|
web
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Upgrading Access 97 application to dotNetI have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network ( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the ..Net world. I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but data tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the multi user capability. It must also be possible to transfer the application and its database to a standalone laptop for use in other locations. Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best match for VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access? Any advice on the best way to proceed would be most welcome. Thanks in advance. You can certainly use SQL Server for your data storage, but it may conflict
with your requirement that no "form of central database server" be used. SQL Server is a database server, as its name implies. Perhaps you mean that there will not be a machine set up that is solely dedicated to managing the database. SQL Server can be installed on any workstation and made available to other users. It sounds like your data interaction needs are simple, so this should work. There are some syntax differences between Access SQL and SQL Server SQL, but you will probably learn and correct those pretty quickly. Also, there is a little more administration involved in a SQL Server database; it's not just a single file like Access. But still, give thanks that you aren't considering Oracle (20MB minimum client-side install with hundreds of files. Boo. Hiss.) VB2005 includes an "upgrade wizard" that will convert your VB6 program to VB2005. It doesn't do a complete job, and sometimes not even a great job. But it will give you a start over writing it from scratch. I have a book that deals with developing database applications in VB2005 (see my signature below). But if your focus is on the database side, you may also want to consider the many good books by Bill Vaughn (the "Hitchhiker" guides). ----- Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 Show quoteHide quote > Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes. > > I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to > upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network > ( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the > outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has > approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large > amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a > suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the > .Net world. > > I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but > data tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the > multi user capability. It must also be possible to transfer the > application and its database to a standalone laptop for use in other > locations. > > Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best match > for VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access? > > Any advice on the best way to proceed would be most welcome. > > Thanks in advance. > Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no
server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited organisation. Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue.
SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, or as an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL Server Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file (similar to an MDB file) directly instead of through the normal server-based methods, but I don't know if that method would support multiple users. I've never used that file-based method, and I think it only applies to the Express version of the product. VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to continue with that data source. ----- Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 Show quoteHide quote > Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no > server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. > Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. > There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited > organisation. > You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it.
This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the restrictions. ----- SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments. It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is physically limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the installer doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to be "secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the install and you're good to go. ----- However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so easy to manage (assuming the database isn't huge). Robin S. ----------------------------- Show quoteHide quote "Tim Patrick" <inva***@invalid.com.invalid> wrote in message news:e3b4697630578c8e36ddd769512@newsgroups.comcast.net... > Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue. > > SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, or as > an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL Server > Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file (similar to an > MDB file) directly instead of through the normal server-based methods, but > I don't know if that method would support multiple users. I've never used > that file-based method, and I think it only applies to the Express version > of the product. > > VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to continue > with that data source. > > ----- > Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com > Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 > >> Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no >> server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. >> Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. >> There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited >> organisation. >> > > RobinS and Patrick,
Do you think that it is helpful to show people a wrong way of use of tools. kavsaks organisation is obvious afraid that he build applications in his organisation and now we are helping to brake those rules with all kind of bad advices. He just need to get his application running on his central organisation server. If not, then the organisation does not need his application. Just my idea maybe not so well written but I hope you understand what I want to say. If not I will repeat it. Cor Show quoteHide quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht news:kLSdncGlAP1_I-3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it. > This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said > you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the > restrictions. > > ----- > SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments. > It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is physically > limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the > installer > doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to be > "secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the install > and you're good to go. > ----- > > However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so easy > to manage (assuming the database isn't huge). > > Robin S. > ----------------------------- > > "Tim Patrick" <inva***@invalid.com.invalid> wrote in message > news:e3b4697630578c8e36ddd769512@newsgroups.comcast.net... >> Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue. >> >> SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, or >> as an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL Server >> Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file (similar to an >> MDB file) directly instead of through the normal server-based methods, >> but I don't know if that method would support multiple users. I've never >> used that file-based method, and I think it only applies to the Express >> version of the product. >> >> VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to continue >> with that data source. >> >> ----- >> Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com >> Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 >> >>> Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no >>> server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. >>> Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. >>> There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited >>> organisation. >>> >> >> > > My impression from the original post was that he had a VB6
