Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Microsoft Access concurrent users

Discussion in 'Information Technology' started by Brian Boynton, Jul 28, 2006.

  1. Brian Boynton

    Brian Boynton
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hello,
    I would like to implement my database so roughly 30 points of contact
    (no more than 10 users at a time I would imagine) can update
    information to the database at their leisure. I saw someone had asked
    this question and the response was roughly "...sure, as long as the
    database is designed well with a good server backend".
    I wish this response had been a little more in depth, as it leaves me
    with a good number of questions. So...in order to have concurrent
    users, I have to have a separate DB Front-end and Back-end? I can't
    just have a bunch of Linked Excel Spreadsheets for my users to fill in
    whenever they want, with the fields linked to Access Tables?

    That's what I want, as opposed to having to occupy the resources of a
    server, I would rather just have Microsoft Access and a Bunch of Flat
    Excel Files for my users to access to input their data. Upon closing
    the spreadsheet the data would be updated on the corresponding access
    tables.


    Thanks in advance for any guidance anyone offers on this project of
    mine.

    Regards,
    Brian
     
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Microsoft Warning Over Browser Security Flaw Information Technology Feb 1, 2011
    World Microsoft Apologizes for Changing Race in Photo Breaking News Aug 26, 2009
    DOWNLOAD BANI FILES - Microsoft Word Format Discourses in English Feb 11, 2008
    Microsoft Throws Prime-Time Party for Next Xbox (washingtonpost.com) Interfaith Dialogues May 14, 2005
    Microsoft Unveils New Windows Mobile (AP) Interfaith Dialogues May 11, 2005

  3. microb0x

    microb0x
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I would suggest an Access front-end(containing your forms) for the
    users to each place on their desktop for entry. And a Access
    back-end(containing the tables) placed on a network drive somewhere
    they call all access. Then just link the tables on the back-end to the
    front-end.

    You could just place a single .mdb or .mde file on a network drive
    containing both the tables and forms and have everyone use that single
    file. I would suggest using my first suggestion however.

    In both cases, I have had 16-30 concurrently accessing the database and
    entering data. This doesn't mean you wont ever have problems and I
    would need more information for your specific case. Factors like how
    much data is being updated at the same time, which tables everyone is
    writing to, etc. play in to how successful either approach would be.
     
  4. Jerry Whittle

    Jerry Whittle
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    While what you propose MIGHT work, I wouldn't depend on it. I've created a
    number of Access databases that have 10-25 concurent users. These databases
    are well designed (patting myself on the back); split with a FE on each
    user's machines; and on good networks (pat the network guys and gals on the
    back).

    On the other hand I have been called in to fix, or attempt to fix, poorly
    designed databases, some not split, on lousy networks that had trouble with 5
    concurrent users. None of these depended on linked Excel spreadsheets either.

    Speaking of Excel and using it in links:

    Due to a Patent dispute, you cannot change, add, or delete data in tables
    that are linked to an Excel workbook in Office Access 2003 or in Access 2002!

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/904953/en-us

    You can't have indexes on the spreadsheets. This could slow queries down.

    You can't assign a primary key or unique constraint to keep out duplicates
    in the spreadsheet.

    While you can create a relationship in the Relationships window, you can not
    enforce referential integrity.

    Roger Carlson added the following to a similar discussion.

    1) It's awfully easy for a user to mess up the spreadsheet so it won't be
    usable as a table. I have an application where I get the data from users in
    spreadsheets. Every time, I have to manually modify the tables before I can
    import them. There is no way I could use them as linked.

    2) You can't change the datatype of a column in Excel as it is linked in
    Access. Access may decide that a field is numeric when in fact it is
    alphanumeric and you'll get a #NUM in some fields.
    --
    Jerry Whittle
    Light. Strong. Cheap. Pick two. Keith Bontrager - Bicycle Builder.

    "Brian Boynton" wrote:

    > Hello,
    > I would like to implement my database so roughly 30 points of contact
    > (no more than 10 users at a time I would imagine) can update
    > information to the database at their leisure. I saw someone had asked
    > this question and the response was roughly "...sure, as long as the
    > database is designed well with a good server backend".
    > I wish this response had been a little more in depth, as it leaves me
    > with a good number of questions. So...in order to have concurrent
    > users, I have to have a separate DB Front-end and Back-end? I can't
    > just have a bunch of Linked Excel Spreadsheets for my users to fill in
    > whenever they want, with the fields linked to Access Tables?
    >
    > That's what I want, as opposed to having to occupy the resources of a
    > server, I would rather just have Microsoft Access and a Bunch of Flat
    > Excel Files for my users to access to input their data. Upon closing
    > the spreadsheet the data would be updated on the corresponding access
    > tables.
    >
    > Thanks in advance for any guidance anyone offers on this project of
    > mine.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Brian
     
  5. Brian Boynton

    Brian Boynton
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    What's an FE? Full Executable?

