifiable
detail if you even address my question.)

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
Sorry I don't have any aliases :-(
ra********@asia.com wrote:
Hi Kavsak

I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I
usualy find Amazon the best place. I would steer clear of the VB book
by Tim Patrick though, I found it over-complex and not very well
written. Also some of the examples did't work properly without a lot of
playing around with the code.

Good Luck
Steve Ray Irwin
kavsak wrote:
Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.
Dec 4 '06 #25

P: n/a
listen guys

we're bashing VB.net because it's a dead fucking language kids

get a clue renobs

C# is 5 times more popular than VB.net; this is mainly because
Microsoft has given C# 'preferred status' and pretty much ignored
VB.net

the funny thing is that all the schools and universities are still
churning out VB.net poeple.. and nobody offers real training in C#

So yeah.. Microsofts 'programming language of the month' concept is
pretty much working against them

-Aaron
rowe_newsgroups wrote:
I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I
usualy find Amazon the best place.

Hehe, nice one Master Programmer. Although didn't you say in another
post "I don't read tech books, I don't need to"?
I would steer clear of the VB book by Tim Patrick though

I doubt you even read the book, you're probally just "Tim bashing"
because he constantly demonstrates that you don't have any idea what
your talking about when it comes to VB.Net
I found it over-complex

Maybe it's because you're not a good programmer? Oh, and if you want to
prove me wrong please post your real name, and some of the companies
you've worked for. (Although I doubt you'll go into any verifiable
detail if you even address my question.)

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
Sorry I don't have any aliases :-(
ra********@asia.com wrote:
Hi Kavsak

I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I
usualy find Amazon the best place. I would steer clear of the VB book
by Tim Patrick though, I found it over-complex and not very well
written. Also some of the examples did't work properly without a lot of
playing around with the code.

Good Luck
Steve Ray Irwin
kavsak wrote:
Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.
Dec 4 '06 #26

P: n/a
the bottom line is that I used to be able to use one language-- for all
tasks.. from Excel macros to outlook macros to clientside and server
side.

now i can't do jack shit with the difference between VB.net and
vbScript.

I don't want to 'translate' all of my code and maintain it in 2
different dialects.

and these fuckers are mandating that we now do 3 langauges--
JavaScript; C# and VB.net.. (in additon to VBS / VBA / VB6)

so instead of having ONE CODEBASE; I NEED FOUR

take this language and SHOVE IT

And Tim; if you're writing books in support of VB.net you might as well
be a friggin murderer-- you're placating the devil himself.

Tim Patrick may be one of the few people out here that has the tools
necessary to make VB.net a success.

but that ship has sailed; C# won the war... and Tim MOVEON.org write a
new book on C# fag

-Aaron
rowe_newsgroups wrote:
I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I
usualy find Amazon the best place.

Hehe, nice one Master Programmer. Although didn't you say in another
post "I don't read tech books, I don't need to"?
I would steer clear of the VB book by Tim Patrick though

I doubt you even read the book, you're probally just "Tim bashing"
because he constantly demonstrates that you don't have any idea what
your talking about when it comes to VB.Net
I found it over-complex

Maybe it's because you're not a good programmer? Oh, and if you want to
prove me wrong please post your real name, and some of the companies
you've worked for. (Although I doubt you'll go into any verifiable
detail if you even address my question.)

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
Sorry I don't have any aliases :-(
ra********@asia.com wrote:
Hi Kavsak

I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I
usualy find Amazon the best place. I would steer clear of the VB book
by Tim Patrick though, I found it over-complex and not very well
written. Also some of the examples did't work properly without a lot of
playing around with the code.

Good Luck
Steve Ray Irwin
kavsak wrote:
Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.
Dec 4 '06 #27

P: n/a
That's pretty entertaining, MasterProgrammer. I doubt you've
even read Mr. Patrick's book. As you know from my postings,
I've found it to be a very good book for people starting out
in VB2005. Through the building of a complete application,
it explains everything from data types to class inheritance,
and shows how (and why) to implement it.

Robin S.
(not to be confused with Robinson or Tim Patrick)
--------------------------------------------------------
<ra********@asia.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@l12g2000cwl.googlegro ups.com...
Hi Kavsak

I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I
usualy find Amazon the best place. I would steer clear of the VB book
by Tim Patrick though, I found it over-complex and not very well
written. Also some of the examples did't work properly without a lot of
playing around with the code.