desktop app with an Access back-end that he wanted to *rewrite* in VB.Net, and he wanted to know what we thought he should use for the database back-end. It has to be something he can take on his laptop, and the database must reside on the network server, but the server can't "run" database server software, like SQLServer. Are you saying that he should get his company to buy a server and put SQLServer on it? I thought he said in a subsequent post that that absolutely was not an option. So his other choices that I see are Access, or SQLServer Express. I don't see what's wrong with using Access as the back-end. I'm assuming they would upgrade it to the most current version, not use Access97. Please enlighten me on my misdirection, I'm always willing to learn. Robin S. ---------------------------------- Show quoteHide quote "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:euNOAgcFHHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > RobinS and Patrick, > > Do you think that it is helpful to show people a wrong way of use of > tools. > > kavsaks organisation is obvious afraid that he build applications in his > organisation and now we are helping to brake those rules with all kind of > bad advices. > > He just need to get his application running on his central organisation > server. If not, then the organisation does not need his application. > > Just my idea maybe not so well written but I hope you understand what I > want to say. If not I will repeat it. > > Cor > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht > news:kLSdncGlAP1_I-3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it. >> This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said >> you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the >> restrictions. >> >> ----- >> SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments. >> It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is physically >> limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the >> installer >> doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to be >> "secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the install >> and you're good to go. >> ----- >> >> However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so easy >> to manage (assuming the database isn't huge). >> >> Robin S. >> ----------------------------- >> >> "Tim Patrick" <inva***@invalid.com.invalid> wrote in message >> news:e3b4697630578c8e36ddd769512@newsgroups.comcast.net... >>> Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue. >>> >>> SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, or >>> as an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL Server >>> Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file (similar to an >>> MDB file) directly instead of through the normal server-based methods, >>> but I don't know if that method would support multiple users. I've never >>> used that file-based method, and I think it only applies to the Express >>> version of the product. >>> >>> VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to continue >>> with that data source. >>> >>> ----- >>> Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com >>> Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 >>> >>>> Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no >>>> server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. >>>> Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. >>>> There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited >>>> organisation. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > I think you read the postings incorrectly. He said that he can NOT let the
database run on the central server. Also, my advice included a continued use of the Access database with just an updated front end in VB2005. Without knowing the full specifics of his situation, all we can do is offer general advice and options. It is up to him to make the right choice. ----- Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 Show quoteHide quote > RobinS and Patrick, > > Do you think that it is helpful to show people a wrong way of use of > tools. > > kavsaks organisation is obvious afraid that he build applications in > his organisation and now we are helping to brake those rules with all > kind of bad advices. > > He just need to get his application running on his central > organisation server. If not, then the organisation does not need his > application. > > Just my idea maybe not so well written but I hope you understand what > I want to say. If not I will repeat it. > > Cor > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht > news:kLSdncGlAP1_I-3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it. >> This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said >> you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the >> restrictions. >> ----- >> SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments. >> It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is >> physically >> limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the >> installer >> doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to >> be >> "secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the >> install >> and you're good to go. >> ----- >> However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so >> easy to manage (assuming the database isn't huge). >> >> Robin S. >> ----------------------------- >> "Tim Patrick" <inva***@invalid.com.invalid> wrote in message >> news:e3b4697630578c8e36ddd769512@newsgroups.comcast.net... >> >>> Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue. >>> >>> SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, >>> or as an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL >>> Server Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file >>> (similar to an MDB file) directly instead of through the normal >>> server-based methods, but I don't know if that method would support >>> multiple users. I've never used that file-based method, and I think >>> it only applies to the Express version of the product. >>> >>> VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to >>> continue with that data source. >>> >>> ----- >>> Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com >>> Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 >>>> Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be >>>> no server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. >>>> Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. >>>> There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited >>>> organisation. >>>> Tim.
