Re: Access or SQL Server 2005?
- From: "analyst" <no@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:22:41 -0800
I recounted...
16 users could actually access the data file at once.
With 10 simultaneous users, you really ought to run a standalone
server, so have one machine with Windows Server 2003.
That does look like the best plan of all I have seen and heard so far.
If you have concurrency problems in an all-Access, you can install
SQL Server and upgrade the back-end data file to SQL Server.
I'm not sure if this means everyone needs to be an SQL client, or just the
server.
I have an Excel file that queries an Access datafile for customer ID. Is
this the same idea?
If it is, are there pros and cons that favor users running Access vs SQL?
(other than price - no object here)
THANKS!!
.
- 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: David W. Fenton
- Access or SQL Server 2005?
- Prev by Date: Re: how do u send an email using access?
- Next by Date: Re: Deleted column in a Table linked to 35,000 entries!
- Previous by thread: Re: Access or SQL Server 2005?
- Next by thread: Re: Access or SQL Server 2005?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|