"Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
news:%23nObAiFPFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello All
>
> I hope these are appropriate newsgroups for my query - if not I would be
> very grateful if someone could tell me where to go!
>
> I currently have a peer-to-peer network of 5 PCs, all running W2K
> Professional. They are used almost exclusively for working on a pretty
> complex access97 database. One of the 5 PCs is used purely as a
> 'fileserver': this is where the 'backend' data for the database resides,
and
> 4 people work on the other 4 PCs which each has it's own 'frontend'.
>
> I am considering upgrading the 'fileserver' to a 'proper' fileserver,
and/or
> to having Windows Small Business Server 2003 installed on it, and would be
> grateful for any advice, thoughts, etc. about whether this would be
> worthwhile. We do not have any complex requirements (re remote access,
> etc.): the all-important thing is reliability and SPEED while working on
the
> access database application. Too often nowadays we get the egg-timer for
> 10-20 seconds on changing screens (while the underlying query runs).
>
> I have considered upgrading to Office2003, but am concerned that this may
in
> fact be slower that A97?
>
> I should add that we also have a shared ASDL connection which is used
> increasingly heavily now on the 4 PCs.
>
> I am also considering upgrading the PCs. They are all 12-18 month old, and
a
> mixture of P3s at 666MHz and P4s at 2000MHz, all with 256mb RAM. As far as
> speeding up the access97 application is concerned, I was wondering about
the
> difference a new P4 at 3000MHz and 512mb would make - as compared to the
> difference made by a 'proper' fileserver with Windows Small Business
Server
> 2003 installed on it.
>
> I hope someone can advise me with regard to investing on the current
setup.
>
> Many thanks
> Leslie Isaacs
>
>

"Dave" <no***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uvas8oFPFHA.248@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> my unscientific opinion would be to upgrade the cpu's and memory first...
> 1gb ram wouldn't hurt if the database is large or has complex queries.
the
> next thing i would try is upgrading network speed, 100mb or 1gb would
> improved access to the backend data.  after that consider upgrading the
hard
> drive speed on the 'server', then it's cpu/memory, and as a last resort
the
> server os.
>
>
> "Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23nObAiFPFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hello All
> >
> > I hope these are appropriate newsgroups for my query - if not I would be
> > very grateful if someone could tell me where to go!
> >
> > I currently have a peer-to-peer network of 5 PCs, all running W2K
> > Professional. They are used almost exclusively for working on a pretty
> > complex access97 database. One of the 5 PCs is used purely as a
> > 'fileserver': this is where the 'backend' data for the database resides,
> and
> > 4 people work on the other 4 PCs which each has it's own 'frontend'.
> >
> > I am considering upgrading the 'fileserver' to a 'proper' fileserver,
> and/or
> > to having Windows Small Business Server 2003 installed on it, and would
be
> > grateful for any advice, thoughts, etc. about whether this would be
> > worthwhile. We do not have any complex requirements (re remote access,
> > etc.): the all-important thing is reliability and SPEED while working on
> the
> > access database application. Too often nowadays we get the egg-timer for
> > 10-20 seconds on changing screens (while the underlying query runs).
> >
> > I have considered upgrading to Office2003, but am concerned that this
may
> in
> > fact be slower that A97?
> >
> > I should add that we also have a shared ASDL connection which is used
> > increasingly heavily now on the 4 PCs.
> >
> > I am also considering upgrading the PCs. They are all 12-18 month old,
and
> a
> > mixture of P3s at 666MHz and P4s at 2000MHz, all with 256mb RAM. As far
as
> > speeding up the access97 application is concerned, I was wondering about
> the
> > difference a new P4 at 3000MHz and 512mb would make - as compared to the
> > difference made by a 'proper' fileserver with Windows Small Business
> Server
> > 2003 installed on it.
> >
> > I hope someone can advise me with regard to investing on the current
> setup.
> >
> > Many thanks
> > Leslie Isaacs
> >
> >
>
>

"John Vinson" <jvinson@STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com> wrote in message
news:15gd51l9tvul21kskjpgcf1scn8136gd9l@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:32:03 +0100, "Leslie Isaacs"
> <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote:
>
> >Hello All
> >
> >I hope these are appropriate newsgroups for my query - if not I would be
> >very grateful if someone could tell me where to go!
