The Next Step

[BruceM]

I thought you had gone away. I understand why you can't use an alias like
you have in the the past, but why the extra spaces in your name? Did you
get booted out, and this is how you are getting past that limitation?
For all of your professed prowess at SQL server you post very little in
those newsgroups that I can see, and when you do it it either to ask
questions or to insult somebody.
From your reasoning, a program such as Quicken should have everybody's
financial information on a single central server rather than on each user's
individual computer. Never mind in either the case of the software that is
the original subject of this thread or Quicken that not every user is on
line all the time (an inspector in the field at a fire-damaged property may
not have a ready way of getting on line, for instance); that in a lot of
locations the only internet option is dial-up; and that as stated over and
over in this thread, the users do not need or want to share data.
I know I said I wasn't going to attempt to reason with you, but your
fallacies of reasoning that lead you to see SQL server and ADP as the answer
to every situation are so blatant that an observation or two seems worth the
effort.
Go ahead and be predictable now. No point in original thought at this late
stage.

message
Just because Amazon.com sells things to 10,000 different customers--
does that mean that they should have 10,000 different databases?

Come on kids.

Yes; there are some reasons to have a duplicated schema.
The punchline is this-- having 500 databases on a single server is 100
times more managable than 1500 different databases on 50 different
states

I would personally do it all in one database.

Because that would be much simpler.

You see-- if you used SQL Server; you wouldn't have to rewrite it
every 6 months.
What if you have 500 copies and 10 of the people cross the TWENTY FIVE
MEGABYTE LIMIT of MS Access??

-Aaron

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

I disagree.

Having 500 different databases is neither necessary or called for.

Putting an ADP on the desktop- where people can sync with a
centralized server might be appropriate in certain situations.
How would you use replication in MS Access; anyways? I thought that it
was taken out- because it was too buggy for real world usage.

I don't need your mis-information.

Keeping everything in JET is just plain stupid.
Anyone that is using JET should go and take a class on SQL Server.

Honestly-- you can sit there and whine 'oh but SQL Server is _SO_
complex'.

I disagree.

Access it the complex beast.. Access is the one with a poor ROI.
Keep everything where it belongs- on a database SERVER.

Anything else is hogwash.

You say that the users don't want to share data -- or don't need to
share data.
I don't think that is the correct diagnosis.

I think that you guys reccomend 500 seperate databases - which really
means 1500 seperate databases - which really means 'no real RI'.

Just because Amazon.com ships to 10 million different customers-- who
don't want or need to supply data to each other - does that mean that
Amazon should have 10,000,000 different databases?

If you knew anything about SQL Server-- you would know how easy it is
to set up an abstraction layer where person X can only see the records
for person X.

And then when your requiremenets change- you can allow person X to see
data from person Y in additon to person X.
or you can have real groups- whatever you want to call it.

The punchline of course- is that queries on top of queries - in SQL
Server- don't just randomly crap out.

Write Once- Run Anywhere. ADP.

-Aaron

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

and yes-- quicken should be using SQL Server.

Any data that is mission critical shouldn't use a piece of crap JET
database.

No matter how popular it is here-- in the backwater of the database
world-- that doesn't mean that JET is the optimal answer- or an
acceptable answer- anywhere.

People like you- who engage in GROUPTHINK- are the types of idiots
that voted for Hitler.

SQL Server is easier, better- more secure. More portable. More
functional.

Just because your database DOES NOT SUPPORT VPN, Wireless, Dialup or
WAN-- does that mean that ADP is the wrong answer?

And again-- setting up bulletproof replication using SQL Server is
easy.

Maybe that's why I'm the only certified person on this whole
newsgroup-- Maybe _THAT_ is why I am one of the most vocal proponents
of SQL Server.