    Not sure what you're suggesting as far as my Access Front End and Back
    End are concerned, although I very much appreciate the Excel advice.
    You've convinced me.

    -Brian
     
  6. dbahooker@hotmail.com

    dbahooker@hotmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    FE stands for front end.

    these dipshits around here have this idea that you can translate a mdb
    into a magic client-server database.. by simply splitting it.
    then they refer to the front-end and back-end
    hence FE and BE

    technically; they're all full of shit.

    use Access Data Projects and keep your data and your queries in one
    place-- a sql server database.

    spit on anyone that tells you otherwise.
     
  7. Jerry Whittle

    Jerry Whittle
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    FE = Front End
    BE = Back End

    Sorry for the confusion.
    --
    Jerry Whittle
    Light. Strong. Cheap. Pick two. Keith Bontrager - Bicycle Builder.


    "Brian Boynton" wrote:

    > What's an FE? Full Executable?
    >
    > Not sure what you're suggesting as far as my Access Front End and Back
    > End are concerned, although I very much appreciate the Excel advice.
    > You've convinced me.
    >
    > -Brian
    >
    >
     
  8. microb0x

    microb0x
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Slanderous comments like yours below do nothing for proving any point
    you attempt to make. This just makes you look more ignorant than you
    claim others to be.

    If you don't have a positive critisism to make just keep it to
    yourself. These forums aren't a place for you to get on your soap box
    and preach to us.


    dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > FE stands for front end.
    >
    > these dipshits around here have this idea that you can translate a mdb
    > into a magic client-server database.. by simply splitting it.
    > then they refer to the front-end and back-end
    > hence FE and BE
    >
    > technically; they're all full of shit.
    >
    > use Access Data Projects and keep your data and your queries in one
    > place-- a sql server database.
    >
    > spit on anyone that tells you otherwise.
     
  9. aaron.kempf@gmail.com

    aaron.kempf@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Microb0X

    I'll preach wherever I want. How dare you try to tell me what I am
    allowed to talk about.

    MDB are for sissies and you can eat shit.

    Grow up and use a real database, like SQL Server or mySql.

    My 'positive criticism' says don't use MDB files for anything; and
    you're a complete sissy if you use them for anything.

    -Aaron


    microb0x wrote:
    > Slanderous comments like yours below do nothing for proving any point
    > you attempt to make. This just makes you look more ignorant than you
    > claim others to be.
    >
    > If you don't have a positive critisism to make just keep it to
    > yourself. These forums aren't a place for you to get on your soap box
    > and preach to us.
    >
    >
    > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > FE stands for front end.
    > >
    > > these dipshits around here have this idea that you can translate a mdb
    > > into a magic client-server database.. by simply splitting it.
    > > then they refer to the front-end and back-end
    > > hence FE and BE
    > >
    > > technically; they're all full of shit.
    > >
    > > use Access Data Projects and keep your data and your queries in one
    > > place-- a sql server database.
    > >
    > > spit on anyone that tells you otherwise.
     
  10. microb0x

    microb0x
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    If you are so against the use of .mdb files why are you even viewing
    posts in a forum dedicated to MS Access? And your second worthless
    response just re-afirms my comment about your ignorance. I guess some
    people are just too dumb to be helped...

    If you were any type of a real developer in any corporate environment
    you would know that there is a difference between a desired approach to
    a problem and working with what is provided to you. A SQL server or
    mySql may not be available to the original poster. Unfortunately you
    are too busy showing us how robust your obscene vocabulary is to
    consider things like this.

    Feel free to respond with another worthless rant, I've said my peace
    and won't bother devoting any more of my time to exposing your
    ignorance.


    aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote:
    > Microb0X
    >
    > I'll preach wherever I want. How dare you try to tell me what I am
    > allowed to talk about.
    >
    > MDB are for sissies and you can eat shit.
    >
    > Grow up and use a real database, like SQL Server or mySql.
    >
    > My 'positive criticism' says don't use MDB files for anything; and
    > you're a complete sissy if you use them for anything.
    >
    > -Aaron
    >
    >
    > microb0x wrote:
    > > Slanderous comments like yours below do nothing for proving any point
    > > you attempt to make. This just makes you look more ignorant than you
    > > claim others to be.
    > >
    > > If you don't have a positive critisism to make just keep it to
    > > yourself. These forums aren't a place for you to get on your soap box
    > > and preach to us.
    > >
    > >
    > > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > > FE stands for front end.
    > > >
    > > > these dipshits around here have this idea that you can translate a mdb
    > > > into a magic client-server database.. by simply splitting it.
    > > > then they refer to the front-end and back-end
    > > > hence FE and BE
    > > >
    > > > technically; they're all full of shit.
    > > >
    > > > use Access Data Projects and keep your data and your queries in one
    > > > place-- a sql server database.
    > > >
    > > > spit on anyone that tells you otherwise.
     
