Re: Access or SQL Server 2005?
- From: "analyst" <no@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:44:13 -0800
"Darryl Kerkeslager" <kerkeslager@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ycSdnVEnzbYrIp7ZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
While this may seem huge, once it is split up into tables and"normalized",
it may not be as big as it seems, and may grow much more slowly.
Excellent point. It should actually shrink quite a bit once "normalized."
Assuming you have a LAN for these users, the database will probably be
trivial. Don't go overboard - no need to spend a fortune, here.
I have a LAN, and DSL is distributed to users on a "need email" basis.
The cost is remarkably low for me, as I have a ton of software from
Microsoft, and piles of hardware.
Just working on what to do with it.
Actually writing a list shows me up to 16 users could possibly access the
database at once.
I think that means I need it to happen in SQL Server, unless Access 2003 can
get there.
I have multi-user lic. for...
SQL server.
Office Pro 2003
Windows Server 2003
Windows XP Pro
Can the users running Access, use a database stored on the server in SQL
Server?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Access or SQL Server 2005?
- From: David W. Fenton
- Re: Access or SQL Server 2005?
- References:
- Access or SQL Server 2005?
- From: analyst
- Re: Access or SQL Server 2005?
- From: Darryl Kerkeslager
- Access or SQL Server 2005?
- Prev by Date: access problem please i need your help
- Next by Date: Re: deleting records
- Previous by thread: Re: Access or SQL Server 2005?
- Next by thread: Re: Access or SQL Server 2005?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