>
> One place would be
>
> http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm
>
> There are quite a few tricks to improve performance in such linked
> systems. Key among them are keeping the path-filename short, and
> keeping a persistant recordset open.
>
>                   John W. Vinson[MVP]

"Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
news:%23nObAiFPFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello All
>
> I hope these are appropriate newsgroups for my query - if not I would be
> very grateful if someone could tell me where to go!
>
> I currently have a peer-to-peer network of 5 PCs, all running W2K
> Professional. They are used almost exclusively for working on a pretty
> complex access97 database. One of the 5 PCs is used purely as a
> 'fileserver': this is where the 'backend' data for the database resides,
> and
> 4 people work on the other 4 PCs which each has it's own 'frontend'.
>
> I am considering upgrading the 'fileserver' to a 'proper' fileserver,
> and/or
> to having Windows Small Business Server 2003 installed on it, and would be
> grateful for any advice, thoughts, etc. about whether this would be
> worthwhile. We do not have any complex requirements (re remote access,
> etc.): the all-important thing is reliability and SPEED while working on
> the
> access database application. Too often nowadays we get the egg-timer for
> 10-20 seconds on changing screens (while the underlying query runs).
>
> I have considered upgrading to Office2003, but am concerned that this may
> in
> fact be slower that A97?
>
> I should add that we also have a shared ASDL connection which is used
> increasingly heavily now on the 4 PCs.
>
> I am also considering upgrading the PCs. They are all 12-18 month old, and
> a
> mixture of P3s at 666MHz and P4s at 2000MHz, all with 256mb RAM. As far as
> speeding up the access97 application is concerned, I was wondering about
> the
> difference a new P4 at 3000MHz and 512mb would make - as compared to the
> difference made by a 'proper' fileserver with Windows Small Business
> Server
> 2003 installed on it.
>
> I hope someone can advise me with regard to investing on the current
> setup.
>
> Many thanks
> Leslie Isaacs
>
>

"Pieter Wijnen" <wijnen.nospam.please@online.no> wrote in message
news:#wHlBeGPFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Also, Upgrading the Backend to MSDE could be worthwhile...
>
> Pieter
> "Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23nObAiFPFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hello All
> >
> > I hope these are appropriate newsgroups for my query - if not I would be
> > very grateful if someone could tell me where to go!
> >
> > I currently have a peer-to-peer network of 5 PCs, all running W2K
> > Professional. They are used almost exclusively for working on a pretty
> > complex access97 database. One of the 5 PCs is used purely as a
> > 'fileserver': this is where the 'backend' data for the database resides,
> > and
> > 4 people work on the other 4 PCs which each has it's own 'frontend'.
> >
> > I am considering upgrading the 'fileserver' to a 'proper' fileserver,
> > and/or
> > to having Windows Small Business Server 2003 installed on it, and would
be
> > grateful for any advice, thoughts, etc. about whether this would be
> > worthwhile. We do not have any complex requirements (re remote access,
> > etc.): the all-important thing is reliability and SPEED while working on
> > the
> > access database application. Too often nowadays we get the egg-timer for
> > 10-20 seconds on changing screens (while the underlying query runs).
> >
> > I have considered upgrading to Office2003, but am concerned that this
may
> > in
> > fact be slower that A97?
> >
> > I should add that we also have a shared ASDL connection which is used
> > increasingly heavily now on the 4 PCs.
> >
> > I am also considering upgrading the PCs. They are all 12-18 month old,
and
> > a
> > mixture of P3s at 666MHz and P4s at 2000MHz, all with 256mb RAM. As far
as
> > speeding up the access97 application is concerned, I was wondering about
> > the
> > difference a new P4 at 3000MHz and 512mb would make - as compared to the
> > difference made by a 'proper' fileserver with Windows Small Business
> > Server
> > 2003 installed on it.
> >
> > I hope someone can advise me with regard to investing on the current
> > setup.
