Greetings-



I have a question regarding Access 2000.  Is Access 2000 more scaleable 

than Access 97?  I need to use a database for online processing but one 

that?s easy for non-tech users so they can use QBE to run queries.  SQL, 

DB2, Oracle, Syabase, would be too complicated and costly to use.  Access 

97 is currently being used, but we have 2000.  Is 2000 better suited for 

on-line processing than 97?  I know Access is not a client-server database 

and is not meant to be used for on-line processing, but would performance 

be better with 2000?



Thanks,

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand

this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.



------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B5FE.5E8946A0

Content-Type: text/plain



Hi,

I use Access 2000 for a stock control and ordering system with 20 concurrent

users, it's OK but not as resilient as some of the other more grown up DBMS.

The system goes down quite often and the database needs to be repaired.

However scaleable apps can be designed in Access using some common sense

rules. I can recommend Ch. 17 Building Scaleable Systems of Pro. Access 2000

Programming (Wrox) as a source for some invaluable advice.



Cheers

Omar



-----Original Message-----

From: Binu [mailto:beanz75@a...] 

Sent: 15 February 2002 00:09

To: Access

Subject: [access] Access 2000 more scaleable than 97?



Greetings-



I have a question regarding Access 2000.  Is Access 2000 more scaleable 

than Access 97?  I need to use a database for online processing but one 

thats easy for non-tech users so they can use QBE to run queries.  SQL, 

DB2, Oracle, Syabase, would be too complicated and costly to use.  Access 

97 is currently being used, but we have 2000.  Is 2000 better suited for 

on-line processing than 97?  I know Access is not a client-server database 

and is not meant to be used for on-line processing, but would performance 

be better with 2000?



Thanks,












  DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be

legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee.  Access to this

message by anyone else is unauthorised.  If you are not the intended

recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any

action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be

unlawful.  Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this

message in error. Thank you.

Scalability is roughly the same, although Jet 4.0 (Access3000) appears 

more stable than Jet 3.5 (Access97).



R



> Greetings-

> 

> I have a question regarding Access 2000.  Is Access 2000 more scaleable 

> than Access 97?  I need to use a database for online processing but one 

> that?s easy for non-tech users so they can use QBE to run queries.  

SQL, 

> DB2, Oracle, Syabase, would be too complicated and costly to use.  

Access 

> 97 is currently being used, but we have 2000.  Is 2000 better suited 

for 

> on-line processing than 97?  I know Access is not a client-server 

database 

> and is not meant to be used for on-line processing, but would 

performance 

> be better with 2000?

> 

> Thanks,

Can Access2000 be used with Windows 98? Is there an Access.Net? Can it be

used with windows 98



Thanks,



Barry



----- Original Message -----

From: "Randy Cornish" <rlcornish@c...>

To: "Access" <access@p...>

Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 12:10 AM

Subject: [access] Re: Access 2000 more scaleable than 97?





> Scalability is roughly the same, although Jet 4.0 (Access3000) appears

> more stable than Jet 3.5 (Access97).

>

> R

>

> > Greetings-

> >

> > I have a question regarding Access 2000.  Is Access 2000 more scaleable

> > than Access 97?  I need to use a database for online processing but one

> > that's easy for non-tech users so they can use QBE to run queries.

> SQL,

> > DB2, Oracle, Syabase, would be too complicated and costly to use.

> Access

> > 97 is currently being used, but we have 2000.  Is 2000 better suited

> for

> > on-line processing than 97?  I know Access is not a client-server

> database

> > and is not meant to be used for on-line processing, but would

> performance

> > be better with 2000?

> >

> > Thanks,

>




>

Yes, Access2000 works with Win98.  No, to the best of my knowledge there 

is not an Access.Net (although I would not be surprised to hear that one 

was in the works in the depths of Seattle).  There has been speculation 

that a .NET version of MS Office (including Access) will be in one of the 

upcoming releases.



