Jet connections

[aaron.kempf]

Jet can't reliably work with 10mb of data.
Jet isn't reliable enough for a single user-- and a single record

**** you and your mis-information

Of course Access isn't listed on that site.  That site only lists databases
that handle 100 GB or more of data.  Access is a desktop database handling
up to 2 GB of data in each Jet or ACE file.

http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch_perf_results.asp

What's funny is you failed to realize SQL Server didn't make the top 10
_EITHER_.

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp

So, Aaron, when are you moving to Oracle 10g or IBM DB2 9.x?



Facts say that SQL Server wins.. Please point to me a single entry for
Jet databases atwww.tpc.organd until then, stfu script-kiddie

-Aaron

Every now and again he has dredged up an article from six years ago or
something, but my point was to show those unfamiliar with him that his
"facts" tend to lack basis.

messagenews:[email protected]...

[quoting Aaron:]
Jet wasn't designed -- from the ground up-- to work with multiple
users.
Those are Microsofts _EXACT_ words.
Provide the quote and the context.
Aaron never responds to even one request for documentation for his
crazy claims. Of course, he *can't* provide a citation for this one,
as he's just made it up entirely.

 

[aaron.kempf]

it's the same product, you fucking retard
with the same bugs as it had a decade ago.

thus-- that's why it's obsolete, and it has been for a decade!~

Linked Tables are not efficient..
SQL Passthroughs are not maintainable.

It is _NEVER_ simpler to have a pure-jet solution.. than a simple
ADP-- because with ADP, I need a single connection to point to an
unlimited number of databases.

Maintaining connection strings-- and refreshing linked tables..
and copying querydefs..

Is just a waste of your end users time

If you are expressing a personal preference in the absence of documentation
that is one thing, but if you are going to "quote" somebody you can
reasonably be expected to provide the quote and the context.  Of course,
considering who I am addressing "reasonable" does not apply.

The absurdity of alluding to documentation from fourteen or more years ago
to make a case against a current product speaks for itself, expecially since
you won't cite specific documentation in any case.


David;

I don't need to prove anything.. Microsoft claims that JET was -NEVER-
DESIGNED-TO-SUPPORT-MULTIPLE-USERS-

They've stated this in multiple places.

I don't care about what they say -today- I care about the original
documentation from MS, circa 1995.. that claims in plain english that
Jet is not designed for multiple users.

innews:[email protected]:

[quoting Aaron:]

Jet wasn't designed -- from the ground up-- to work with multiple
users.
Those are Microsofts _EXACT_ words.
Provide the quote and the context.

Aaron never responds to even one request for documentation for his
crazy claims. Of course, he *can't* provide a citation for this one,
as he's just made it up entirely.

 

[aaron.kempf]

New: Microsoft Jet is deprecated. Microsoft’s current recommendation
is to not use Jet at all. “No new feature enhancements will be made to
Jet… It is highly recommended that while developing new applications,
avoid using these [deprecated] components. Additionally, while
upgrading or modifying existing applications, remove any dependency on
these components” (Source: Microsoft’s MDAC Road Map, under
“Deprecated Components”). I assume the intention here is NOT to make
everyone who used Access shell out thousands of dollars more for SQL
Server, but rather to have Access users create MSDE projects (new as
of Access 2000) instead of Jet databases. Find out more about MSDE
here.

Let me start off by saying that Access databases were never meant to
be hit from the web. In Microsoft’s words, “While Microsoft Jet is
consciously (and continually) updated with many quality, functional,
and performance improvements, it was not intended (or architected)… to
be used with high-stress, high-concurrency, 24×7 server applications,
such as web, commerce, transactional, messaging servers, and so
on” (Source: Microsoft KB article Q222135).

 

[BruceM]

Again, source and context is lacking. You have given us a clue as to where
to find the information, but don't expect us to run down a quote that we
know from past experience is not what you claim it to be. You are the one
with an ax to grind, so you do the work of attempting to prove the validity
of your blatherings.

Regarding the high-stress, high-concurrency etc. quote, that is rarely if
ever the situation with the many projects for which you say Access is
inadequate. That a tool is not right for one job does not mean it is
ill-suited to every job.

New: Microsoft Jet is deprecated. Microsoft’s current recommendation
is to not use Jet at all. “No new feature enhancements will be made to
Jet… It is highly recommended that while developing new applications,
avoid using these [deprecated] components. Additionally, while
upgrading or modifying existing applications, remove any dependency on
these components” (Source: Microsoft’s MDAC Road Map, under
“Deprecated Components”). I assume the intention here is NOT to make
everyone who used Access shell out thousands of dollars more for SQL
Server, but rather to have Access users create MSDE projects (new as
of Access 2000) instead of Jet databases. Find out more about MSDE
here.

Let me start off by saying that Access databases were never meant to
be hit from the web. In Microsoft’s words, “While Microsoft Jet is
consciously (and continually) updated with many quality, functional,
and performance improvements, it was not intended (or architected)… to
be used with high-stress, high-concurrency, 24×7 server applications,
such as web, commerce, transactional, messaging servers, and so
on” (Source: Microsoft KB article Q222135).

 

[James A. Fortune]

Let me start off by saying that Access databases were never meant to
be hit from the web. In Microsoft’s words, “While Microsoft Jet is
consciously (and continually) updated with many quality, functional,
and performance improvements, it was not intended (or architected)… to
be used with high-stress, high-concurrency, 24×7 server applications,
such as web, commerce, transactional, messaging servers, and so
on” (Source: Microsoft KB article Q222135).