> >
> > Many thanks
> > Leslie Isaacs
> >
> >
>
>

"Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
news:%23nObAiFPFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello All
>
> I hope these are appropriate newsgroups for my query - if not I would be
> very grateful if someone could tell me where to go!
>
> I currently have a peer-to-peer network of 5 PCs, all running W2K
> Professional. They are used almost exclusively for working on a pretty
> complex access97 database. One of the 5 PCs is used purely as a
> 'fileserver': this is where the 'backend' data for the database resides,
and
> 4 people work on the other 4 PCs which each has it's own 'frontend'.
>
> I am considering upgrading the 'fileserver' to a 'proper' fileserver,
and/or
> to having Windows Small Business Server 2003 installed on it, and would be
> grateful for any advice, thoughts, etc. about whether this would be
> worthwhile. We do not have any complex requirements (re remote access,
> etc.): the all-important thing is reliability and SPEED while working on
the
> access database application. Too often nowadays we get the egg-timer for
> 10-20 seconds on changing screens (while the underlying query runs).
>
> I have considered upgrading to Office2003, but am concerned that this may
in
> fact be slower that A97?
>
> I should add that we also have a shared ASDL connection which is used
> increasingly heavily now on the 4 PCs.
>
> I am also considering upgrading the PCs. They are all 12-18 month old, and
a
> mixture of P3s at 666MHz and P4s at 2000MHz, all with 256mb RAM. As far as
> speeding up the access97 application is concerned, I was wondering about
the
> difference a new P4 at 3000MHz and 512mb would make - as compared to the
> difference made by a 'proper' fileserver with Windows Small Business
Server
> 2003 installed on it.
>
> I hope someone can advise me with regard to investing on the current
setup.
>
> Many thanks
> Leslie Isaacs
>
>

"DL" <dl@spoofmail> wrote in message
news:OKoXWYHPFHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I notice you mentioned Office2003, presumably inc. Access2003?
> If so and your Access97 db contains code there well may be a conversion
> process to be considered
>
> "Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23nObAiFPFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hello All
> >
> > I hope these are appropriate newsgroups for my query - if not I would be
> > very grateful if someone could tell me where to go!
> >
> > I currently have a peer-to-peer network of 5 PCs, all running W2K
> > Professional. They are used almost exclusively for working on a pretty
> > complex access97 database. One of the 5 PCs is used purely as a
> > 'fileserver': this is where the 'backend' data for the database resides,
> and
> > 4 people work on the other 4 PCs which each has it's own 'frontend'.
> >
> > I am considering upgrading the 'fileserver' to a 'proper' fileserver,
> and/or
> > to having Windows Small Business Server 2003 installed on it, and would
be
> > grateful for any advice, thoughts, etc. about whether this would be
> > worthwhile. We do not have any complex requirements (re remote access,
> > etc.): the all-important thing is reliability and SPEED while working on
> the
> > access database application. Too often nowadays we get the egg-timer for
> > 10-20 seconds on changing screens (while the underlying query runs).
> >
> > I have considered upgrading to Office2003, but am concerned that this
may
> in
> > fact be slower that A97?
> >
> > I should add that we also have a shared ASDL connection which is used
> > increasingly heavily now on the 4 PCs.
> >
> > I am also considering upgrading the PCs. They are all 12-18 month old,
and
> a
> > mixture of P3s at 666MHz and P4s at 2000MHz, all with 256mb RAM. As far
as
> > speeding up the access97 application is concerned, I was wondering about
> the
> > difference a new P4 at 3000MHz and 512mb would make - as compared to the
> > difference made by a 'proper' fileserver with Windows Small Business
> Server
> > 2003 installed on it.
> >
> > I hope someone can advise me with regard to investing on the current
> setup.
> >
> > Many thanks
> > Leslie Isaacs
> >
> >
>
>

"Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
news:eBIX9rnPFHA.1500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello DL
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> What do you mean by "there well may be a conversion process to be
> considered": what are the considerations?
> There is (are?) tons of code in the A97 db.
>
> Thanks for your help.
> Les
>
>
> "DL" <dl@spoofmail> wrote in message
> news:OKoXWYHPFHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > I notice you mentioned Office2003, presumably inc. Access2003?