Exactly he cannot run on the central server, but he is not telling why. That was especially my point, it seems so strange to me. However feel free to answer what you want, I am not a newsgroup moderator or whatever, I only thought to bring it to your attention. Cor Show quoteHide quote "Tim Patrick" <inva***@invalid.com.invalid> schreef in bericht news:e3b46976309f8c8e3a82ab2f7dc@newsgroups.comcast.net... >I think you read the postings incorrectly. He said that he can NOT let the >database run on the central server. Also, my advice included a continued >use of the Access database with just an updated front end in VB2005. >Without knowing the full specifics of his situation, all we can do is offer >general advice and options. It is up to him to make the right choice. > > ----- > Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com > Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 > >> RobinS and Patrick, >> >> Do you think that it is helpful to show people a wrong way of use of >> tools. >> >> kavsaks organisation is obvious afraid that he build applications in >> his organisation and now we are helping to brake those rules with all >> kind of bad advices. >> >> He just need to get his application running on his central >> organisation server. If not, then the organisation does not need his >> application. >> >> Just my idea maybe not so well written but I hope you understand what >> I want to say. If not I will repeat it. >> >> Cor >> >> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht >> news:kLSdncGlAP1_I-3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >>> You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it. >>> This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said >>> you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the >>> restrictions. >>> ----- >>> SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments. >>> It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is >>> physically >>> limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the >>> installer >>> doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to >>> be >>> "secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the >>> install >>> and you're good to go. >>> ----- >>> However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so >>> easy to manage (assuming the database isn't huge). >>> >>> Robin S. >>> ----------------------------- >>> "Tim Patrick" <inva***@invalid.com.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:e3b4697630578c8e36ddd769512@newsgroups.comcast.net... >>> >>>> Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue. >>>> >>>> SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, >>>> or as an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL >>>> Server Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file >>>> (similar to an MDB file) directly instead of through the normal >>>> server-based methods, but I don't know if that method would support >>>> multiple users. I've never used that file-based method, and I think >>>> it only applies to the Express version of the product. >>>> >>>> VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to >>>> continue with that data source. >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com >>>> Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 >>>>> Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be >>>>> no server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. >>>>> Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. >>>>> There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited >>>>> organisation. >>>>> > > I guess that's really the question -- why won't they let
them do SLQServer? Maybe they don't have anyone who can support it. Maybe they don't want to deal with it. Maybe they're short-sighted. I worked for a company that used Oracle as their standard. A small business unit in the company wanted me to write them a desktop app with a database backend. It took a month to talk the Oracle people into setting up a database for me, and letting me write to it. They didn't want anyone else using the IT department's resources w/o having the IT department write the application, although they didn't have any manpower to devote to it. It was a dog-in-the-manger thing. The problem was the performance across their network was *so* abysmal, if I tried to write, say, 2000 records to Oracle, it took 40 minutes. If I tried to write the same records to an Access database on a local server, it took less than 2 minutes. My small business unit could not pay for having Oracle on a server that was geographically closer (and I don't think the IT group would let them), they could not get the network fixed (huge company, too shortsighted to fix the problem), and I couldn't run SQLServer. At that point, in order to make the application work, and my clients happy, I had to implement an Access database back-end. It had 50 users -- only a handful had update access -- and it worked fine. Sometimes you're constrained, and you have to do whatever you can do to make your clients happy. Robin S. ------------------------------- Show quoteHide quote "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:%23btES%23gFHHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Tim. > > Exactly he cannot run on the central server, but he is not telling why. > > That was especially my point, it seems so strange to me. > > However feel free to answer what you want, I am not a newsgroup moderator > or whatever, I only thought to bring it to your attention. > > Cor > > "Tim Patrick" <inva***@invalid.com.invalid> schreef in bericht > news:e3b46976309f8c8e3a82ab2f7dc@newsgroups.comcast.net... >>I think you read the postings incorrectly. He said that he can NOT let the >>database run on the central server. Also, my advice included a continued >>use of the Access database with just an updated front end in VB2005. >>Without knowing the full specifics of his situation, all we can do is >>offer general advice and options. It is up to him to make the right >>choice. >> >> ----- >> Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com >> Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 >> >>> RobinS and Patrick, >>> >>> Do you think that it is helpful to show people a wrong way of use of >>> tools. >>> >>> kavsaks organisation is obvious afraid that he build applications in >>> his organisation and now we are helping to brake those rules with all >>> kind of bad advices. >>> >>> He just need to get his application running on his central >>> organisation server. If not, then the organisation does not need his >>> application. >>> >>> Just my idea maybe not so well written but I hope