From: PW on
On Wed, 5 May 2010 13:24:15 -0400, "Arvin Meyer" <arvinm(a)invalid.org>
wrote:

>It is necessary because multiple users on the same front-end WILL eventually
>cause a corruption.
>
>A server is a standalone machine that stores and serves files. No one works
>on a server. That means in a 2 user situation you have 3 machines, a server
>and 2 PCs. If you are using a peer to peer network (only 2 machines) only
>one user should be working at a time (for terminal services). On a
>peer-to-peer LAN there can be 2 machines without a server, and both users
>can work at the same time.
>
>In ALL cases you MUST use a separate front-end, linked to the data, for EACH
>user. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. If you do not have separate
>front-ends you will corrupt eventually.

We do have the code seperated from the data. Multiple users are using
it on a LAN for the most part, some have a server.

I did not understand what you meant by " make sure that you
have a folder with a second copy of the front-end."

Maybe if you reread what I said it will make it through this time.

>
>I can't make it any plainer than that.
From: Arvin Meyer on

"David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9D6EE93A589E2f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.90...

> I think for this purpose, I'd go with hosted Sharepoint and use it
> to synch between databases. Dunno if that works reliably and
> efficiently with what's currently available (A2007), but what's
> coming with A2010 and Sharepoint 2010 with Access Services would
> serve the purpose quite well.

Sharepoint is more complex, and is not fully relational. AAMOF, only Access
2010 has any relational capability with Sharepoint at all. Sharepoint
hosting is also expensive for a small operation. There are no free
Sharepoint hosts. and the cheapest I've seen is $20 per month. A fully
operation Sharepoint server with licensing is $80 per month + $7.50 per
user.

In Contrast, a cheap PC running as a server with WinConnect, might cost a
total of $700 to $800 for up to 3 users. And just running Remote services
for a single user costs nothing.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.accessmvp.com
http://www.mvps.org/access


From: Roger on
On May 5, 11:35 am, PW <emailaddyin...(a)ifIremember.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2010 13:24:15 -0400, "Arvin Meyer" <arv...(a)invalid.org>
> wrote:
>
> >It is necessary because multiple users on the same front-end WILL eventually
> >cause a corruption.
>
> >A server is a standalone machine that stores and serves files. No one works
> >on a server. That means in a 2 user situation you have 3 machines, a server
> >and 2 PCs. If you are using a peer to peer network (only 2 machines) only
> >one user should be working at a time (for terminal services). On a
> >peer-to-peer LAN there can be 2 machines without a server, and both users
> >can work at the same time.
>
> >In ALL cases you MUST use a separate front-end, linked to the data, for EACH
> >user. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. If you do not have separate
> >front-ends you will corrupt eventually.
>
> We do have the code seperated from the data.  Multiple users are using
> it on a LAN for the most part, some have a server.  
>
> I did not understand what you meant by " make sure that you
> have a folder with a second copy of the front-end."
>
> Maybe if you reread what I said it will make it through this time.
>
>
>
>
>
> >I can't make it any plainer than that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

your original post talks of 2 people, now you're are talking of many
people, some on a lan, some with servers

lets go back to just 2 people
right now they have their own computer, with a frontend and a backend
MDB, correct ?

if you want them to both work at the same time, you need a third
computer to act as a server
that computer will have the backend MDB and 2 copies of the front end
mdb (one for mom and on for sis)

that computer can physically be at mom's house, sis's house or your
house
Arvin's link to http://www.thinsoftinc.com/product_thin_client_winconnect_server_vs.aspx
will allow you to set up this 'server' so that both users can RDP to
it and run their copy of the frontend

you could allow RDP to it to do backups, updates, etc
From: David W. Fenton on
"Arvin Meyer" <arvinm(a)invalid.org> wrote in
news:oLadndZyCpgOMXzWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com:

>
> "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D6EE93A589E2f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.90...
>
>> I think for this purpose, I'd go with hosted Sharepoint and use
>> it to synch between databases. Dunno if that works reliably and
>> efficiently with what's currently available (A2007), but what's
>> coming with A2010 and Sharepoint 2010 with Access Services would
>> serve the purpose quite well.
>
> Sharepoint is more complex, and is not fully relational.

Sharepoint 2010 has enough features to make it relational enough,
and where it's weak, you can implement triggers.

> AAMOF, only Access
> 2010 has any relational capability with Sharepoint at all.

Er, what? Are you saying the regular Sharepoint database doesn't
have it?

> Sharepoint
> hosting is also expensive for a small operation. There are no free
> Sharepoint hosts. and the cheapest I've seen is $20 per month. A
> fully operation Sharepoint server with licensing is $80 per month
> + $7.50 per user.

I haven't looked into it. I assumed it would be priced similarly to
Exchange Server, which is closer to $20/month for full service.

> In Contrast, a cheap PC running as a server with WinConnect, might
> cost a total of $700 to $800 for up to 3 users. And just running
> Remote services for a single user costs nothing.

I would agree that some version of Terminal Services is probably the
easiest to implement, but I'm not sure it's the right solution for
really small groups of users (like two).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: Roger on
On May 5, 8:27 pm, "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...(a)dfenton.com.invalid>
wrote:
> "Arvin Meyer" <arv...(a)invalid.org> wrote innews:oLadndZyCpgOMXzWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com:
>
>
>
> > "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9D6EE93A589E2f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.90...
>
> >> I think for this purpose, I'd go with hosted Sharepoint and use
> >> it to synch between databases. Dunno if that works reliably and
> >> efficiently with what's currently available (A2007), but what's
> >> coming with A2010 and Sharepoint 2010 with Access Services would
> >> serve the purpose quite well.
>
> > Sharepoint is more complex, and is not fully relational.
>
> Sharepoint 2010 has enough features to make it relational enough,
> and where it's weak, you can implement triggers.
>
> > AAMOF, only Access
> > 2010 has any relational capability with Sharepoint at all.
>
> Er, what? Are you saying the regular Sharepoint database doesn't
> have it?
>
> > Sharepoint
> > hosting is also expensive for a small operation. There are no free
> > Sharepoint hosts. and the cheapest I've seen is $20 per month. A
> > fully operation Sharepoint server with licensing is $80 per month
> > + $7.50 per user.
>
> I haven't looked into it. I assumed it would be priced similarly to
> Exchange Server, which is closer to $20/month for full service.
>
> > In Contrast, a cheap PC running as a server with WinConnect, might
> > cost a total of $700 to $800 for up to 3 users. And just running
> > Remote services for a single user costs nothing.
>
> I would agree that some version of Terminal Services is probably the
> easiest to implement, but I'm not sure it's the right solution for
> really small groups of users (like two).
>
> --
> David W. Fenton                  http://www.dfenton.com/
> usenet at dfenton dot com    http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

just wondering, what other solutions allow you to have 2 people share
the current ms-access application ?

terminal services ?

data syncing ? how reliable is this ms-access feature ?

hosted sharepoint ? how much would that cost / month ?
how reliable in the access2007 version ?
if PW's app, is pre 2007, s/he'd need to
upgrade

what other solution is there ?