Good Luck
Steve Ray Irwin
kavsak wrote:
>Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either.
Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated.
There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited
organisation.

Dec 4 '06 #28

P: n/a
Hmmm. They delayed Vista, and delayed Vista, and delayed Vista,
and yet they still released it. There appears to be a flaw
in your logic.

Robin S.
-------------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@j44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Ii totally agree.

even the bumbling kids over in redmond couldn't have done this
accidently

vb.net has almost been killed off already

do you know how they delayed sp5 for windows 2000 and then they delayed
sp3 for windows xp and then they delayed sp1 for visual studio 2003 /
2005??

it's because they're discontinuing the product

in ms parlance, delaying a service pack means that they're killing the
program

read it and weep bitches; there will never be windows xp sp3 or vs 2003
sp1 or vs 2005 sp1

they fucked us all on not coming out with sp5 for windows 2000-- they
just dont give a shit about previous versions and obsolete languages;
and according to ms; vb.net is an obsolete language


Master Programmer wrote:
>This is true, I also have reliable info that VB will be discontinued in
VS 9.0. They (MS) just included a crappy crippled version of VB
temporarily in the current VS version to try to get all of the VB 6.0
programmers to move across to C#. But most VB programmers can't stand
it and (rightly so) feel cheated.

C# (and VB.NET) were created by a load of acedemic type C++ faggots at
Microsoft. They didn't understand thier user base properly. Now MS are
getting royaly shafted as nearly all VB 6.0 users move away to other
languages - as most hate VB.NET.

Steve Ray Irwin
aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
THEN JUST USE ACCESS DATA PROJECTS

lose the fucking training wheels; and don't bother with .NET

from what I hear; VB.net is going to be discontinued in the next
release
I had a friend from Microsoft that told me about this

VB6 was a 'more complete package' and VB.net can't compete with C#
because those geniuses didn't understand that they could just call it
VB# and everyone would have been 10 times happier

-Aaron


kavsak wrote:
Thanks guys.

I need to rewrite it sooner rather than later to maintain my sanity,
because it is expected to last for another 20 years. The front end
has
40000 lines of code and and the back end stores 100000 records with a
regular need to import and manipulate external Access databases of up
to 500Mb in size. What runs where is mandated by men in black.

Access it has to be then. Best have a look at Office 2007 I suppose.

Thanks again.

Dec 4 '06 #29

P: n/a
But he should upgrade to the most current version of Access,
not leave it in Access97. (Yikes!)

Robin S.
-------------------------------------
"Paul Clement" <Us***********************@swspectrum.comwrote in message
news:nt********************************@4ax.com...
On 1 Dec 2006 12:53:18 -0800, "kavsak" <st**********@btopenworld.com>
wrote:

Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes.

I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to
upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network
( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the
outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has
approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large
amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a
suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the
.Net world.

I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but data
tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the multi user
capability. It must also be possible to transfer the application and
its database to a standalone laptop for use in other locations.

Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best match for
VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access?

Given the requirements you've stated I would stick with your Microsoft
Access database
implementation. Since you can't operate in a server based environment that
would eliminate both SQL
Server and SQL Server Express from consideration. Since you're already
using Access you may as well
stick with it instead of moving to another file based database.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Dec 4 '06 #30

P: n/a
is Vista a service pack you fucking retard?
RobinS wrote:
Hmmm. They delayed Vista, and delayed Vista, and delayed Vista,
and yet they still released it. There appears to be a flaw
in your logic.

Robin S.
-------------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@j44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Ii totally agree.

even the bumbling kids over in redmond couldn't have done this
accidently

vb.net has almost been killed off already

do you know how they delayed sp5 for windows 2000 and then they delayed
sp3 for windows xp and then they delayed sp1 for visual studio 2003 /
2005??

it's because they're discontinuing the product

in ms parlance, delaying a service pack means that they're killing the
program

read it and weep bitches; there will never be windows xp sp3 or vs 2003
sp1 or vs 2005 sp1

they fucked us all on not coming out with sp5 for windows 2000-- they
just dont give a shit about previous versions and obsolete languages;
and according to ms; vb.net is an obsolete language


Master Programmer wrote:
This is true, I also have reliable info that VB will be discontinued in
VS 9.0. They (MS) just included a crappy crippled version of VB
temporarily in the current VS version to try to get all of the VB 6.0
programmers to move across to C#. But most VB programmers can't stand
it and (rightly so) feel cheated.

