Access 2003 or other... 1

[Phantazmo]

Folks,

A few years (5 years) ago, I developed a database for a job shop using Access 97. It managed jobs, generated purchase orders and delivery receipts, maintained inventory, tracked costs ... ect ....

The shop is now growing, and would like me to re-de the database. The shop doesn't have the money to upgrade to a new version of the office package right now (Running '97).

Does it make sense to develop another database using Access 2003 and wrap it with the Access runtime using Microsoft Office Access 2003 Developer Extensions?

Actually, this leads to another two questions...

The only two "Office" packages I use are Frontpage and Access (2002 and 2003 respectively), can I install and use Visual Studio Tools for the Microsoft Office System with only Access 2003 installed, or do I need the entire suite?

Next question is, I've had purchased for me a copy of Visual Studio .net 2003 (lucky guy eh?). Would it make more sense to develop a standalone solution using Visual Studio, or develop using Access 2003? (there will be 25 users accessing the database at any given time, no more than 12 in concurrent sessions)

tia,

 

[psemianonymous]

Saying you wrote a .NET application gives much better prestige than saying you wrote one in Access, so for your personal advancement I'd recommend you use .NET. Writing your app in .NET does not mean you will not need Access--it just means you use a different frontend. You can still use Access/JET to store the data--or not.

If you don't know exactly how to use VS.NET, then the learning curve will be high. Good luck with that, etc.


I'd recommend you stick with Access 97 as long as possible. If your users are using it, then you should use it as well. The only problem with this is the possibility that it will be more difficult in the future to upgrade a Access97 database to an Access(2003+X) version, say, five years down the line.


I don't know about VSTO--but if that's the package that allows you to deploy a runtime-version of Access with your application, then note that there are installation hitches when installing concurrently with an existing Access installation.


Peter

 

[Phantazmo]

Thank you Peter,

That gives it some perspective. So, I could probably just build another database in Access 97 (or clean up the old one) and then deploy a .net solution as the front end for each user...

I guess it wouldn't matter what I developed the actually database in, as long as the frontend deals with it.

Much obliged.

 

[markphsd]

Another idea. If you are going to go to a lot of work, look at creating a adp w/ the sql server backend.

You can start with MSDE (microsft desktop engine (a small sql server)), which supports up to 5 connections conncurently. There's a lot of debate over what that means and how that affects performance, perhaps you can find some personal experiences on here.

SQL server might be a better solution if you are increasing the users on your system, and A2003 a familiar environment compared to A97.

I purchased the vs.net package. I'm not a trained professional,the learning curve was high.

Mark P.

Bleh

 

[Phantazmo]

Hmmm, twice now I've read the learning curve was high for vs.net. I'm looking forward to the project now...

What part of vs.net is the most difficult? Is it the IDE or how it drives development? Can you recommend any good reference manuals?

Back to your reference of MSDE, i've been playing around with MySQL for a little while now... I guess I could use that as the backend?

tia

 

[markphsd]

You could, but MS Access 2003 ADP file format is very fast with sql server. It was designed to work with sql server like mdb's were designed to work with jet. it is its native environment. using mysql, you might as well redevelop it in php or something.

Mark P.

Bleh

 

[Phantazmo]

Judging from what I've researched, and what I've read, you are correct. There are some 3rd party plugins that you can get for vs.net that allow access/manipulation of a MySql db, or you can use the odbc.net solution, which is apparently slow.

Thanks again Mark. I will play the multiple suggestions I've received and see which yeilds the best results...

tia