Access 200x SQL Server 2000 Comparison

Hi All,
This might not be the right discussion group but I'm having diffuclty
finding documentation, so here is the question. My company uses Access 2000
extensively to create local databases to support some data manipulation and
conversion. Sorry I can't go into detail. Recently we decided to migrate
all of the applications to .NET and therefore it seems logical to migrate to
SQL Server, but other than MSDE the costs would be prohibitive, since we
currently have hundreds of Access databases barring a process change, which
is not likely in the near-term. Needless to say the challenge is defending a
recommendation to move to SQL Server.
Is there a documented comparison between SQL Server and Access other than
the obvious concurrent user, maximum physical memory and database size
advantages you gain with SQL Server?
Any help or guidance is greatly appreciated.
--
Thanks,
EE_DeveloperNone that aren't *heavily* biased towards SQL Server. We're working on it
though.
Regards,
Graham R Seach
Microsoft Access MVP
Sydney, Australia
--
"EE_Developer" <hfcd@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:708DBFC7-36CC-4000-B4AF-58C85E4085EB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> This might not be the right discussion group but I'm having diffuclty
> finding documentation, so here is the question. My company uses Access
> 2000
> extensively to create local databases to support some data manipulation
> and
> conversion. Sorry I can't go into detail. Recently we decided to migrate
> all of the applications to .NET and therefore it seems logical to migrate
> to
> SQL Server, but other than MSDE the costs would be prohibitive, since we
> currently have hundreds of Access databases barring a process change,
> which
> is not likely in the near-term. Needless to say the challenge is
> defending a
> recommendation to move to SQL Server.
> Is there a documented comparison between SQL Server and Access other than
> the obvious concurrent user, maximum physical memory and database size
> advantages you gain with SQL Server?
> Any help or guidance is greatly appreciated.
> --
> Thanks,
> EE_Developer|||Hundreds of Access database? It is most likely that many of those hundreds
Access databases have the same or similar table structure and can ans should
be merged. I cannot imagine a business need that many different databases
(if they are not designed duplicated), unless the business is huge one (not
the one that cannot afford SQL Server for $10000).
So, if your business really need many different database (say, 10 to 20),
and each has not too many user access, MSDE may serve your very well. OTH,
after careful analysis, those hundreds small database can be merged into a
couple of central database and you have lot of users (hsay, undreds, or
thousands) then SQL Server is the choice over Access. Take the time needed
to develop and migrate into account, the cost on SQL Server itself really a
very small portion of the cost. Even you do not go with SQL Server, you
probably still need to change the "hundreds Access databases" situation with
a few shared Access databases (again, not knowing your business's size, not
sure Access is still viable option, but possibility is there), the cost of
developing/transferring is far more than SQL Server cost.
"EE_Developer" <hfcd@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:708DBFC7-36CC-4000-B4AF-58C85E4085EB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> This might not be the right discussion group but I'm having diffuclty
> finding documentation, so here is the question. My company uses Access
2000
> extensively to create local databases to support some data manipulation
and
> conversion. Sorry I can't go into detail. Recently we decided to migrate
> all of the applications to .NET and therefore it seems logical to migrate
to
> SQL Server, but other than MSDE the costs would be prohibitive, since we
> currently have hundreds of Access databases barring a process change,
which
> is not likely in the near-term. Needless to say the challenge is
defending a
> recommendation to move to SQL Server.
> Is there a documented comparison between SQL Server and Access other than
> the obvious concurrent user, maximum physical memory and database size
> advantages you gain with SQL Server?
> Any help or guidance is greatly appreciated.
> --
> Thanks,
> EE_Developer|||Hi
The route through here maybe to use the new sql express 2005 (still in
beta) this is free and has quite a large db size limitation, as yet no
user count limit, this information could change in the future, but I
think the move here is to get almost everyone over to a SQL based
engine rather than access type storage. You will struggle to find any
documentation that is as Graham has said not biased toward SQL. I spend
a lot of my time moving access databases into SQL server, and my two
main selling points are performance and reliability. I use lines like
'After the upgrade you won't need me comming in to fix this anymore'
and I get the 'WOW factor' (if I deliver a new app I expect a WOW
that's so much faster than the old version). I know that this does not
answer your question but I can say that the move has always had a very
positive effect on the users who use the systems that I upgrade to SQL.
Its like driving to work in a Mini when you have a Rolls Royce in the
drive.
Regards
Alex|||Hello EE_Developer:
You wrote in conference
microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server on
Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:09:13 -0700:
ED> Hi All,
ED> This might not be the right discussion group but I'm having
ED> diffuclty finding documentation, so here is the question. My company
ED> uses Access 2000 extensively to create local databases to support some
ED> data manipulation and conversion. Sorry I can't go into detail.
ED> Recently we decided to migrate all of the applications to .NET and
ED> therefore it seems logical to migrate to SQL Server, but other than
ED> MSDE the costs would be prohibitive, since we currently have hundreds
ED> of Access databases barring a process change, which is not likely in
ED> the near-term. Needless to say the challenge is defending a
ED> recommendation to move to SQL Server.
ED> Is there a documented comparison between SQL Server and Access other
ED> than the obvious concurrent user, maximum physical memory and database
ED> size advantages you gain with SQL Server?
I would start with calculation of the company expenses on supporting those
hundreds of Access databases. Hundreds of them most likely have thousands of
duplicate data instances and hundreds of applications that synchronize the
data between them, which you need to support. Must be quite a nightmare,
thus possible to defend not only moving to sql server, but major rethinking
and redesign of the core processes.
Vadim Rapp|||tr65
"Vadim Rapp" <vr@.myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eix4gc7QFHA.3716@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hello EE_Developer:
> You wrote in conference
> microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
on
> Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:09:13 -0700:
> ED> Hi All,
> ED> This might not be the right discussion group but I'm having
> ED> diffuclty finding documentation, so here is the question. My
company
> ED> uses Access 2000 extensively to create local databases to support
some
> ED> data manipulation and conversion. Sorry I can't go into detail.
> ED> Recently we decided to migrate all of the applications to .NET and
> ED> therefore it seems logical to migrate to SQL Server, but other than
> ED> MSDE the costs would be prohibitive, since we currently have hundreds
> ED> of Access databases barring a process change, which is not likely in
> ED> the near-term. Needless to say the challenge is defending a
> ED> recommendation to move to SQL Server.
> ED> Is there a documented comparison between SQL Server and Access other
> ED> than the obvious concurrent user, maximum physical memory and
database
> ED> size advantages you gain with SQL Server?
> I would start with calculation of the company expenses on supporting those
> hundreds of Access databases. Hundreds of them most likely have thousands
of
> duplicate data instances and hundreds of applications that synchronize the
> data between them, which you need to support. Must be quite a nightmare,
> thus possible to defend not only moving to sql server, but major
rethinking
> and redesign of the core processes.
> Vadim Rapp
>