C# (and VB.NET) were created by a load of acedemic type C++ faggots at
Microsoft. They didn't understand thier user base properly. Now MS are
getting royaly shafted as nearly all VB 6.0 users move away to other
languages - as most hate VB.NET.

Steve Ray Irwin
aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
THEN JUST USE ACCESS DATA PROJECTS

lose the fucking training wheels; and don't bother with .NET

from what I hear; VB.net is going to be discontinued in the next
release
I had a friend from Microsoft that told me about this

VB6 was a 'more complete package' and VB.net can't compete with C#
because those geniuses didn't understand that they could just call it
VB# and everyone would have been 10 times happier

-Aaron


kavsak wrote:
Thanks guys.
>
I need to rewrite it sooner rather than later to maintain my sanity,
because it is expected to last for another 20 years. The front end
has
40000 lines of code and and the back end stores 100000 records with a
regular need to import and manipulate external Access databases of up
to 500Mb in size. What runs where is mandated by men in black.
>
Access it has to be then. Best have a look at Office 2007 I suppose.
>
Thanks again.
Dec 4 '06 #31

P: n/a
im not sure that A97 vs A2000 makes much difference.

A97 would most likely be SMALLER than 2000 because of doublebyte
character strings (everything is double-byte in 2000) of course unicode
compression was suposed to make this somewhat smaller..

in general; I would expect marginally larger databases in 2000 with
marginally larger cpu utilization.

so yeah; im not sure I would change it just for the sake of changing
it.

and I think that Jet 4.0 works just as well with Access 97 database as
it does with Access 97.. right?

I htink that you're fucked if you're going to build a database in the
year 2006; it would just be stupid to not use SQL 2005 Express

-Aaron


RobinS wrote:
But he should upgrade to the most current version of Access,
not leave it in Access97. (Yikes!)

Robin S.
-------------------------------------
"Paul Clement" <Us***********************@swspectrum.comwrote in message
news:nt********************************@4ax.com...
On 1 Dec 2006 12:53:18 -0800, "kavsak" <st**********@btopenworld.com>
wrote:

Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes.

I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to
upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network
( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the
outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has
approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large
amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a
suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the
.Net world.

I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but data
tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the multi user
capability. It must also be possible to transfer the application and
its database to a standalone laptop for use in other locations.

Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best matchfor
VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access?

Given the requirements you've stated I would stick with your Microsoft
Access database
implementation. Since you can't operate in a server based environment that
would eliminate both SQL
Server and SQL Server Express from consideration. Since you're already
using Access you may as well
stick with it instead of moving to another file based database.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Dec 4 '06 #32

P: n/a
im not sure that A97 vs A2000 makes much difference.

A97 would most likely be SMALLER than 2000 because of doublebyte
character strings (everything is double-byte in 2000) of course unicode
compression was suposed to make this somewhat smaller..

in general; I would expect marginally larger databases in 2000 with
marginally larger cpu utilization.

so yeah; im not sure I would change it just for the sake of changing
it.

and I think that Jet 4.0 works just as well with Access 97 database as
it does with Access 2000/02/03.. right?

I htink that you're fucked if you're going to build a database in the
year 2006; it would just be stupid to not use SQL 2005 Express

-Aaron


RobinS wrote:
But he should upgrade to the most current version of Access,
not leave it in Access97. (Yikes!)

Robin S.
-------------------------------------
"Paul Clement" <Us***********************@swspectrum.comwrote in message
news:nt********************************@4ax.com...
On 1 Dec 2006 12:53:18 -0800, "kavsak" <st**********@btopenworld.com>
wrote:

Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes.

I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to
upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network
( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the
outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has
approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large
amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a
suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the
.Net world.

I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but data
tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the multi user
capability. It must also be possible to transfer the application and
its database to a standalone laptop for use in other locations.

Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best matchfor
VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access?