  11. Ron2006

    Ron2006
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    But IT departments willing to let "users" "dable" in sql on IT's
    resources are not.
     
  12. aaron.kempf@gmail.com

    aaron.kempf@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    every end user anywhere should have a local copy of MSDE or SQL Server
    Express on their desktop.

    Problem solved; and it's free.




    Ron2006 wrote:
    > But IT departments willing to let "users" "dable" in sql on IT's
    > resources are not.
     
  13. aaron.kempf@gmail.com

    aaron.kempf@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    and i"m not reccomending that people DABBLE in SQL.

    I'm reccomending that every friggin person anywhere in the world; they
    ever uses excel-- should uninstall excel and use a database for a year.

    i'm reccomending that you and your companies start CONQUERING that
    mountains of data that you already have.

    Amazon.com didn't get there by having 40 people access the same
    spreadsheet at the same time.

    it's all about the databases, baby

    -Aaron


    aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote:
    > every end user anywhere should have a local copy of MSDE or SQL Server
    > Express on their desktop.
    >
    > Problem solved; and it's free.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Ron2006 wrote:
    > > But IT departments willing to let "users" "dable" in sql on IT's
    > > resources are not.
     
  14. Ron2006

    Ron2006
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The "Dabble" part is IT's response, not mine.
     
  15. aaron.kempf@gmail.com

    aaron.kempf@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    well then get a new IT department.

    Databases are the most important piece of technology in the world.
    it makes no logical or practical sense to prohibit end users to develop
    ANYTHING THEY PLEASE in sql server.

    the training resources that are available for SQL Server and other
    enterprise RDBMS are 100x more available than an obsolete desktop
    database like MDB.

    -Aaron
     
  16. dbahooker@hotmail.com

    dbahooker@hotmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    so MicrodOrk

    what you got to say about it now?

    I am the rightful heir to the access name; you mdb idiots are a bunch
    of obsolete imposters

    why dont you mdb dorks leave my Access form; because i claim that this
    forum is now a MDB-free zone.

    Who in the hell do you think that you are; saying i can't complain
    about MDB?

    it's like.. in a Exchange 2003 forum; people complaining about shit
    regarding exchange 5.5-- of course im going to biutch up a storm.

    stop using obsolete mdb format and maybe i'll stop bithching about
    obsolete mdb files.



    microb0x wrote:
    > If you are so against the use of .mdb files why are you even viewing
    > posts in a forum dedicated to MS Access? And your second worthless
    > response just re-afirms my comment about your ignorance. I guess some
    > people are just too dumb to be helped...
    >
    > If you were any type of a real developer in any corporate environment
    > you would know that there is a difference between a desired approach to
    > a problem and working with what is provided to you. A SQL server or
    > mySql may not be available to the original poster. Unfortunately you
    > are too busy showing us how robust your obscene vocabulary is to
    > consider things like this.
    >
    > Feel free to respond with another worthless rant, I've said my peace
    > and won't bother devoting any more of my time to exposing your
    > ignorance.
    >
    >
    > aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote:
    > > Microb0X
    > >
    > > I'll preach wherever I want. How dare you try to tell me what I am
    > > allowed to talk about.
    > >
    > > MDB are for sissies and you can eat shit.
    > >
    > > Grow up and use a real database, like SQL Server or mySql.
    > >
    > > My 'positive criticism' says don't use MDB files for anything; and
    > > you're a complete sissy if you use them for anything.
    > >
    > > -Aaron
    > >
    > >
    > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > Slanderous comments like yours below do nothing for proving any point
    > > > you attempt to make. This just makes you look more ignorant than you
    > > > claim others to be.
    > > >
    > > > If you don't have a positive critisism to make just keep it to
    > > > yourself. These forums aren't a place for you to get on your soap box
    > > > and preach to us.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > > > FE stands for front end.
    > > > >
    > > > > these dipshits around here have this idea that you can translate a mdb
    > > > > into a magic client-server database.. by simply splitting it.
    > > > > then they refer to the front-end and back-end
    > > > > hence FE and BE
    > > > >
    > > > > technically; they're all full of shit.
    > > > >
    > > > > use Access Data Projects and keep your data and your queries in one
    > > > > place-- a sql server database.
    > > > >
    > > > > spit on anyone that tells you otherwise.
     
