> Access might really be the best solution. It is pretty good > for what it is supposed to do, and the quick prototyping and > UI-designing are strong arguments for it, especially if there > already is a bias towards it. > > I also _think_ that the whole "db on a shared volume" thing > works comparably neat.
Just a caveat from past experience...I've had trouble with Access (at least older version) sharing DBs on a network drive. It didn't work /too/ badly, but it scaled horribly. 3 concurrent users was noticably slow. 5 concurrent users was painful. Above 10 users was agony. Fortunately, I was one of the ones redesigning the replacement system to actually use a database server. Granted, as merely a PFY at the time, I didn't have much input into the choice of server (MS-SQLServer) nor into the language (Visual FoxPro), just got to execute the plans of the higher-ups. -tkc -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