you understand what >>> I want to say. If not I will repeat it. >>> >>> Cor >>> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht >>> news:kLSdncGlAP1_I-3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> >>>> You *could* put a SQLServer database out there and use it. >>>> This is from a post by David Browne back in mid-November; he said >>>> you could use SQLServer express for multiple users. These are the >>>> restrictions. >>>> ----- >>>> SQL Server Express is well suited to small workgroup environments. >>>> It has no connection limit or workload governer. Rather it is >>>> physically >>>> limited to 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 4GB per database. By default the >>>> installer >>>> doesn't enable remote connections to the database, but that's just to >>>> be >>>> "secure by default". You can enable remote connections after the >>>> install >>>> and you're good to go. >>>> ----- >>>> However, I have to admit, I'd probably use Access, because it's so >>>> easy to manage (assuming the database isn't huge). >>>> >>>> Robin S. >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> "Tim Patrick" <inva***@invalid.com.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:e3b4697630578c8e36ddd769512@newsgroups.comcast.net... >>>> >>>>> Gee, this doesn't sound like a technology issue. >>>>> >>>>> SQL Server does run as a service, not as an application like Access, >>>>> or as an extension of your own program like OLE DB and the like. SQL >>>>> Server Express does have a mode that lets you access an MDF file >>>>> (similar to an MDB file) directly instead of through the normal >>>>> server-based methods, but I don't know if that method would support >>>>> multiple users. I've never used that file-based method, and I think >>>>> it only applies to the Express version of the product. >>>>> >>>>> VB2005 continues to support Access just fine, so you're free to >>>>> continue with that data source. >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com >>>>> Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 >>>>>> Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be >>>>>> no server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. >>>>>> Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. >>>>>> There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited >>>>>> organisation. >>>>>> >> >> > > Hi Kavsak
I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I usualy find Amazon the best place. I would steer clear of the VB book by Tim Patrick though, I found it over-complex and not very well written. Also some of the examples did't work properly without a lot of playing around with the code. Good Luck Steve Ray Irwin kavsak wrote: Show quoteHide quote > Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no > server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. > Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. > There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited > organisation. That's funny. If you had actually ever read the book, you would know that
there are no "examples" at all. That's one of the main points of the book. The code presented in the book doesn't depend on short samples. It presents one large example that is built throughout the entire text. Just because we disagree on some decisions made by Microsoft, why do you find it necessary to specifically target my work with lies? ----- Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005 Show quoteHide quote > Hi Kavsak > > I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I > usualy find Amazon the best place. I would steer clear of the VB book > by Tim Patrick though, I found it over-complex and not very well > written. Also some of the examples did't work properly without a lot > of playing around with the code. > > Good Luck > Steve Ray Irwin > kavsak wrote: > >> Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be >> no server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. >> Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. >> There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited >> organisation. >> > I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I Hehe, nice one Master Programmer. Although didn't you say in another> usualy find Amazon the best place. post "I don't read tech books, I don't need to"? > I would steer clear of the VB book by Tim Patrick though I doubt you even read the book, you're probally just "Tim bashing"because he constantly demonstrates that you don't have any idea what your talking about when it comes to VB.Net > I found it over-complex Maybe it's because you're not a good programmer? Oh, and if you want toprove me wrong please post your real name, and some of the companies you've worked for. (Although I doubt you'll go into any verifiable detail if you even address my question.) Thanks, Seth Rowe Sorry I don't have any aliases :-( raj_pat***@asia.com wrote: Show quoteHide quote > Hi Kavsak > > I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I > usualy find Amazon the best place. I would steer clear of the VB book > by Tim Patrick though, I found it over-complex and not very well > written. Also some of the examples did't work properly without a lot of > playing around with the code. > > Good Luck > Steve Ray Irwin > > > kavsak wrote: > > Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no > > server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. > > Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. > > There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited > > organisation. That's pretty entertaining, MasterProgrammer. I doubt you've
even read Mr. Patrick's book. As you know from my postings, I've found it to be a very good book for people starting out in VB2005. Through the building of a complete application, it explains everything from data types to class inheritance, and shows how (and why) to implement it. Robin S. (not to be confused with Robinson or Tim Patrick) -------------------------------------------------------- <raj_pat***@asia.com> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote news:1165220125.322651.12480@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Hi Kavsak > > I recommend you look around for different books on the subject, I > usualy find Amazon the best place. I would steer clear of the VB book > by Tim Patrick though, I found it over-complex and not very well > written. Also some of the examples did't work properly without a lot of > playing around with the code. > > Good Luck > Steve Ray Irwin > > > kavsak wrote: >> Thanks for the prompt reply, but I really do mean that there can be no >> server. Using someone elses workstation is not an option either. >> Central data storage and individual database engines are mandated. >> There is a very large amount of paranoia in this grey suited >> organisation. > kavsak,