-Aaron

 

[BruceM]

You have not paid any attention to the OP's statements about how the
database will be used. You have not addressed my observations that
wireless, dial-up, or other connections may not be available in the field,
except to suggest that database replication should be used. You think the
entire customer base of Quicken or any other app should store their data on
a single giant server somewhere, based on nothing more than your insistence
that SQL Server is the only possible way to store any data ever. You want
the world to march in lockstep behind your SQL Server banner, thereby
advocating the very Groupthink you claim to condemn. SQL Server has its
uses, as has been pointed out to you over and over, but you are the one who
would ban all discussion about anything else.
Please go away.

message
and yes-- quicken should be using SQL Server.

Any data that is mission critical shouldn't use a piece of crap JET
database.

No matter how popular it is here-- in the backwater of the database
world-- that doesn't mean that JET is the optimal answer- or an
acceptable answer- anywhere.

People like you- who engage in GROUPTHINK- are the types of idiots
that voted for Hitler.

SQL Server is easier, better- more secure. More portable. More
functional.

Just because your database DOES NOT SUPPORT VPN, Wireless, Dialup or
WAN-- does that mean that ADP is the wrong answer?

And again-- setting up bulletproof replication using SQL Server is
easy.

Maybe that's why I'm the only certified person on this whole
newsgroup-- Maybe _THAT_ is why I am one of the most vocal proponents
of SQL Server.

-Aaron

 

[Guillermo_Lopez]

and yes-- quicken should be using SQL Server.

Any data that is mission critical shouldn't use a piece of crap JET
database.

No matter how popular it is here-- in the backwater of the database
world-- that doesn't mean that JET is the optimal answer- or an
acceptable answer- anywhere.

People like you- who engage in GROUPTHINK- are the types of idiots
that voted for Hitler.

SQL Server is easier, better- more secure.  More portable.  More
functional.

Just because your database DOES NOT SUPPORT VPN, Wireless, Dialup or
WAN-- does that mean that ADP is the wrong answer?

And again-- setting up bulletproof replication using SQL Server is
easy.

Maybe that's why I'm the only certified person on this whole
newsgroup-- Maybe _THAT_ is why I am one of the most vocal proponents
of SQL Server.

-Aaron










- Show quoted text -

So you are saying that My company should place all my financial/Client/
Bussiness/Products Information on _MY COMPETITORS DATABASE_

Cause thats exaclty what you are saying. Even if we can't see
eachothers info, the fact that that data is in the same Server makes
me queezy.


Aaron, sorry to tell you this, but you are in this to loose. You are
answering a question that was _NOT_ asked.

Don't take me wrong. But you _ARE_ right. I agree with your
statements. JET is not that all Good. SQL Server is a very good
solution to system situations. However, The question was not "How can
i completely change my already, full and running application that I
invested 200 hours in so that it is mostly efficient?"

The concerned individual here wants to solve here Application problem
by using the minimum effort. Which means, that we all have to answer
based on the Limitations that the person has. Some things are just not
possible. And you go and say that the solution is switch to SQL
Server!! Thats not a solution, thats a completely different product.

I hope I came out clear enough to make you see why we have such a hard
time with "Switch to SQL server" Answer. It is not that your answer is
wrong. It's that that is not the Solution for the question at hand.

- GL

PS: The answer is Forty-Two.

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

I'm not saying anything lke that. I'm just saying that we should
listen to the needs of the OP
----------------------------
Although currently a one-user application, it would also make sense
to
develop a means to let an entire
office use the application. The user front-end would talk to a
SQL
Server backend.
----------------------------

I'm just saying that nobody needs 3-tier database FRONT ENDS.

SQL Server is not a completely different product. SQL Server is just
merely-- a free engine option for MS Access.
Have you never upsized a database to SQL Server?? Access makes a new
ADP application; all of the DATA and QUERIES go to SQL Server.

-Aaron

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

the OP specifically asked for SQL Server. kid.

You think that _I_ am using groupthink-- just because I AM THE ONLY
ONE HERE WITH THE BALLS TO RECCOMEND A DECENT ARCHITECTURE?

How am _I_ using groupthink?

You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.
You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.
You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.

Yes-- you are right. I think that anyone
_BUILDING_AN_ALTERNATIVE_TO_QUICKEN_ should use SQL Server.

Just like the OP is asking for.

