More than one person manage the the front-end

[GenlAccess]

they _ARE_ ADP improvements.

If so, then they are also MDB and ACCDB improvements, and improvements to
any front end / client that uses the server improvements. Were the Oracle
improvements over the years also improvements to front ends that could use
them? If so, then MDB and ACCDB are now far more powerful than the impotent,
and obsolescent ADP.

When SQL Server gets more powerful-- ADP becomes more powerful.
That is one of the key benefits of ADP-- that it works with SQL
Server.

No more than other clients. Where can we get a pair of the glasses you wear
that blind you to facts about other DB engines and blind you to defects of
SQL Server? Are they adjustable as to the subject about which they blind?
There may be lots of subjects, if blinded in that way, would make many of us
happier (though wearing those blinders doesn't seem to make _you_ happy).

And Jet really doesnt'.

It does, has done so since the days was 16-bit technology, and also works
with a great many other databases, and now with some non-database data
stores. When you make such ridiculous claims, you would destroy your own
credibility if you had any (unfortunately for you, that is impossible, since
you long ago lost any credibility with outrageous and visibly, provably false
claims such as this).

The # of steps to bind a form to a sproc
(with 2 args for example) in Jet plz.
Because I can do it with what, one mouse click?

It's already been established here that no DBA who is competent and worth
receiving wages for database administration work would allow a pipsqueak
programmer (like you, for example) to create stored procedures in his SQL
Server DB. So it's been established what kind of DBA you are. Are you
determined to publicize your inadequacies?

We have seen your claims to certification before, little boy, but you've
never been able to provide the link to a Microsoft source to verify it. And,
we are all waiting eagerly to see you provide it and 'triumph over your
foes". If it's not available, maybe y' ought to ask ol' Santa for a Junior
DBA Kit for Christmas. That may not be quite as much fun for you as playing
doctor, but you really need the database help, even at the elementary level
of the Junior DBA Kit.

Gen'l Access

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

no, they are not really available to MDB / ACCDB users.

Can you write a common table expression, or a dynamic management view
in Jet?
Can you write a common table expression, or a dynamic management view
in Jet?
Can you write a common table expression, or a dynamic management view
in Jet?

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

uh, there are no defects to SQL Server, except the GUI in SSAS 2005
kinda sucks, but they fixed that in SQL 2008

you probably can't even spell SSAS lol

I'm a certified DBA, I've worked with larger, faster, more complex
databases than anyone in this channel, I guarantee it.
I was building 5 terabyte datamarts almost a decade ago

So why don't you STFU asshole?

ADP rocks, jet sucks
And you're the one that is blinded with your obsolete db of choice

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

plenty of competent DBA give their end users a development database to
write their own sprocs / views.
It's just a much better development environment, it's much simpler--
than using Jet.

Remember how jet pulls the whole table across the network?
There isn't a competent DBA in the world that lets you use Jet against
SQL Server.

and again, I don't need to prove to anyone, these people write letters
to my bosses, complaining about my swearing, so **** that-- I don't
need to give out any personally identifiable information.

But it's called libel / slander to say that I'm not certified.

thanks

-Aaron

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

Oracle?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Oracle costs a hell of a lot more than SQL Server, and it's not any
faster.
SQL Server is the worlds fastest, worlds best, worlds most popular
database.

You're a chumptard.. ADP works against 'gods database' and it's the
only database I need.

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

But it's called libel / slander to say that I'm not certified.

In that case sue me.

Produce a URL showing that you have Microsoft credentials or stop lying.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

 

[David W. Fenton]

Access 2.0 supported multiple concurrent developers, and they
learned that was not a good idea, so the Access team eliminated it
from MDB and, later, ACCDB.

Multiple developers working on a project is not the same thing as
multiple developers simultaneously editing a single MDB. In fact,
Access 2, Access 95 and Access 97 supported multiple users editing a
single MDB. It was only Access 2000 that eliminated that and
introduced the extremely problematic monolithic save model. I don't
know if eliminating simultaneous editing was the reason for choosing
the monolithic save model, or if it was simply the result of a
decision made for other reasons, but it's not a good thing, in my
opinion. You lose information and you have the annoyance of having
to deal with the multi-save dialog, which is quite a pain in the
butt if you, like me, often work with a bunch of temporary queries
open that you have no intention of ever saving. It's really annoying
to be editing a single form with 3 or 4 unsaved queries, and execute
a save of your form and have to unselect all your queries.

I think the main reason for the monolithic save model was that MS
wanted the Access project to be compatible with the VBA projects in
other Office programs. This whole move towards VBE compatibility
across the Office suite always made no sense to me, as practically
the only people who benefited were Access developers (who were most
likely to be working in the IDE of multiple Office apps), and they
ended up having to give up a lot of the benefits of their old
working environment.

I think the VBE as IDE surely could have been implemented in Access
without changing the save model, but MS in their infinite wisdom
sacrificed the priorities of Access developers for their larger
agenda. This was one of dozens of such choices made by MS in that
release, which I saw as blatantly hostile towards experienced Access
developers.

But nobody needs to read any more of *that* rant...

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

eat shit stalker.

I'm a certified DBA, I don't have to show you my association with any
particular employer (my certification is tied to an employer)

-Aaron

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

David;

Access 2000 is actually where they INTRODUCED multiple-developer
scenarios.

It's called 'Access Data Projects'-- in other words, a real mans'
database

-Aaron