|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
Dev Shed Forums Sponsor:
|
|
|
|
#31
May 15th, 2003, 09:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Has anyone else ever noticed how when you have a computing problem with Windows, a lot of times the solution can be "kill this or that process"? If there's all these processes that can be killed with nothing but good side effects... what exactly were they doing to begin with? That typing problem I mentioned a while ago (where you're typing along in Word and keys stop responding) is caused by the ctfmon process. Kill that and your golden. Microsoft swears up and down that this shouldn't be relied on as a permanent fix because it's soooooo bloody important to other things in Windows. I have yet to have one ill effect from killing that worthless thing! Best I can figure, it doesn't do ANYTHING except provide some lousy "alternative input" functions like handwriting and voice recognition.....
Losers. Redmond is full of em....
|
|
#32
May 15th, 2003, 09:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
mttatkns,
I can only comment on what I've seen and that is literally hundreds of hp and compaq machines over the years. They are well known for random lockups, and poor performance. Whereas a similar, custom built pc using decent hardware, runs without problems. I could give you a laundry list a mile long describing the lousy hardware they use, and the crap they install along with windows. Perhaps linux handles the crappy hardware in an hp/compaq better than windows. a.koepke, I agree that Access is a piece of junk, especially once it starts to get big and complicated. We currently have a client that runs a nursing staffing business, their main program uses an access db. It crashes daily, runs slow, etc. The server they serve the db from has a raid array of scsi drives, 1gb ram, dual processor, etc., and only 10 users. We're trying to get them to upgrade to the sql server database.
__________________
The Dude I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. That, or Duder, His Dudeness, Or El Duderino. If, you know, you're not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
#33
May 15th, 2003, 01:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Why Sql Server? For 1/20th of what you'd pay for an MSSQL installation with the "per-processor" licensing structure (unlimited client access), you could get the dbExperts PostgreSQL for windows (it's not REALLY native to Windows like they claim, but the cygwin setup is so clean you wouldn't even know about it unless you were a techie who could recognize it) and you'd be set. They have similar levels of performance and functionality (personally, I think Postgres is better, but they're pretty close so you'll want to compare them yourself), the installation is fast and painless, and, if you want, you can continue to work the data through Access frontends if you take the time to build the database properly and put a little bit of "glue" in place to handle the way Access breaks some of the basic standards. And heck, with the iron on that server, there'd definitely be no need to upgrade the hardware for Postgres (a distinct possibility for Sql Server in the event that the userbase starts to grow too quickly).
|
|
#34
May 15th, 2003, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Believe me it isn't my favorite choice but their application either works with an Access db or MSSQL. This is an application they bought from a vendor, and I have no desire to try and rewrite it for another db.
I actually misspoke when I said we are trying to get them to upgrade. The vendor wants them to upgrade, we just said it would be a good idea to get away from access.
|
|
#35
May 15th, 2003, 02:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It actually wouldn't take that much work if the vendor did a half decent job with the database interface (big if...), but I can understand your aprehension. I'd say squeeze the vendor's nuts to get them to provide a more flexible version... but that's me and I'm mean
|
|
#36
May 15th, 2003, 02:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
YourDudeNess
Quote:
Why not Firebird?
__________________
~ Joe Penn
|
|
#38
May 15th, 2003, 03:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I just wanted to see him retype that... Don't mind me, Matrix Reloaded pissed me off and I am burnt a little right now...
|
|
#39
May 15th, 2003, 07:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What you could do is use MS Access still but have it link to tables on a PostgreSQL or Firebird DB. The software still links to Access but it doesnt do any of the data storage. I doubt the speed would be degraded much by doing this.
__________________
- Andreas Koepke Links: 
|
|
#40
May 15th, 2003, 08:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Andreas:
Quote:
ROFL what is it with people not reading this thread through? Actually, I didn't get a chance to play with that before the trial (30 days) expired. I couldn't manage to get the stinkin' Perl module compiled under Windoze with Visual Studio 6. However, this is the route I plan on going within the next 6 months or so, so I'll letch'all know how well it does/n't work.
|
|
| Viewing: Dev Shed Forums > Other > Dev Shed Lounge > Notepad Munged... I can prove it |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
 |
|
|
Del.icio.us
Digg
Google
Spurl
Blink
Furl
Simpy
Y! MyWeb
Linear Mode