  17. microb0x

    microb0x
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Your moronic response doesn't warrant a rebutle. Any competent reader
    will surely just scim past your non-sense.


    dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > so MicrodOrk
    >
    > what you got to say about it now?
    >
    > I am the rightful heir to the access name; you mdb idiots are a bunch
    > of obsolete imposters
    >
    > why dont you mdb dorks leave my Access form; because i claim that this
    > forum is now a MDB-free zone.
    >
    > Who in the hell do you think that you are; saying i can't complain
    > about MDB?
    >
    > it's like.. in a Exchange 2003 forum; people complaining about shit
    > regarding exchange 5.5-- of course im going to biutch up a storm.
    >
    > stop using obsolete mdb format and maybe i'll stop bithching about
    > obsolete mdb files.
    >
    >
    >
    > microb0x wrote:
    > > If you are so against the use of .mdb files why are you even viewing
    > > posts in a forum dedicated to MS Access? And your second worthless
    > > response just re-afirms my comment about your ignorance. I guess some
    > > people are just too dumb to be helped...
    > >
    > > If you were any type of a real developer in any corporate environment
    > > you would know that there is a difference between a desired approach to
    > > a problem and working with what is provided to you. A SQL server or
    > > mySql may not be available to the original poster. Unfortunately you
    > > are too busy showing us how robust your obscene vocabulary is to
    > > consider things like this.
    > >
    > > Feel free to respond with another worthless rant, I've said my peace
    > > and won't bother devoting any more of my time to exposing your
    > > ignorance.
    > >
    > >
    > > aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote:
    > > > Microb0X
    > > >
    > > > I'll preach wherever I want. How dare you try to tell me what I am
    > > > allowed to talk about.
    > > >
    > > > MDB are for sissies and you can eat shit.
    > > >
    > > > Grow up and use a real database, like SQL Server or mySql.
    > > >
    > > > My 'positive criticism' says don't use MDB files for anything; and
    > > > you're a complete sissy if you use them for anything.
    > > >
    > > > -Aaron
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > > Slanderous comments like yours below do nothing for proving any point
    > > > > you attempt to make. This just makes you look more ignorant than you
    > > > > claim others to be.
    > > > >
    > > > > If you don't have a positive critisism to make just keep it to
    > > > > yourself. These forums aren't a place for you to get on your soap box
    > > > > and preach to us.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > > > > FE stands for front end.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > these dipshits around here have this idea that you can translate a mdb
    > > > > > into a magic client-server database.. by simply splitting it.
    > > > > > then they refer to the front-end and back-end
    > > > > > hence FE and BE
    > > > > >
    > > > > > technically; they're all full of shit.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > use Access Data Projects and keep your data and your queries in one
    > > > > > place-- a sql server database.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > spit on anyone that tells you otherwise.
     
  18. dbahooker@hotmail.com

    dbahooker@hotmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    rebutle?

    are you a native english speaker??

    my non sense?

    Access Data Project solutions don't require:

    a) indexing - sql does it automagically and its a LOT friggin better
    than any of you mdb script kiddies
    b) no front-end back-end BS
    c) you don't have to sync queries or tables every time your user opens
    their front end
    d) you have a LOT more power with SPROCS than you do with crappy little
    MDB queries.
    e) your queries (i am referring to views and sprocs collectively) don't
    crap out when you stack them on top of each other (try doing THAT with
    mdb)
    f) you have a 4gb limit per db instead of a 2gb limit
    g) you can STORE DATA IN MEMORY in order to make it faster. 1gb memory
    = what $50?
    h) you don't randomly lose data
    or
    I) you dont randomly have corruption
    J) no compacting and restoring
    K) you can still backup your database if someone leaves their app open
    at night
    (try doing THAT with mdb)
    L) i've got source control; versioning-- on my DDL. VSS against MDB is
    a goddamn joke
    M) i've got a thousand 3rd party vendors
    if MDB didn't SUCK BALLS then litespeed would have made a litespeed
    for MDB

    need i continue?

    eternal damnation on your mdb dorks; you should be ashamed of
    yourselves

    grow some balls and keep all your data in sql server.

    it's free; it's faster; it's better; it's easier

    it's better documented; it's more powerful; it's STABLE

    how many times have you had to rummage through a factory floor...
    asking people to 'please get out of their mdb files so that you can do
    some versioning? file maintenanct?

    why dont you STFU then kid

    goddamn script kids should be shot



    but hell; at least you're not an excel user..