> > If so and your Access97 db contains code there well may be a conversion
> > process to be considered
> >
> > "Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
> > news:%23nObAiFPFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Hello All
> > >
> > > I hope these are appropriate newsgroups for my query - if not I would
be
> > > very grateful if someone could tell me where to go!
> > >
> > > I currently have a peer-to-peer network of 5 PCs, all running W2K
> > > Professional. They are used almost exclusively for working on a pretty
> > > complex access97 database. One of the 5 PCs is used purely as a
> > > 'fileserver': this is where the 'backend' data for the database
resides,
> > and
> > > 4 people work on the other 4 PCs which each has it's own 'frontend'.
> > >
> > > I am considering upgrading the 'fileserver' to a 'proper' fileserver,
> > and/or
> > > to having Windows Small Business Server 2003 installed on it, and
would
> be
> > > grateful for any advice, thoughts, etc. about whether this would be
> > > worthwhile. We do not have any complex requirements (re remote access,
> > > etc.): the all-important thing is reliability and SPEED while working
on
> > the
> > > access database application. Too often nowadays we get the egg-timer
for
> > > 10-20 seconds on changing screens (while the underlying query runs).
> > >
> > > I have considered upgrading to Office2003, but am concerned that this
> may
> > in
> > > fact be slower that A97?
> > >
> > > I should add that we also have a shared ASDL connection which is used
> > > increasingly heavily now on the 4 PCs.
> > >
> > > I am also considering upgrading the PCs. They are all 12-18 month old,
> and
> > a
> > > mixture of P3s at 666MHz and P4s at 2000MHz, all with 256mb RAM. As
far
> as
> > > speeding up the access97 application is concerned, I was wondering
about
> > the
> > > difference a new P4 at 3000MHz and 512mb would make - as compared to
the
> > > difference made by a 'proper' fileserver with Windows Small Business
> > Server
> > > 2003 installed on it.
> > >
> > > I hope someone can advise me with regard to investing on the current
> > setup.
> > >
> > > Many thanks
> > > Leslie Isaacs
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"DL" <dl@spoofmail> wrote in message
news:ObtsbtpPFHA.3596@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> When I converted my Acc97 db to Acc2K there was a fair bit of
> amendment/recoding I had to do within the 'my new' Acc2k db. I would
assume
> there would be similar process to go through converting A97 to A2003.
>
>
> "Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
> news:eBIX9rnPFHA.1500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Hello DL
> >
> > Thanks for your reply.
> >
> > What do you mean by "there well may be a conversion process to be
> > considered": what are the considerations?
> > There is (are?) tons of code in the A97 db.
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> > Les
> >
> >
> > "DL" <dl@spoofmail> wrote in message
> > news:OKoXWYHPFHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > I notice you mentioned Office2003, presumably inc. Access2003?
> > > If so and your Access97 db contains code there well may be a
conversion
> > > process to be considered
> > >
> > > "Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:%23nObAiFPFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > Hello All
> > > >
> > > > I hope these are appropriate newsgroups for my query - if not I
would
> be
> > > > very grateful if someone could tell me where to go!
> > > >
> > > > I currently have a peer-to-peer network of 5 PCs, all running W2K
> > > > Professional. They are used almost exclusively for working on a
pretty
> > > > complex access97 database. One of the 5 PCs is used purely as a
> > > > 'fileserver': this is where the 'backend' data for the database
> resides,
> > > and
> > > > 4 people work on the other 4 PCs which each has it's own 'frontend'.
> > > >
> > > > I am considering upgrading the 'fileserver' to a 'proper'
fileserver,
> > > and/or
> > > > to having Windows Small Business Server 2003 installed on it, and
> would
> > be
> > > > grateful for any advice, thoughts, etc. about whether this would be
> > > > worthwhile. We do not have any complex requirements (re remote
access,
> > > > etc.): the all-important thing is reliability and SPEED while
working
> on
> > > the
> > > > access database application. Too often nowadays we get the egg-timer
> for
> > > > 10-20 seconds on changing screens (while the underlying query runs).
