1. A a data entry system
Designed on Access 97. 3 users, data was never to exceed 1GB. Was done by a rather competent programmer.
a. Performance over the network for data over 150MB was extremely slow, even when the data and application files were split and the application installed locally.
b. Migration cost to Access 2000 were 1.5 the cost of the original system - no added value or functionality.
c. Generating data for analysis (excel, SAS) was a nightmare.
2. CRM
1,500 records. Originally on Access 2. Worked rather well until we upgraded to 97. Access does not reclaim deleted records space and is horrible in file I/O. When upgrade time came again we dropped access for text files....
3. Patient monitoring
Access 2000. Similar situation to your what you described. A "free" programmer was found to develop an application for clinical trials. He did a very nice user interface which the users loved.
Once more, when we crossed the 150MB data size with more then one user, performance droped through the floor.
My conclusions:
Access is underpowered as multi user DBMS.
Access is overpowered for single user data management (unless the users knows his/her way around an RDBMS).
To take make any use of Access you need a really good VB programmer. But, if you have a really good VB programmer, you don't need access....
On a final note, I doubt if any of the above will make a difference when a "free" programmer is available. I would ask who would maintain the application one year from now? Is that programmer committed to fixing bugs or adding features? If he is, then you will find it hard, if not impossible to advocated another solution.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
My gliding club is going to write their own software, after years of being dependent on an ancient Magic software that no-one could update and did a fraction of the requirements.
A club member who knows MS stuff valunteered to write it in VB+ASP+Access.
Their argument for Access is that we won't reach the 1Gb limit in 20 years
(which I think is false) and that it will be a single web server accessing the database
directly, so no much concurrency problems (which I'll try to clarify in a meeting
tommorow (Monday)). They also relay on the promise that it will be easy to move over
the MS-SQL if required later.
I'd like to stir them away from doing what I believe to be a mistake to be dependend on
MS proprietary technology, but not being able to give the time to program myself I
am a bit at loss as to how exactly can I convince them to see the dangers in that road.
Can people help me find arguments against this setup?
Currently I have:
1. Windows/IIS/ASP are insecure.
2. Not scalable in terms of size of database and number of users (but then it's not
going to be a large number of users, only club members).
3. Expensive (but they might be willing to invest this).
4. Lots of "hand holding" for the server - crashes, bug fixes, anti-virus.
5. Lock-in in MS technology (but I suppose you can always export the data, don't you?).
What else can I say? And how to say it?
I need this for Monday evening.
Thanks,
--Amos
================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