    microb0x wrote:
    > Your moronic response doesn't warrant a rebutle. Any competent reader
    > will surely just scim past your non-sense.
    >
    >
    > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > so MicrodOrk
    > >
    > > what you got to say about it now?
    > >
    > > I am the rightful heir to the access name; you mdb idiots are a bunch
    > > of obsolete imposters
    > >
    > > why dont you mdb dorks leave my Access form; because i claim that this
    > > forum is now a MDB-free zone.
    > >
    > > Who in the hell do you think that you are; saying i can't complain
    > > about MDB?
    > >
    > > it's like.. in a Exchange 2003 forum; people complaining about shit
    > > regarding exchange 5.5-- of course im going to biutch up a storm.
    > >
    > > stop using obsolete mdb format and maybe i'll stop bithching about
    > > obsolete mdb files.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > If you are so against the use of .mdb files why are you even viewing
    > > > posts in a forum dedicated to MS Access? And your second worthless
    > > > response just re-afirms my comment about your ignorance. I guess some
    > > > people are just too dumb to be helped...
    > > >
    > > > If you were any type of a real developer in any corporate environment
    > > > you would know that there is a difference between a desired approach to
    > > > a problem and working with what is provided to you. A SQL server or
    > > > mySql may not be available to the original poster. Unfortunately you
    > > > are too busy showing us how robust your obscene vocabulary is to
    > > > consider things like this.
    > > >
    > > > Feel free to respond with another worthless rant, I've said my peace
    > > > and won't bother devoting any more of my time to exposing your
    > > > ignorance.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote:
    > > > > Microb0X
    > > > >
    > > > > I'll preach wherever I want. How dare you try to tell me what I am
    > > > > allowed to talk about.
    > > > >
    > > > > MDB are for sissies and you can eat shit.
    > > > >
    > > > > Grow up and use a real database, like SQL Server or mySql.
    > > > >
    > > > > My 'positive criticism' says don't use MDB files for anything; and
    > > > > you're a complete sissy if you use them for anything.
    > > > >
    > > > > -Aaron
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > > > Slanderous comments like yours below do nothing for proving any point
    > > > > > you attempt to make. This just makes you look more ignorant than you
    > > > > > claim others to be.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > If you don't have a positive critisism to make just keep it to
    > > > > > yourself. These forums aren't a place for you to get on your soap box
    > > > > > and preach to us.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > > > > > FE stands for front end.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > these dipshits around here have this idea that you can translate a mdb
    > > > > > > into a magic client-server database.. by simply splitting it.
    > > > > > > then they refer to the front-end and back-end
    > > > > > > hence FE and BE
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > technically; they're all full of shit.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > use Access Data Projects and keep your data and your queries in one
    > > > > > > place-- a sql server database.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > spit on anyone that tells you otherwise.
     
  19. microb0x

    microb0x
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I just noticed that you tend to rant about ADP in several different
    posts in Access forums. Always the same ignorant comments by you, the
    same insulting tone toward anyone who doesn't fully agree with you,
    maybe you should get a life?

    And if rebutle was too complex a word for you to understand, I truely
    pity you...

    I hope this entire series of posts has you all worked up and bothered.
    Because you obviously enjoy this.


    dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > rebutle?
    >
    > are you a native english speaker??
    >
    > my non sense?
    >
    > Access Data Project solutions don't require:
    >
    > a) indexing - sql does it automagically and its a LOT friggin better
    > than any of you mdb script kiddies
    > b) no front-end back-end BS
    > c) you don't have to sync queries or tables every time your user opens
    > their front end
    > d) you have a LOT more power with SPROCS than you do with crappy little
    > MDB queries.
    > e) your queries (i am referring to views and sprocs collectively) don't
    > crap out when you stack them on top of each other (try doing THAT with
    > mdb)
    > f) you have a 4gb limit per db instead of a 2gb limit
    > g) you can STORE DATA IN MEMORY in order to make it faster. 1gb memory
    > = what $50?
    > h) you don't randomly lose data
    > or
    > I) you dont randomly have corruption
    > J) no compacting and restoring
    > K) you can still backup your database if someone leaves their app open
    > at night
    > (try doing THAT with mdb)
    > L) i've got source control; versioning-- on my DDL. VSS against MDB is
    > a goddamn joke
    > M) i've got a thousand 3rd party vendors
    > if MDB didn't SUCK BALLS then litespeed would have made a litespeed
    > for MDB
    >
    > need i continue?
    >
    > eternal damnation on your mdb dorks; you should be ashamed of
    > yourselves
    >
    > grow some balls and keep all your data in sql server.
    >
    > it's free; it's faster; it's better; it's easier
    >
    > it's better documented; it's more powerful; it's STABLE
    >
    > how many times have you had to rummage through a factory floor...
    > asking people to 'please get out of their mdb files so that you can do
    > some versioning? file maintenanct?
    >
    > why dont you STFU then kid
    >
    > goddamn script kids should be shot
    >
    >
    >
    > but hell; at least you're not an excel user..
    >
    >
    >
    > microb0x wrote:
    > > Your moronic response doesn't warrant a rebutle. Any competent reader
    > > will surely just scim past your non-sense.
    > >
    > >
    > > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > > so MicrodOrk
    > > >
    > > > what you got to say about it now?
    > > >
    > > > I am the rightful heir to the access name; you mdb idiots are a bunch
    > > > of obsolete imposters
    > > >
    > > > why dont you mdb dorks leave my Access form; because i claim that this
    > > > forum is now a MDB-free zone.
    > > >
    > > > Who in the hell do you think that you are; saying i can't complain
    > > > about MDB?
    > > >
    > > > it's like.. in a Exchange 2003 forum; people complaining about shit
    > > > regarding exchange 5.5-- of course im going to biutch up a storm.
    > > >
    > > > stop using obsolete mdb format and maybe i'll stop bithching about
    > > > obsolete mdb files.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > > If you are so against the use of .mdb files why are you even viewing
    > > > > posts in a forum dedicated to MS Access? And your second worthless
    > > > > response just re-afirms my comment about your ignorance. I guess some
    > > > > people are just too dumb to be helped...
    > > > >
    > > > > If you were any type of a real developer in any corporate environment
    > > > > you would know that there is a difference between a desired approach to
    > > > > a problem and working with what is provided to you. A SQL server or
    > > > > mySql may not be available to the original poster. Unfortunately you
    > > > > are too busy showing us how robust your obscene vocabulary is to
    > > > > consider things like this.
    > > > >
    > > > > Feel free to respond with another worthless rant, I've said my peace
    > > > > and won't bother devoting any more of my time to exposing your
    > > > > ignorance.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote:
    > > > > > Microb0X
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I'll preach wherever I want. How dare you try to tell me what I am
    > > > > > allowed to talk about.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > MDB are for sissies and you can eat shit.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Grow up and use a real database, like SQL Server or mySql.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > My 'positive criticism' says don't use MDB files for anything; and
    > > > > > you're a complete sissy if you use them for anything.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > -Aaron
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > > > > Slanderous comments like yours below do nothing for proving any point
    > > > > > > you attempt to make. This just makes you look more ignorant than you
    > > > > > > claim others to be.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > If you don't have a positive critisism to make just keep it to
    > > > > > > yourself. These forums aren't a place for you to get on your soap box
    > > > > > > and preach to us.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > > > > > > FE stands for front end.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > these dipshits around here have this idea that you can translate a mdb
    > > > > > > > into a magic client-server database.. by simply splitting it.
    > > > > > > > then they refer to the front-end and back-end
    > > > > > > > hence FE and BE
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > technically; they're all full of shit.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > use Access Data Projects and keep your data and your queries in one
    > > > > > > > place-- a sql server database.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > spit on anyone that tells you otherwise.
     
  20. aaron.kempf@gmail.com

    aaron.kempf@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rebutle

    No entry found for rebutle.
    Did you mean rebuttal?



    grow some balls; lose the training wheels.

    mdb is for babies.

    compact and repair; splitting; and sync'ing queries?