I have not addressed your observations that wireless; dialup or other
connections may not be available in the field?

How about this, Bruce??!!??
--------------
And again-- setting up bulletproof replication using SQL Server is
easy.
--------------

Does replication not allow for offline use?

I tell you-- replication with SQL Server looks a _LOT_ better than
offline support with SharePoint lists-- because that is what is
getting jammed down your throats.

It's like-- get this..
a) microsoft tries to wean you kids off of Access and into SQL Server
b) because SQL Server _ROCKS_
c) Microsoft does it for a decade
d) says 'anyone else still _STUPID_ enough to be using Jet can get
conned into SharePoint.

So which is it, Bruce.

Do you want to be swimming in SharePoint or SQL Server?
Do you want to be swimming in SQL Server _DIRECTLY_ or do you want to
be swimming in SharePoint (yet another layer) on top of SQL Server?

Which is it kid; one layer or three? (SharePoint really counts as 2
layers in itself)

-Aaron

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

re:
makes
me queezy.

why does it make you queezy? Is it because Access security is such a
dogpile; that you no longer trust MS Database Security?

I believe that there are PTSD classes for you-- sorry that MS Access
has abused you in the past-- you should learn to trust your database.
_HONESTLY_.

Because- from where I'm standing- I don't think that SQL Server has
had a single (unpatched) vuln (since 2003?) while Oracle gets a dozen
per month.
Because- from where I'm standing- I don't think that SQL Server has
had a single (unpatched) vuln (since 2003?) while Access gets a dozen
per service pack.

 

[BruceM]

I know they don't want you in the SQL Server newsgroups either, but please
go away. Nobody will miss you. The OP asked an Access question in an
Access group. That's all. Your responses continually show you do not read
the questions. You want everybody to think like you do, yet you are opposed
to groupthink. If your approach to SQL is as devoid of logic as is that
line of reasoning it is no wonder you have so much time on your hands.
Shoo.

message
the OP specifically asked for SQL Server. kid.

You think that _I_ am using groupthink-- just because I AM THE ONLY
ONE HERE WITH THE BALLS TO RECCOMEND A DECENT ARCHITECTURE?

How am _I_ using groupthink?

You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.
You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.
You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.

Yes-- you are right. I think that anyone
_BUILDING_AN_ALTERNATIVE_TO_QUICKEN_ should use SQL Server.

Just like the OP is asking for.

I have not addressed your observations that wireless; dialup or other
connections may not be available in the field?

How about this, Bruce??!!??
--------------
And again-- setting up bulletproof replication using SQL Server is
easy.
--------------

Does replication not allow for offline use?

I tell you-- replication with SQL Server looks a _LOT_ better than
offline support with SharePoint lists-- because that is what is
getting jammed down your throats.

It's like-- get this..
a) microsoft tries to wean you kids off of Access and into SQL Server
b) because SQL Server _ROCKS_
c) Microsoft does it for a decade
d) says 'anyone else still _STUPID_ enough to be using Jet can get
conned into SharePoint.

So which is it, Bruce.

Do you want to be swimming in SharePoint or SQL Server?
Do you want to be swimming in SQL Server _DIRECTLY_ or do you want to
be swimming in SharePoint (yet another layer) on top of SQL Server?

Which is it kid; one layer or three? (SharePoint really counts as 2
layers in itself)

-Aaron

 

[aaron_kempf]

Bruce;

I'm a strange man
In a strange land

But it doesn't make me _WRONG_.

It just means that I _STILL_ need to spread the good word.
Do you honestly think that you can talk me out of my religion? My
religion is better than your piece of crap JET database.

It is my religous right to proclaim anything that I want- involving
SQL Server.

I go to the church of ADP.

And you're bickering _WHY_? I'm reccomending what the user is asking
for-- they are asking for SQL Server.

Sorry- but your misinformation and personal attacks won't scare me
away.
I mean honestly here-- let's get back to the topic at hand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although currently a one-user application, it would also make sense
to
develop a means to let an entire
office use the application. The user front-end would talk to a
SQL
Server backend.

