[AccessD] Access and SQL Server

Real SQL DBs are designed to be asynchronous. Just because you can work
around its philosophy of design does not mean you should.

Jim



-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:01 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Access and SQL Server

Cringe away, it seems to work just fine.  Until I see evidence to the
contrary...

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com

On 2/28/2011 10:56 AM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
> Years ago I dropped a table in error, on a live MS SQL DB...had about 50
> users on at the time. Added the table and re-populated in about 5 minutes
> and only 1 person complained about the BE being slower and having to do a
> refresh. Real SQL DBs are very rugged...everything is just queued, cached
> and applied through background processes.
>
> The one thing is that a Real SQL DB is not just another MDB...there is
> little or no resemblance other than the both hold data. (Not wanting to
get
> into a heated discussion, I must admit I cringe every time I hear of
someone
> attempting a bound MS SQL DB.)
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Stuart
McLachlan
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:41 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Access and SQL Server
>
> Both?
>
> When did you ever have to kick users out of Access or any other multi-user
> DBMS to make
> data changes?
>
-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com