Your stated requirements are in conflict. You state: -you >need< to upgrade this application -you >want< to re-write in VB/C# Net -you >can't< run a central database server So based on your stated requirements, you can only port your VB6 application to dotNet and keep the data in Access mdb. You should be trying to persuade the decision maker to relax the requirement for no database server. SQLExpress 2005 would be perfect for your situation. One method is to list out all the problems of the current application (the reasons why they asked you to re-write the current application) and then match them with specific answers as to how a new configuration using a database server would solve them. Explain to them the cost (free for SQLExpress) upgrade path, expected performance changes, differences in reliability, limitations of Jet/MDB. For example: -Problem: Application is slow when 5 people use it at the same time -Answer: SQLExpress will improve performance because... Then describe limitations of Jet and Access MDB... -Problem: Access tables getting corrupted -Answer: SQLExpress is more robust than JET for multi user because... -Problem: VB6 application interface looks 'dated' or requires new functionality -Answer: dotNet provides new and updated controls, functionality and is designed to allow disconnected data, etc... So if the customer is not willing to entertain changes to the data hosting, I would question the need to re-write in dotNet if the application works as is. mg kavsak wrote: Show quoteHide quote > Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes. > > I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to > upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network > ( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the > outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has > approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large > amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a > suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the > .Net world. > > I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but data > tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the multi user > capability. It must also be possible to transfer the application and > its database to a standalone laptop for use in other locations. > > Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best match for > VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access? > > Any advice on the best way to proceed would be most welcome. > > Thanks in advance. On 1 Dec 2006 12:53:18 -0800, "kavsak" <stuart.ha***@btopenworld.com> wrote: ¤ Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes.¤ ¤ I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to ¤ upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network ¤ ( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the ¤ outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has ¤ approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large ¤ amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a ¤ suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the ¤ .Net world. ¤ ¤ I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but data ¤ tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the multi user ¤ capability. It must also be possible to transfer the application and ¤ its database to a standalone laptop for use in other locations. ¤ ¤ Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best match for ¤ VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access? Given the requirements you've stated I would stick with your Microsoft Access database implementation. Since you can't operate in a server based environment that would eliminate both SQL Server and SQL Server Express from consideration. Since you're already using Access you may as well stick with it instead of moving to another file based database. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) But he should upgrade to the most current version of Access,
not leave it in Access97. (Yikes!) Robin S. ------------------------------------- Show quoteHide quote "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote in message news:nt98n2p8i3c9gmcqubg5ec1i6ucvtd5bai@4ax.com... > On 1 Dec 2006 12:53:18 -0800, "kavsak" <stuart.ha***@btopenworld.com> > wrote: > > ¤ Hi. Not sure that this is the right place to ask but here goes. > ¤ > ¤ I have an application based on access97 and VB6 which I need to > ¤ upgrade. It has to handle up to 20 concurrent users on a Win2k network > ¤ ( to be upgraded to XP next year) which has no connection to the > ¤ outside world, but normally there are no more than 2. It has > ¤ approximately 150 tables with complicated validation rules and a large > ¤ amount of calculation. I want to rewrite it in VB net or C# with a > ¤ suitable modern database. So I far I have 3 weeks experience of the > ¤ .Net world. > ¤ > ¤ I am not permitted to run any form of central database server, but data > ¤ tables must (?) be held on the network server to provide the multi user > ¤ capability. It must also be possible to transfer the application and > ¤ its database to a standalone laptop for use in other locations. > ¤ > ¤ Can I use SQL Server in any form as this seems to be the best match for > ¤ VS2005 or do I have to continue to use Access? > > Given the requirements you've stated I would stick with your Microsoft > Access database > implementation. Since you can't operate in a server based environment that > would eliminate both SQL > Server and SQL Server Express from consideration. Since you're already > using Access you may as well > stick with it instead of moving to another file based database. > > > Paul > ~~~~ > Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:51:41 -0800, "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote: ¤ But he should upgrade to the most current version of Access,¤ not leave it in Access97. (Yikes!) Most definitely. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) 
Other interesting topics
Changing Color of Textbox on Hover
For loop variable date Manage DataBase Best Approach When Saving a New Project No Response Redirect but something like Response Forward? Disable sort on specific columns with VB.NET datagrid How do you start an assembly dynamically with constructors SyncLock Required? Changing Color of TextBox on Hover - With Correct Examples!!! Error in displaying data grid |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