 

[BruceM]

Get a grip, man. It's software, not an object of veneration. In an odd
sort of way your obsession becomes a bit more comprehensible now that I know
it is actually religious zealotry, but this is a truly disturbing
development. There is nothing more to say to you.

Bruce;

I'm a strange man
In a strange land

But it doesn't make me _WRONG_.

It just means that I _STILL_ need to spread the good word.
Do you honestly think that you can talk me out of my religion? My
religion is better than your piece of crap JET database.

It is my religous right to proclaim anything that I want- involving
SQL Server.

I go to the church of ADP.

And you're bickering _WHY_? I'm reccomending what the user is asking
for-- they are asking for SQL Server.

Sorry- but your misinformation and personal attacks won't scare me
away.
I mean honestly here-- let's get back to the topic at hand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although currently a one-user application, it would also make sense
to
develop a means to let an entire
office use the application. The user front-end would talk to a
SQL
Server backend.

 

[Guillermo_Lopez]

I mean honestly here-- let's get back to the topic at hand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------
Although currently a one-user application, it would also make sense
to
develop a means to let an entire
office use the application. The user front-end would talk to a
SQL
Server backend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------

-Aaron

OK Back to the Topic!!!

The application is already a split Database with a Front End and a
Back End. Which means that the application is already available for
the entire office. It has the functionallity for a small Multi-User
environment which is what it is built for and the target customer.

The world moves around $. And it's usually the best way to really put
things in perspective.

We know that the application is working great. No issues with the
customers and they are satisfied. The application will sell to new
customers regardless of what's behind the code. Customer really
doesn't need to know how it works or what the backend.

This means that switching to SQL Server will _NOT_ increase the profit
of the Application. It will _Not_ sell more. In fact, maybe you might
sell to a few more. So that may be 3-5 new customers.

But, Then, what is the cost of switching to SQL server? You say it's
Nil. That is false. UNless you can switch in 0 hours, 0 minutes, you
are incurring in costs.

This line of bussiness charges around $70 to $200 dollars an hour. If
it takes 5 hours to make switch, which i highly doubt it. It will
probably be costing your application around $700 - $1000 USD. And what
about the investment. The creator of the application probably doesn't
have the experience in SQL Server, so then they would have to invest
time on that or even take a course. Whats that, some 20 - 40 hours?
That ranges a cost of about $3,000 to $6,000.

In best case scenario, you would have to sell the application at
$1,000 a piece just to cover your costs. I don't think this
application sells at such a high price. Id guess around $300 USD.
(lets not think if its simply $49.99). You would requiere 14 new
customers that will not buy your app unless it has a SQL back end just
to break even Profit of switching to SQL Server.

- GL

PS:
Q: How do you cross a camel through the eye of a needle?
A: Switch to SQL Server.

 

[BruceM]

"There is nothing more to say to you" sums it up, I think.

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

listen kid

you're the one that isn't paying any attention to the OP.

she's asking for SQL Server.

I'll reccomend SQL Server wherever _I_ see fit.

_ESPECIALLY_ when they ask for it.

Take your mafia tactics elsewhere; kid
I'm right-- and you're stuck in a midget land with midget sized
databases

-Aaron

 

[Karen]

Thanks Guillermo,

I believe you must be psychic; the price you surmised is almost spot on; my
SQL Server experience is just about 6 years old now (as in last time I
worked with it) so getting back up to speed would be a 'cost'.

The split Access database app works fine just now. The suggestions posted
in this thread about improvements are all on my Version 2
list...............and upsizing to SQL Server may make some sense, we'll see
then

--
Karen

I mean honestly here-- let's get back to the topic at hand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------
Although currently a one-user application, it would also make sense
to
develop a means to let an entire
office use the application. The user front-end would talk to a
SQL
Server backend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------

-Aaron

OK Back to the Topic!!!

The application is already a split Database with a Front End and a
Back End. Which means that the application is already available for
the entire office. It has the functionallity for a small Multi-User
environment which is what it is built for and the target customer.

The world moves around $. And it's usually the best way to really put
things in perspective.