> > > >
> > > > I have considered upgrading to Office2003, but am concerned that
this
> > may
> > > in
> > > > fact be slower that A97?
> > > >
> > > > I should add that we also have a shared ASDL connection which is
used
> > > > increasingly heavily now on the 4 PCs.
> > > >
> > > > I am also considering upgrading the PCs. They are all 12-18 month
old,
> > and
> > > a
> > > > mixture of P3s at 666MHz and P4s at 2000MHz, all with 256mb RAM. As
> far
> > as
> > > > speeding up the access97 application is concerned, I was wondering
> about
> > > the
> > > > difference a new P4 at 3000MHz and 512mb would make - as compared to
> the
> > > > difference made by a 'proper' fileserver with Windows Small Business
> > > Server
> > > > 2003 installed on it.
> > > >
> > > > I hope someone can advise me with regard to investing on the current
> > > setup.
> > > >
> > > > Many thanks
> > > > Leslie Isaacs
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
news:OOOlsEAQFHA.604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hello DL
>
> Thanks again for your reply.
> Can I ask whether your db slowed down noticably after converting to A2K? I
> have read thia this is often the case.
>
> Many thanks
> Les
>
> "DL" <dl@spoofmail> wrote in message
> news:ObtsbtpPFHA.3596@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > When I converted my Acc97 db to Acc2K there was a fair bit of
> > amendment/recoding I had to do within the 'my new' Acc2k db. I would
> assume
> > there would be similar process to go through converting A97 to A2003.
> >
> >
> > "Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
> > news:eBIX9rnPFHA.1500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Hello DL
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reply.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "there well may be a conversion process to be
> > > considered": what are the considerations?
> > > There is (are?) tons of code in the A97 db.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help.
> > > Les
> > >
> > >
> > > "DL" <dl@spoofmail> wrote in message
> > > news:OKoXWYHPFHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > I notice you mentioned Office2003, presumably inc. Access2003?
> > > > If so and your Access97 db contains code there well may be a
> conversion
> > > > process to be considered
> > > >
> > > > "Leslie Isaacs" <leslie.isa***@gp-n85011.nhs.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:%23nObAiFPFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Hello All
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope these are appropriate newsgroups for my query - if not I
> would
> > be
> > > > > very grateful if someone could tell me where to go!
> > > > >
> > > > > I currently have a peer-to-peer network of 5 PCs, all running W2K
> > > > > Professional. They are used almost exclusively for working on a
> pretty
> > > > > complex access97 database. One of the 5 PCs is used purely as a
> > > > > 'fileserver': this is where the 'backend' data for the database
> > resides,
> > > > and
> > > > > 4 people work on the other 4 PCs which each has it's own
'frontend'.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am considering upgrading the 'fileserver' to a 'proper'
> fileserver,
> > > > and/or
> > > > > to having Windows Small Business Server 2003 installed on it, and
> > would
> > > be
> > > > > grateful for any advice, thoughts, etc. about whether this would
be
> > > > > worthwhile. We do not have any complex requirements (re remote
> access,
> > > > > etc.): the all-important thing is reliability and SPEED while
> working
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > access database application. Too often nowadays we get the
egg-timer
> > for
> > > > > 10-20 seconds on changing screens (while the underlying query
runs).
> > > > >
> > > > > I have considered upgrading to Office2003, but am concerned that
> this
> > > may
> > > > in
> > > > > fact be slower that A97?
> > > > >
> > > > > I should add that we also have a shared ASDL connection which is
> used
> > > > > increasingly heavily now on the 4 PCs.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am also considering upgrading the PCs. They are all 12-18 month
> old,
> > > and
> > > > a
> > > > > mixture of P3s at 666MHz and P4s at 2000MHz, all with 256mb RAM.
As
> > far
> > > as
> > > > > speeding up the access97 application is concerned, I was wondering
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > > difference a new P4 at 3000MHz and 512mb would make - as compared
to
> > the
> > > > > difference made by a 'proper' fileserver with Windows Small
Business
> > > > Server
> > > > > 2003 installed on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope someone can advise me with regard to investing on the
current
> > > > setup.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many thanks
> > > > > Leslie Isaacs
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>