[AccessD] SQL Server advice

 >Server 2003 is missing some tsql syntax

I meant to say TSQL 2000

I do agree with Arthur however, you would be well served to just go with 2008.  2000 is very old.

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com

On 9/6/2011 6:29 AM, jwcolby wrote:
> That'll work. SQL Server 2003 is missing some tsql syntax that was added later but if you don't need
> that then you will not miss it.
>
> John W. Colby
> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>
> On 9/6/2011 1:42 AM, Stephen Bond wrote:
>> So, John, would the following scenario still fly? ... as far as getting out of the shallow end, I
>> could install the 2000 version on my Win7 box. No cost so far. I have a good beginner's knowledge
>> of 2000 from much 'playing around' and lots of documentation on hand including the MS training
>> curriculum and a good SP textbook. Use this to do serious work converting the customer's queries
>> to SPs, getting me up to speed for the day the several gigs of data (and growing each month - it
>> is a milk production system feeding into genetic analysis) needs the customer to buy a bigger
>> engine to process. At which point I get serious, upgrade myself to Express or bigger, and the
>> customer to whatever he can afford ..........
>>
>> And I forget the WinXP box, 2000 is on it, but never used for anything in anger, just a little
>> toybox for me to play like I knew what I was doing.
>>
>> Or am I totally wasting my time with 2000 on any computer?
>>
>> And I amend the PS ... long learning curve is OK (I've got 20 years right?), but big financial
>> outlay not.
>>
>> Stephen Bond
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf
>> Of jwcolby
>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 September 2011 8:46 a.m.
>> To: Stephen
>> Subject: Re: [AccessD] SQL Server advice
>>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> > I have a fully licensed 2000 Standard edition (acquired with an Action Pack in the days when MS
>> New Zealand charged a one-time fee for Action Packs) on a 10-year-old WinXP box (¾GB)
>>
>> Way under powered. It will run (barely) but you won't be happy.
>>
>> SQL Server of any kind is a somewhat major learning curve. You can just set up and go but then...
>>
>> The express version is quite powerful for what it is but it has major limitations such as a single
>> core and a gig of ram. I have discovered that if you are hitting the limits of Access then you may
>> already be at the limits of express. It will be fine for getting in the water so to speak but it is
>> missing stuff.
>>
>> I thought I was going to use it for a client of mine but when I looked closely it just wasn't
>> powerful enough. OTOH my client has nursed his access system way beyond reason and now has 25 users
>> and around 4-5 gigs of data. We are now looking at a pretty expensive upgrade to full on SQL
>> Server. Once you do a new server (hardware) with 25 seats on the OS and 25 seats on SQL Server you
>> are looking at> $10K, and probably closer to $15K. That said, you then have power to take you
>> through the next 5-10 years.
>>
>> > PS - I'm a bit like Arthur (same age and increasingly pursuing other interests), so we're not
>> talking long-term large commitments here (financial or long learning curve).
>>
>> Uhh... this just means that you only have 20 years of work life left right? ;)
>>
>> John W. Colby
>> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>>
>> On 9/5/2011 3:54 PM, Stephen Bond wrote:
>>> After mucking around on the fringes for too long I am ready to make a more committed leap into
>>> SQL Server. I can foresee a customer needing to upgrade their Access back end within the next six
>>> months to a year and want to get 'expertly' ahead<vbg>.
>>> I have a fully licenced 2000 Standard edition (acquired with an Action Pack in the days when MS
>>> New Zealand charged a one-time fee for Action Packs) on a 10-year-old WinXP box (¾GB) and I am
>>> comfortable with this at the 'play' level.
>>>
>>> On a year-old Windows 7 box with 4GB, my question concerns which tool to use, the above ... or
>>> SQL Server 2008 R2 Express? The downsides that I can see of Express 2008 would be (a) another
>>> learning curve (b) the nagging feeling that I remember something about these less-than-complete
>>> SQL Server implementations that is not good - like inability to do important development stuff
>>> that is available in the full-blown models. This, iirc, was true for one of MS's implementations,
>>> long ago. The upside is that I make the enormous leap into another century. But wait, there's got
>>> to be more (to both -ve and +ve).
>>>
>>> Any feedback gratefully received.
>>>
>>> Stephen Bond
>>>
>>> PS - I'm a bit like Arthur (same age and increasingly pursuing other interests), so we're not
>>> talking long-term large commitments here (financial or long learning curve).
>>>