    there is a better way; it is called ADP




    microb0x wrote:
    > I just noticed that you tend to rant about ADP in several different
    > posts in Access forums. Always the same ignorant comments by you, the
    > same insulting tone toward anyone who doesn't fully agree with you,
    > maybe you should get a life?
    >
    > And if rebutle was too complex a word for you to understand, I truely
    > pity you...
    >
    > I hope this entire series of posts has you all worked up and bothered.
    > Because you obviously enjoy this.
    >
    >
    > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > rebutle?
    > >
    > > are you a native english speaker??
    > >
    > > my non sense?
    > >
    > > Access Data Project solutions don't require:
    > >
    > > a) indexing - sql does it automagically and its a LOT friggin better
    > > than any of you mdb script kiddies
    > > b) no front-end back-end BS
    > > c) you don't have to sync queries or tables every time your user opens
    > > their front end
    > > d) you have a LOT more power with SPROCS than you do with crappy little
    > > MDB queries.
    > > e) your queries (i am referring to views and sprocs collectively) don't
    > > crap out when you stack them on top of each other (try doing THAT with
    > > mdb)
    > > f) you have a 4gb limit per db instead of a 2gb limit
    > > g) you can STORE DATA IN MEMORY in order to make it faster. 1gb memory
    > > = what $50?
    > > h) you don't randomly lose data
    > > or
    > > I) you dont randomly have corruption
    > > J) no compacting and restoring
    > > K) you can still backup your database if someone leaves their app open
    > > at night
    > > (try doing THAT with mdb)
    > > L) i've got source control; versioning-- on my DDL. VSS against MDB is
    > > a goddamn joke
    > > M) i've got a thousand 3rd party vendors
    > > if MDB didn't SUCK BALLS then litespeed would have made a litespeed
    > > for MDB
    > >
    > > need i continue?
    > >
    > > eternal damnation on your mdb dorks; you should be ashamed of
    > > yourselves
    > >
    > > grow some balls and keep all your data in sql server.
    > >
    > > it's free; it's faster; it's better; it's easier
    > >
    > > it's better documented; it's more powerful; it's STABLE
    > >
    > > how many times have you had to rummage through a factory floor...
    > > asking people to 'please get out of their mdb files so that you can do
    > > some versioning? file maintenanct?
    > >
    > > why dont you STFU then kid
    > >
    > > goddamn script kids should be shot
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > but hell; at least you're not an excel user..
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > Your moronic response doesn't warrant a rebutle. Any competent reader
    > > > will surely just scim past your non-sense.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > > > so MicrodOrk
    > > > >
    > > > > what you got to say about it now?
    > > > >
    > > > > I am the rightful heir to the access name; you mdb idiots are a bunch
    > > > > of obsolete imposters
    > > > >
    > > > > why dont you mdb dorks leave my Access form; because i claim that this
    > > > > forum is now a MDB-free zone.
    > > > >
    > > > > Who in the hell do you think that you are; saying i can't complain
    > > > > about MDB?
    > > > >
    > > > > it's like.. in a Exchange 2003 forum; people complaining about shit
    > > > > regarding exchange 5.5-- of course im going to biutch up a storm.
    > > > >
    > > > > stop using obsolete mdb format and maybe i'll stop bithching about
    > > > > obsolete mdb files.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > > > If you are so against the use of .mdb files why are you even viewing
    > > > > > posts in a forum dedicated to MS Access? And your second worthless
    > > > > > response just re-afirms my comment about your ignorance. I guess some
    > > > > > people are just too dumb to be helped...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > If you were any type of a real developer in any corporate environment
    > > > > > you would know that there is a difference between a desired approach to
    > > > > > a problem and working with what is provided to you. A SQL server or
    > > > > > mySql may not be available to the original poster. Unfortunately you
    > > > > > are too busy showing us how robust your obscene vocabulary is to
    > > > > > consider things like this.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Feel free to respond with another worthless rant, I've said my peace
    > > > > > and won't bother devoting any more of my time to exposing your
    > > > > > ignorance.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote:
    > > > > > > Microb0X
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > I'll preach wherever I want. How dare you try to tell me what I am
    > > > > > > allowed to talk about.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > MDB are for sissies and you can eat shit.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Grow up and use a real database, like SQL Server or mySql.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > My 'positive criticism' says don't use MDB files for anything; and
    > > > > > > you're a complete sissy if you use them for anything.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > -Aaron
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > > > > > Slanderous comments like yours below do nothing for proving any point
    > > > > > > > you attempt to make. This just makes you look more ignorant than you
    > > > > > > > claim others to be.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > If you don't have a positive critisism to make just keep it to
    > > > > > > > yourself. These forums aren't a place for you to get on your soap box
    > > > > > > > and preach to us.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > > > > > > > FE stands for front end.
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > these dipshits around here have this idea that you can translate a mdb
    > > > > > > > > into a magic client-server database.. by simply splitting it.
    > > > > > > > > then they refer to the front-end and back-end
    > > > > > > > > hence FE and BE
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > technically; they're all full of shit.
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > use Access Data Projects and keep your data and your queries in one
    > > > > > > > > place-- a sql server database.
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > spit on anyone that tells you otherwise.
     
  21. dbahooker@hotmail.com

    dbahooker@hotmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    IGNORANT?

    im not the {censored word, do not repeat.}nut that has to ask all of his end users to get out of
    the database in order to

    compact and repair
    version
    take backups

    im not irrational.

    im a militant Access Data Projects Nationalist.





