[AccessD] SQL Server advice

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).
>>