I agree with that statement. I never recommend that an mdb file be used
as the backend of a web application. To a casual observer, Microsoft's
"continually updated" and “No new feature enhancements will be made to
Jet"

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

It doesn't say or imply anywhere that Access wasn't designed for
multiple users. I hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

Not for Aaron.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

 

[James A. Fortune]

I agree with that statement. I never recommend that an mdb file be used
as the backend of a web application. To a casual observer, Microsoft's
"continually updated" and “No new feature enhancements will be made to
Jet"

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

I had to send that post immediately so I could show someone the Win 7
beta. Besides showing Microsoft's mixed signals, I wanted to encourage
aaron to continue to cite references, to post responsibly and to present
logical arguments. Access was definitely designed for multiple users,
but not for the kind of abuse it would encounter in a web environment.
BTW, I really like the Win 7 beta so far (maybe I shouldn't have
installed the beta for the "Ultimate" edition). It even has some things
to discover involving MSBuild, SQL Server, Windows Presentation
Foundation, Windows Communication Foundation, and Windows Workflow
Foundation.

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

 

[David W. Fenton]

m:

[quote deleted]

Who are you quoting, Aaron? And how ancient is that quote? Yes, for
a while c. 2000 MS was doing everything they could to badmouth Jet
and Access. Then they realized what a stupid mistake that was and
completely changed course. The ACE is the obvious evidence that MS
doesn't deprecate Jet any longer.

The whole multi-user thing is just ridiculous. Admit that you lied
and move on.

 

[aaron.kempf]

They badmouth it once, and it's bad-mouthed forever.

you can't UNBADMOUTH something

I don't give MS permissions to change roadmaps.
Jet is dead and it has been for a decade.

SQL Server is easier, faster, more stable, more reliable, more
extensible, more available and more scalable.
And it's 'just as free as jet is' but of course.. SQL Server drivers
are included with everything; meanwhile Jet doesn't work on X64!

-Aaron

m:

[quote deleted]

Who are you quoting, Aaron? And how ancient is that quote? Yes, for
a while c. 2000 MS was doing everything they could to badmouth Jet
and Access. Then they realized what a stupid mistake that was and
completely changed course. The ACE is the obvious evidence that MS
doesn't deprecate Jet any longer.

The whole multi-user thing is just ridiculous. Admit that you lied
and move on.

 

[aaron.kempf]

ACE IS DIFFERENT THAN JET
I mean ACCDB is different than Jet.

DAO is no longer called DAO.

And ADO still performs better, it's more portable-- than any flavor of
DAO.

Write Once-- run anywhere-- With DAO it's not possible.
Linked tables to SQL Server is just a complete waste of time.

And now you're getting rewarded with _SHAREPOINT_.

So in other words-- you're not smart enough to use SQL Server
_DIRECTLY_ and now you're getting force-fed Access-->SharePoint--> SQL
Server
So in other words-- you're not smart enough to use SQL Server
_DIRECTLY_ and now you're getting force-fed Access-->SharePoint--> SQL
Server
So in other words-- you're not smart enough to use SQL Server
_DIRECTLY_ and now you're getting force-fed Access-->SharePoint--> SQL
Server

m:

[quote deleted]

Who are you quoting, Aaron? And how ancient is that quote? Yes, for
a while c. 2000 MS was doing everything they could to badmouth Jet
and Access. Then they realized what a stupid mistake that was and
completely changed course. The ACE is the obvious evidence that MS
doesn't deprecate Jet any longer.

The whole multi-user thing is just ridiculous. Admit that you lied
and move on.

 

[aaron.kempf]

oh how ancient.. how cute.. I mean really
now HOW does it fucking matter?

if ONE Microsoft person ONCE claims that Jet is obsolete.. it makes it
a fact written in stone forever.

m:

[quote deleted]

Who are you quoting, Aaron? And how ancient is that quote? Yes, for
a while c. 2000 MS was doing everything they could to badmouth Jet
and Access. Then they realized what a stupid mistake that was and
completely changed course. The ACE is the obvious evidence that MS
doesn't deprecate Jet any longer.

The whole multi-user thing is just ridiculous. Admit that you lied
and move on.

 

[BruceM]

By extension, once you praise something you can't unpraise it. Which
happened first, praise or deprecation? Whichever, it is the only valid
evaluation forever, by your flaky logic.

They badmouth it once, and it's bad-mouthed forever.

you can't UNBADMOUTH something

I don't give MS permissions to change roadmaps.
Jet is dead and it has been for a decade.

SQL Server is easier, faster, more stable, more reliable, more
extensible, more available and more scalable.
And it's 'just as free as jet is' but of course.. SQL Server drivers
are included with everything; meanwhile Jet doesn't work on X64!

-Aaron

inm:

[quote deleted]

Who are you quoting, Aaron? And how ancient is that quote? Yes, for
a while c. 2000 MS was doing everything they could to badmouth Jet
and Access. Then they realized what a stupid mistake that was and
completely changed course. The ACE is the obvious evidence that MS
doesn't deprecate Jet any longer.

The whole multi-user thing is just ridiculous. Admit that you lied
and move on.

 

[gordinhafeliz]

David;

I don't need to prove anything.. Microsoft claims that JET was -NEVER-
DESIGNED-TO-SUPPORT-MULTIPLE-USERS-

They've stated this in multiple places.

I don't care about what they say -today- I care about the original
documentation from MS, circa 1995.. that claims in plain english that
Jet is not designed for multiple users.

in
[quoting Aaron:]

Jet wasn't designed -- from the ground up-- to work with multiple
users.
Those are Microsofts _EXACT_ words.

Provide the quote and the context.

Aaron never responds to even one request for documentation for his
crazy claims. Of course, he *can't* provide a citation for this one,
as he's just made it up entirely.