R



> Can Access2000 be used with Windows 98? Is there an Access.Net? Can it 

be

> used with windows 98

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> Barry

> 

I am currently using Access 2000 with Windows '98.  There is no Access.NET,

however there is Access 2002 which is a part of Office XP.



Office XP and therefore Access 2002 can be used with Windows '98, '98 SE,

2000, Me, or XP.  It can also be run with Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6 or

higher).



There are other minimum requirements:

	Pentium 133 *

	32 MB RAM *

	165 MB * Free space on Hard disk for installation

	CD ROM

	Super VGA monitor (800x600 - 256 color)



* These are minimums - with Access as with any data base MORE IS BETTER

particularly with regard to RAM.



Rand E Gerald

Information Services / Operations



-----Original Message-----

From: Barry Martin Dancis [mailto:bdancis@h...]

Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 7:13 PM

To: Access

Subject: [access] Re: Access 2000 more scaleable than 97?



Can Access2000 be used with Windows 98? Is there an Access.Net? Can it be

used with windows 98



Thanks,



Barry



----- Original Message -----

From: "Randy Cornish" <rlcornish@c...>

To: "Access" <access@p...>

Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 12:10 AM

Subject: [access] Re: Access 2000 more scaleable than 97?





> Scalability is roughly the same, although Jet 4.0 (Access3000) appears

> more stable than Jet 3.5 (Access97).

>

> R

>

> > Greetings-

> >

> > I have a question regarding Access 2000.  Is Access 2000 more scaleable

> > than Access 97?  I need to use a database for online processing but one

> > that's easy for non-tech users so they can use QBE to run queries.

> SQL,

> > DB2, Oracle, Syabase, would be too complicated and costly to use.

> Access

> > 97 is currently being used, but we have 2000.  Is 2000 better suited

> for

> > on-line processing than 97?  I know Access is not a client-server

> database

> > and is not meant to be used for on-line processing, but would

> performance

> > be better with 2000?

> >

> > Thanks,

>




>

Mucho thanks,



B^)



----- Original Message -----

From: "Gerald, Rand" <RGerald@u...>

To: "Access" <access@p...>

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 11:04 AM

Subject: [access] Re: Access 2000 more scaleable than 97?





> I am currently using Access 2000 with Windows '98.  There is no

Access.NET,

> however there is Access 2002 which is a part of Office XP.

>

> Office XP and therefore Access 2002 can be used with Windows '98, '98 SE,

> 2000, Me, or XP.  It can also be run with Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6

or

> higher).

>

> There are other minimum requirements:

> Pentium 133 *

> 32 MB RAM *

> 165 MB * Free space on Hard disk for installation

> CD ROM

> Super VGA monitor (800x600 - 256 color)

>

> * These are minimums - with Access as with any data base MORE IS BETTER

> particularly with regard to RAM.

>

> Rand E Gerald

> Information Services / Operations

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Barry Martin Dancis [mailto:bdancis@h...]

> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 7:13 PM

> To: Access

> Subject: [access] Re: Access 2000 more scaleable than 97?

>

> Can Access2000 be used with Windows 98? Is there an Access.Net? Can it be

> used with windows 98

>

> Thanks,

>

> Barry

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Randy Cornish" <rlcornish@c...>

> To: "Access" <access@p...>

> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 12:10 AM

> Subject: [access] Re: Access 2000 more scaleable than 97?

>

>

> > Scalability is roughly the same, although Jet 4.0 (Access3000) appears

> > more stable than Jet 3.5 (Access97).

> >

> > R

> >

> > > Greetings-

> > >

> > > I have a question regarding Access 2000.  Is Access 2000 more

scaleable

> > > than Access 97?  I need to use a database for online processing but

one

> > > that's easy for non-tech users so they can use QBE to run queries.

> > SQL,

> > > DB2, Oracle, Syabase, would be too complicated and costly to use.

> > Access

> > > 97 is currently being used, but we have 2000.  Is 2000 better suited

> > for

> > > on-line processing than 97?  I know Access is not a client-server

> > database

> > > and is not meant to be used for on-line processing, but would

> > performance

> > > be better with 2000?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> >




> >

>

>




>




>