We know that the application is working great. No issues with the
customers and they are satisfied. The application will sell to new
customers regardless of what's behind the code. Customer really
doesn't need to know how it works or what the backend.

This means that switching to SQL Server will _NOT_ increase the profit
of the Application. It will _Not_ sell more. In fact, maybe you might
sell to a few more. So that may be 3-5 new customers.

But, Then, what is the cost of switching to SQL server? You say it's
Nil. That is false. UNless you can switch in 0 hours, 0 minutes, you
are incurring in costs.

This line of bussiness charges around $70 to $200 dollars an hour. If
it takes 5 hours to make switch, which i highly doubt it. It will
probably be costing your application around $700 - $1000 USD. And what
about the investment. The creator of the application probably doesn't
have the experience in SQL Server, so then they would have to invest
time on that or even take a course. Whats that, some 20 - 40 hours?
That ranges a cost of about $3,000 to $6,000.

In best case scenario, you would have to sell the application at
$1,000 a piece just to cover your costs. I don't think this
application sells at such a high price. Id guess around $300 USD.
(lets not think if its simply $49.99). You would requiere 14 new
customers that will not buy your app unless it has a SQL back end just
to break even Profit of switching to SQL Server.

- GL

PS:
Q: How do you cross a camel through the eye of a needle?
A: Switch to SQL Server.

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

If the world revolves around $ then choose the best cheapest database
backend.

The answer to that riddle? It is SQL Server.

It takes no longer time to upsize- than it does to deal with linked
table crap.
Linked tables and compact and repair take an infinite amount of time--
in maintenance.

The cost of moving to SQL Server is nil. You guys are just a decade
out of date for using an obsolete database.

Moving to SQL Server won't decrease costs? Well how about offering
people your application while they are 'on the road'?

How about allowing people to 'work from home' while using their Access
Applications?

Jet is not a database-- it hasn't been, never was-- and never will be.
If you care enough to build a database; use an engine with a future.

-Aaron

 

[BruceM]

So tell me, of all the garbage going on how did you single out me for your
scolding, and why did you wait until I indicated there was nothing more to
say?

On another point, I could find no Chris on the mvps.org web site with a last
name that could be yours. Have I missed something?

Yes, it does but try to remember that phrase long before you've pulled
your
hanky out more than half a dozen times.

Chris
Microsoft MVP

"There is nothing more to say to you" sums it up, I think.

Bruce, don't stand downwind of someone who amuses himself by spitting
into
the wind every chance he gets.

[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]

I'm a strange man

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

how did I single _YOU_ out for scolding? You're the one that has been
attacking me.
You attack me because my database is more powerful than yours.

Real companies run SQL Server.

-Aaron

So tell me, of all the garbage going on how did you single out me for your
scolding, and why did you wait until I indicated there was nothing more to
say?

On another point, I could find no Chris on the mvps.org web site with a last
name that could be yours.  Have I missed something?

Yes, it does but try to remember that phrase long before you've pulled
your
hanky out more than half a dozen times.

Chris
Microsoft MVP

"There is nothing more to say to you" sums it up, I think.
Bruce, don't stand downwind of someone who amuses himself by spitting
into
the wind every chance he gets.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
I'm a strange man

- Show quoted text -

 

[BruceM]

I was responding to somebody else. Pay attention.

message
how did I single _YOU_ out for scolding? You're the one that has been
attacking me.
You attack me because my database is more powerful than yours.

Real companies run SQL Server.

-Aaron

So tell me, of all the garbage going on how did you single out me for your
scolding, and why did you wait until I indicated there was nothing more to
say?

On another point, I could find no Chris on the mvps.org web site with a
last
name that could be yours. Have I missed something?

message

Yes, it does but try to remember that phrase long before you've pulled
your
hanky out more than half a dozen times.

Chris
Microsoft MVP

"There is nothing more to say to you" sums it up, I think.
Bruce, don't stand downwind of someone who amuses himself by spitting
into
the wind every chance he gets.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
I'm a strange man

- Show quoted text -