Re: RADiest Client for SQL Server
From: Mike MacSween (mike.macsween.nospamplease_at_btinternet.com)
Date: 11/17/04
- Next message: Michael C: "Re: RADiest Client for SQL Server"
- Previous message: Michael C: "Re: RADiest Client for SQL Server"
- In reply to: Michael C: "Re: RADiest Client for SQL Server"
- Next in thread: Michael C: "Re: RADiest Client for SQL Server"
- Reply: Michael C: "Re: RADiest Client for SQL Server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:06:22 -0000
"Michael C" <mculley@NOSPAMoptushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:ugwzRxOzEHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Mike MacSween" <mike.macsween.zerospamplease@btinternet.com> wrote in
> message news:419af009$0$214$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>> OK, once again. The database and the client software to access it will be
>> located on a computer. One computer, located at the customers office. The
>> customer will look at a monitor that is connected to this computer, via a
>> 2 metre VGA cable.
>
> OK, I was taking into account this statement as being more solid than it
> obviously was. If that's the case then I wouldn't recommend a web page.
> "One day somebody might get access to it over
> ADSL (probably TS), but for now it's a single user no lan."
What is it about the words 'One day somebody might' and 'but for now' that
you find difficult to understand?
As for web pages being as good a client as Access front ends, just give me
the URL of one. And no, to be honest I've no interest atall in spending 100s
of hours wrestling with another new technology in order to give somebody a
web interface into a database that lives on the same machine.
>> I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. My question was perfectly
>> clear.
>
> Maybe you did it subconciously then?
Not sure if it was my id, ego or super-ego doing the typing.
> It's common for programmers to word the requirements for the project to
> fit their favourite tool,
yes, no doubt. I'm sure many posters to newsgroups do that. Maybe I should
do it in assembler. After all, that's another technology I've got no
experience of, so obviously better than the ones I have.
> which I find is especially common for access programmers.
It's also especially common for proper programmers to have all sorts of
preconceptions about what Access programmers do or don't do, or what their
capabilities are.
>> So you mean MDBs or ADPs. Bound or unbound forms? OLE-DB or ODBC
>> connection?
So, you clearly have great experience of Access and know it's limitations
very well. In which case, given that it's the only thing I know well, and
that there isn't time or inclination to learn anything else, and it will at
least _work_, which is the lesser of the the two Access evils? ADP or MDB?
You see to know a lot about it, so I am sure you will have good advice.
> Write the damn thing in dot net and be done with it. :-)
Why?
> It might be slower than access.
Oh good, that's a real recommendation.
> but you'll get a better end product
how better?
Micky
- Next message: Michael C: "Re: RADiest Client for SQL Server"
- Previous message: Michael C: "Re: RADiest Client for SQL Server"
- In reply to: Michael C: "Re: RADiest Client for SQL Server"
- Next in thread: Michael C: "Re: RADiest Client for SQL Server"
- Reply: Michael C: "Re: RADiest Client for SQL Server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