Given the requirements you've stated I would stick with your Microsoft
Access database
implementation. Since you can't operate in a server based environment that
would eliminate both SQL
Server and SQL Server Express from consideration. Since you're already
using Access you may as well
stick with it instead of moving to another file based database.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Dec 4 '06 #33

P: n/a
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:51:41 -0800, "RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:

But he should upgrade to the most current version of Access,
not leave it in Access97. (Yikes!)

Most definitely.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Dec 5 '06 #34

P: n/a
Paul;

if you were worth your weight in beans; you would have stood up to the
tyranny that MS has bestowed upon us

you obviously don't have the mental capacity to make VB successful; so
STFU and moveon.

this is no longer your newsgroup.

you failed in your mission-- and I am revoking your MVP recognition.
you failed in your mission-- and I am revoking your MVP recognition.
VB has died a slow death just because you're an idiot

Access 97 isn't the problem; dotnet isn't simple, it's not dependable..
you can't even friggin determine which version of the framework is on
machine X.

I mean seriously dude.. go and fight your battle somewhere else; you
lost; game over.

VB.net is going to be discontinued soon. ROFL

-Aaron

Paul Clement wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:51:41 -0800, "RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:

But he should upgrade to the most current version of Access,
not leave it in Access97. (Yikes!)

Most definitely.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Dec 5 '06 #35

P: n/a
His weight in beans isn't worth much money. Beans are
like 20 cents/pound, and if he weighs 150 pounds, that's
only $30. Even if he weighs 300 pounds, that's only $60.

(I'll wait while you get a calculator out and check my math.)

I think he's probably worth more than that in body parts alone.
So we can safely say he is worth more than his weight in beans.

Of course, it also depends on what kind of bean. If it's pinto
beans, those are probably 20 cents per pound, but black beans
are more like 50 cents per pound, which would raise his value
to $75, but again, his body parts are worth more than that.

I think kidneys go for $50,000 on the black market (I learned
that from watching Law & Order). That's 100,000 pounds of black
beans, and that's a lot more than he could possibly weigh,
unless he's (literally) a house. Or 40 Toyota Camrys. I don't
know how he would type on a keyboard if he was that large.
Could he reach the keyboard? Would his fingertips be too
large to press one key at a time?

Now, if there were beans that cost more than $333.33, *then*
he *might* not be worth as much as his weight in beans,
at least as far as one of his kidneys goes. But the only
beans that would be worth that much are probably made of gold,
and now we're no longer talking about beans.

This has as much relevance to this newsgroup as your posts do.

Have a nice day,
Robin S.
---------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@n67g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
Paul;

if you were worth your weight in beans; you would have stood up to the
tyranny that MS has bestowed upon us

you obviously don't have the mental capacity to make VB successful; so
STFU and moveon.

this is no longer your newsgroup.

you failed in your mission-- and I am revoking your MVP recognition.
you failed in your mission-- and I am revoking your MVP recognition.
VB has died a slow death just because you're an idiot

Access 97 isn't the problem; dotnet isn't simple, it's not dependable..
you can't even friggin determine which version of the framework is on
machine X.

I mean seriously dude.. go and fight your battle somewhere else; you
lost; game over.

VB.net is going to be discontinued soon. ROFL

-Aaron

Paul Clement wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:51:41 -0800, "RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.none>
wrote:

But he should upgrade to the most current version of Access,
not leave it in Access97. (Yikes!)

Most definitely.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Dec 5 '06 #36

P: n/a
please then tell me..

does Access 97 not work with .NET?

is that the problem here?

because from where I'm standing; it works just fine with VB6; he can
just use the DAO 3.5 if he needs to.. but he should be able to use DAO
3.6 right

the bottom line is that I would rather use Access 97 format; or pen and
paper-- for that matter-- then this shit language previously known as
VB.net

and for the record?

I've never said that VB 2005 is 'going away' I've always claimed
VB.net.

VB.net was a marketing disaster; and I am still fucking pissed off that
we have to write this in a newsgroup called
'microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb'

the dipshit at Microsoft that came up with that name should be drawn
and quartered.

since vb 2005 is no longer called '.NET' it makes sense to me that the
future of VB go to Microsoft.Public.VB

and for the record; Microsoft.com/vb needs to work also

-Aaron

RobinS wrote:
His weight in beans isn't worth much money. Beans are
like 20 cents/pound, and if he weighs 150 pounds, that's
only $30. Even if he weighs 300 pounds, that's only $60.