    microb0x wrote:
    > I just noticed that you tend to rant about ADP in several different
    > posts in Access forums. Always the same ignorant comments by you, the
    > same insulting tone toward anyone who doesn't fully agree with you,
    > maybe you should get a life?
    >
    > And if rebutle was too complex a word for you to understand, I truely
    > pity you...
    >
    > I hope this entire series of posts has you all worked up and bothered.
    > Because you obviously enjoy this.
    >
    >
    > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > rebutle?
    > >
    > > are you a native english speaker??
    > >
    > > my non sense?
    > >
    > > Access Data Project solutions don't require:
    > >
    > > a) indexing - sql does it automagically and its a LOT friggin better
    > > than any of you mdb script kiddies
    > > b) no front-end back-end BS
    > > c) you don't have to sync queries or tables every time your user opens
    > > their front end
    > > d) you have a LOT more power with SPROCS than you do with crappy little
    > > MDB queries.
    > > e) your queries (i am referring to views and sprocs collectively) don't
    > > crap out when you stack them on top of each other (try doing THAT with
    > > mdb)
    > > f) you have a 4gb limit per db instead of a 2gb limit
    > > g) you can STORE DATA IN MEMORY in order to make it faster. 1gb memory
    > > = what $50?
    > > h) you don't randomly lose data
    > > or
    > > I) you dont randomly have corruption
    > > J) no compacting and restoring
    > > K) you can still backup your database if someone leaves their app open
    > > at night
    > > (try doing THAT with mdb)
    > > L) i've got source control; versioning-- on my DDL. VSS against MDB is
    > > a goddamn joke
    > > M) i've got a thousand 3rd party vendors
    > > if MDB didn't SUCK BALLS then litespeed would have made a litespeed
    > > for MDB
    > >
    > > need i continue?
    > >
    > > eternal damnation on your mdb dorks; you should be ashamed of
    > > yourselves
    > >
    > > grow some balls and keep all your data in sql server.
    > >
    > > it's free; it's faster; it's better; it's easier
    > >
    > > it's better documented; it's more powerful; it's STABLE
    > >
    > > how many times have you had to rummage through a factory floor...
    > > asking people to 'please get out of their mdb files so that you can do
    > > some versioning? file maintenanct?
    > >
    > > why dont you STFU then kid
    > >
    > > goddamn script kids should be shot
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > but hell; at least you're not an excel user..
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > Your moronic response doesn't warrant a rebutle. Any competent reader
    > > > will surely just scim past your non-sense.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > > > so MicrodOrk
    > > > >
    > > > > what you got to say about it now?
    > > > >
    > > > > I am the rightful heir to the access name; you mdb idiots are a bunch
    > > > > of obsolete imposters
    > > > >
    > > > > why dont you mdb dorks leave my Access form; because i claim that this
    > > > > forum is now a MDB-free zone.
    > > > >
    > > > > Who in the hell do you think that you are; saying i can't complain
    > > > > about MDB?
    > > > >
    > > > > it's like.. in a Exchange 2003 forum; people complaining about shit
    > > > > regarding exchange 5.5-- of course im going to biutch up a storm.
    > > > >
    > > > > stop using obsolete mdb format and maybe i'll stop bithching about
    > > > > obsolete mdb files.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > > > If you are so against the use of .mdb files why are you even viewing
    > > > > > posts in a forum dedicated to MS Access? And your second worthless
    > > > > > response just re-afirms my comment about your ignorance. I guess some
    > > > > > people are just too dumb to be helped...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > If you were any type of a real developer in any corporate environment
    > > > > > you would know that there is a difference between a desired approach to
    > > > > > a problem and working with what is provided to you. A SQL server or
    > > > > > mySql may not be available to the original poster. Unfortunately you
    > > > > > are too busy showing us how robust your obscene vocabulary is to
    > > > > > consider things like this.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Feel free to respond with another worthless rant, I've said my peace
    > > > > > and won't bother devoting any more of my time to exposing your
    > > > > > ignorance.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote:
    > > > > > > Microb0X
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > I'll preach wherever I want. How dare you try to tell me what I am
    > > > > > > allowed to talk about.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > MDB are for sissies and you can eat shit.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Grow up and use a real database, like SQL Server or mySql.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > My 'positive criticism' says don't use MDB files for anything; and
    > > > > > > you're a complete sissy if you use them for anything.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > -Aaron
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > microb0x wrote:
    > > > > > > > Slanderous comments like yours below do nothing for proving any point
    > > > > > > > you attempt to make. This just makes you look more ignorant than you
    > > > > > > > claim others to be.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > If you don't have a positive critisism to make just keep it to
    > > > > > > > yourself. These forums aren't a place for you to get on your soap box
    > > > > > > > and preach to us.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > dbahooker@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > > > > > > > FE stands for front end.
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > these dipshits around here have this idea that you can translate a mdb
    > > > > > > > > into a magic client-server database.. by simply splitting it.
    > > > > > > > > then they refer to the front-end and back-end
    > > > > > > > > hence FE and BE
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > technically; they're all full of shit.
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > use Access Data Projects and keep your data and your queries in one
    > > > > > > > > place-- a sql server database.
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > spit on anyone that tells you otherwise.
     

Share This Page