[dba-Tech] Access vs. .NET

Actually JC, those slow connections, and BBS like environments are the true
Internet.  I think you are confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web.
I believe the 'birth' of the WWW came much later then the Internet, with the
dawn of HTML.  Before then, the Internet didn't really have a 'face', it was
just text.

Compuserve was mainly text, though, if I remember right, it had some sort of
ANSI interface, a lot like many BBSes of the time. Prodigy, on the other
hand, was far more like AOL.  It had it's own 'browser' or 'interface',
which it could put graphics into, etc.  When HTML came about, it
revolutionized how data was displayed.

I really think that is the distinction.

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of John W. Colby
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 12:12 PM
To: 'Discussion of Hardware and Software issues'
Subject: RE: [dba-Tech] Access vs. .NET


I'm trying to peer through the fog of advancing age to the days of yore... I
remember using CompuServe back in the olden days but it really just looked
like a huge BBS system to me.  File storage and some email / news group
thingies.  Paying for long distance charges to hit the nearest access point,
then painfully downloading files at 9600 baud (300 and 1200 on my first
modems).  If you want to call that the internet, then fine.  I've had a
modem in (or on) every machine I have owned since 1981 or thereabouts, and I
know full well that "the internet" existed back in the day but whatever
existed in 1990 in no way, shape or form equates to what we call the
internet today.

My grama would say "of course we had cars back in 1902, we had one".  Yea
right!  Yes, they existed, it had an engine and four wheels but a 10 year
old child from today would mostly look at and ask what it was.

So "yea right", you were on the internet in 1990.

On to more important things...

>that being said, any machine that does not have the .net runtime and then
IS loaded w/ it, you'll notice a significant performance drop on the pc.

I have never noticed this, though I haven't really looked for it either.
Why would that be true?  It is my understanding that the .net framework is
not used at all unless some application calls it.  Is something built into
Windows calling it?  If so how does it function without it there to begin
with?

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com

Contribute your unused CPU cycles to a good cause:
http://folding.stanford.edu/

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Francisco Tapia
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 12:43 PM
To: Discussion of Hardware and Software issues
Subject: Re: [dba-Tech] Access vs. .NET


ROTFL
> I really got into Access "full time" in 1994 and there was no
> internet.
Of course there was an internet... in 1991 I WAS using the internet, but
granted, there was not nearly the amount of "resources" that there is now a
days.

on the same token I love programming in Access, but I also have had a small
chance to begin using .Net, .Net is slow, you MUST load the .net runtimes on
your machine or destination machines that do not have your version of .net
(remember that hassel back in the days w/ VB apps, making sure you had the
right runtime?) It continues w/ .NET  XP is deployed w/ .Net 1, but w/ .Net
2003, ie 1.1 you must Upgrade the target machines if they are going to run
effeciently.  Windows 2000 does not have the .net runtimes by default, so
you must remember to include the 40mb runtime in your distribution.

that being said, any machine that does not have the .net runtime and then IS
loaded w/ it, you'll notice a significant performance drop on the pc.
things that took a fraction of a second to load, now take a second or two
while the screen re-draws... etc, etc, etc.

the problem w/ Access applications is that you MUST deploy the 40mb+ runtime
along with your application if your customer is not already running access.
Access tends to be a network pig, if you running a networked FE/BE
deployment.



_______________________________________________
dba-Tech mailing list
dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com