(I'll wait while you get a calculator out and check my math.)

I think he's probably worth more than that in body parts alone.
So we can safely say he is worth more than his weight in beans.

Of course, it also depends on what kind of bean. If it's pinto
beans, those are probably 20 cents per pound, but black beans
are more like 50 cents per pound, which would raise his value
to $75, but again, his body parts are worth more than that.

I think kidneys go for $50,000 on the black market (I learned
that from watching Law & Order). That's 100,000 pounds of black
beans, and that's a lot more than he could possibly weigh,
unless he's (literally) a house. Or 40 Toyota Camrys. I don't
know how he would type on a keyboard if he was that large.
Could he reach the keyboard? Would his fingertips be too
large to press one key at a time?

Now, if there were beans that cost more than $333.33, *then*
he *might* not be worth as much as his weight in beans,
at least as far as one of his kidneys goes. But the only
beans that would be worth that much are probably made of gold,
and now we're no longer talking about beans.

This has as much relevance to this newsgroup as your posts do.

Have a nice day,
Robin S.
---------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@n67g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
Paul;

if you were worth your weight in beans; you would have stood up to the
tyranny that MS has bestowed upon us

you obviously don't have the mental capacity to make VB successful; so
STFU and moveon.

this is no longer your newsgroup.

you failed in your mission-- and I am revoking your MVP recognition.
you failed in your mission-- and I am revoking your MVP recognition.
VB has died a slow death just because you're an idiot

Access 97 isn't the problem; dotnet isn't simple, it's not dependable..
you can't even friggin determine which version of the framework is on
machine X.

I mean seriously dude.. go and fight your battle somewhere else; you
lost; game over.

VB.net is going to be discontinued soon. ROFL

-Aaron

Paul Clement wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:51:41 -0800, "RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.none>
wrote:

But he should upgrade to the most current version of Access,
not leave it in Access97. (Yikes!)

Most definitely.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Dec 5 '06 #37

P: n/a
What does that have to do with my hill of beans,
or rather, Paul's hill of beans?

Robin S.
--------------------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@16g2000cwy.googlegrou ps.com...
please then tell me..

does Access 97 not work with .NET?

is that the problem here?

because from where I'm standing; it works just fine with VB6; he can
just use the DAO 3.5 if he needs to.. but he should be able to use DAO
3.6 right

the bottom line is that I would rather use Access 97 format; or pen and
paper-- for that matter-- then this shit language previously known as
VB.net

and for the record?

I've never said that VB 2005 is 'going away' I've always claimed
VB.net.

VB.net was a marketing disaster; and I am still fucking pissed off that
we have to write this in a newsgroup called
'microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb'

the dipshit at Microsoft that came up with that name should be drawn
and quartered.

since vb 2005 is no longer called '.NET' it makes sense to me that the
future of VB go to Microsoft.Public.VB

and for the record; Microsoft.com/vb needs to work also

-Aaron

RobinS wrote:
His weight in beans isn't worth much money. Beans are
like 20 cents/pound, and if he weighs 150 pounds, that's
only $30. Even if he weighs 300 pounds, that's only $60.

(I'll wait while you get a calculator out and check my math.)

I think he's probably worth more than that in body parts alone.
So we can safely say he is worth more than his weight in beans.

Of course, it also depends on what kind of bean. If it's pinto
beans, those are probably 20 cents per pound, but black beans
are more like 50 cents per pound, which would raise his value
to $75, but again, his body parts are worth more than that.

I think kidneys go for $50,000 on the black market (I learned
that from watching Law & Order). That's 100,000 pounds of black
beans, and that's a lot more than he could possibly weigh,
unless he's (literally) a house. Or 40 Toyota Camrys. I don't
know how he would type on a keyboard if he was that large.
Could he reach the keyboard? Would his fingertips be too
large to press one key at a time?

Now, if there were beans that cost more than $333.33, *then*
he *might* not be worth as much as his weight in beans,
at least as far as one of his kidneys goes. But the only
beans that would be worth that much are probably made of gold,
and now we're no longer talking about beans.

This has as much relevance to this newsgroup as your posts do.

Have a nice day,
Robin S.
---------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@n67g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
Paul;

if you were worth your weight in beans; you would have stood up to the
tyranny that MS has bestowed upon us

you obviously don't have the mental capacity to make VB successful; so
STFU and moveon.

this is no longer your newsgroup.

you failed in your mission-- and I am revoking your MVP recognition.
you failed in your mission-- and I am revoking your MVP recognition.
VB has died a slow death just because you're an idiot

Access 97 isn't the problem; dotnet isn't simple, it's not dependable..
you can't even friggin determine which version of the framework is on
machine X.

I mean seriously dude.. go and fight your battle somewhere else; you
lost; game over.

VB.net is going to be discontinued soon. ROFL

-Aaron

Paul Clement wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:51:41 -0800, "RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.none>
wrote:

But he should upgrade to the most current version of Access,
not leave it in Access97. (Yikes!)

Most definitely.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Dec 5 '06 #38

P: n/a
motherfucker thinks that he can knock on MS Access... Access format
isnt the complicatin here.. Access 97 works fine.. and it's fast on
these modern machines.

you see; A97 isn't considered BLOATWARE and VB.net -IS-

-Aaron

RobinS wrote:
What does that have to do with my hill of beans,
or rather, Paul's hill of beans?

Robin S.
--------------------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@16g2000cwy.googlegrou ps.com...
please then tell me..

does Access 97 not work with .NET?

is that the problem here?

because from where I'm standing; it works just fine with VB6; he can
just use the DAO 3.5 if he needs to.. but he should be able to use DAO
3.6 right

the bottom line is that I would rather use Access 97 format; or pen and
paper-- for that matter-- then this shit language previously known as
VB.net

and for the record?

I've never said that VB 2005 is 'going away' I've always claimed
VB.net.

VB.net was a marketing disaster; and I am still fucking pissed off that
we have to write this in a newsgroup called
'microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb'

the dipshit at Microsoft that came up with that name should be drawn
and quartered.

since vb 2005 is no longer called '.NET' it makes sense to me that the
future of VB go to Microsoft.Public.VB

and for the record; Microsoft.com/vb needs to work also

-Aaron

RobinS wrote:
His weight in beans isn't worth much money. Beans are
like 20 cents/pound, and if he weighs 150 pounds, that's
only $30. Even if he weighs 300 pounds, that's only $60.

(I'll wait while you get a calculator out and check my math.)

I think he's probably worth more than that in body parts alone.
So we can safely say he is worth more than his weight in beans.

Of course, it also depends on what kind of bean. If it's pinto
beans, those are probably 20 cents per pound, but black beans
are more like 50 cents per pound, which would raise his value
to $75, but again, his body parts are worth more than that.

I think kidneys go for $50,000 on the black market (I learned
that from watching Law & Order). That's 100,000 pounds of black
beans, and that's a lot more than he could possibly weigh,
unless he's (literally) a house. Or 40 Toyota Camrys. I don't
know how he would type on a keyboard if he was that large.
Could he reach the keyboard? Would his fingertips be too
large to press one key at a time?

Now, if there were beans that cost more than $333.33, *then*
he *might* not be worth as much as his weight in beans,
at least as far as one of his kidneys goes. But the only
beans that would be worth that much are probably made of gold,
and now we're no longer talking about beans.

This has as much relevance to this newsgroup as your posts do.

Have a nice day,
Robin S.
---------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@n67g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
Paul;

if you were worth your weight in beans; you would have stood up to the
tyranny that MS has bestowed upon us

you obviously don't have the mental capacity to make VB successful; so
STFU and moveon.

this is no longer your newsgroup.

you failed in your mission-- and I am revoking your MVP recognition.
you failed in your mission-- and I am revoking your MVP recognition.
VB has died a slow death just because you're an idiot

Access 97 isn't the problem; dotnet isn't simple, it's not dependable..
you can't even friggin determine which version of the framework is on
machine X.

I mean seriously dude.. go and fight your battle somewhere else; you
lost; game over.

VB.net is going to be discontinued soon. ROFL

-Aaron

Paul Clement wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:51:41 -0800, "RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.none>
wrote:
>
But he should upgrade to the most current version of Access,
not leave it in Access97. (Yikes!)
>
Most definitely.
>
>
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Dec 5 '06 #39

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.