I'm currently using Access 97 and need to upgrade for many reasons, the most
important one is that I have about 15 people who need to add data to my
database at one time. Is Access 2003 better at handling multiple users than
Access 97?

Not sure if one is any better or worse, but 15 users should be just fine on
either version provided you have a well-built database and you have split it
so the backend lives on a server and the frontends live on the user PCs.


Rick B

"DFIChris" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news9F01285-2C81-4F73-9013-(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm currently using Access 97 and need to upgrade for many reasons, the
most
> important one is that I have about 15 people who need to add data to my
> database at one time. Is Access 2003 better at handling multiple users
than
> Access 97?

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:15:04 -0800, "DFIChris"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I'm currently using Access 97 and need to upgrade for many reasons, the most
>important one is that I have about 15 people who need to add data to my
>database at one time. Is Access 2003 better at handling multiple users than
>Access 97?

What specific problems have you encountered with multiple users?

With proper database structure (a split database with each user having
their own frontend linked to a shared backend database containing the
tables), either version of the program should be perfectly capable of
handling multiple users. I don't think 2003 is any better than 97, but
I don't think it's any worse either - both are quite capable. The
specifications say that there is a limit or 255 concurrent users; in
practice, some thirty or so concurrent updating users, or well over a
hundred read-only users, should be feasible.

If you have multiple users sharing the same united database... well,
DON'T. It will NOT work well.

John W. Vinson[MVP]

DFIChris wrote:
> I'm currently using Access 97 and need to upgrade for many reasons,
> the most important one is that I have about 15 people who need to add
> data to my database at one time.

First make sure you have the database split. Second read up on data
record - page locking.

Adding records should not be a problem, but if they are editing records,
and even when you are sure you have the locking options set properly, you
may need to batch the files so all the updates are done at one time.

> Is Access 2003 better at handling
> multiple users than Access 97?

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Joseph -

I didn't split my database; that's my problem, I now understand.

What I don't understand is Irish Math. Does it work because 3 - 2 = 1???

Thanks for your help!

--DFIChris

"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

> First make sure you have the database split. Second read up on data
> record - page locking.
>
> Adding records should not be a problem, but if they are editing records,
> and even when you are sure you have the locking options set properly, you
> may need to batch the files so all the updates are done at one time.
>
> > Is Access 2003 better at handling
> > multiple users than Access 97?
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>
>
>

John, I didn't split my db; that's the problem.

To answer your question, when a user tries to leave a record after editing
Access sends an error message saying that there's not enough memory and that
the action failed. My user then calls one other user in the db, they log
out, and my user can save the data.

Thanks for your help and the information about the versions of Access.

DFIChris

"John Vinson" wrote:
> What specific problems have you encountered with multiple users?
>
> With proper database structure (a split database with each user having
> their own frontend linked to a shared backend database containing the
> tables), either version of the program should be perfectly capable of
> handling multiple users. I don't think 2003 is any better than 97, but
> I don't think it's any worse either - both are quite capable. The
> specifications say that there is a limit or 255 concurrent users; in
> practice, some thirty or so concurrent updating users, or well over a
> hundred read-only users, should be feasible.
>
> If you have multiple users sharing the same united database... well,
> DON'T. It will NOT work well.
>
> John W. Vinson[MVP]
>

Thanks, Rick. I didn't split my database, it's rickety. Now I know what to
do. Thanks for your help.

DFIChris

"Rick B" wrote:

> Not sure if one is any better or worse, but 15 users should be just fine on
> either version provided you have a well-built database and you have split it
> so the backend lives on a server and the frontends live on the user PCs.
>
>
> Rick B
>
> "DFIChris" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news9F01285-2C81-4F73-9013-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I'm currently using Access 97 and need to upgrade for many reasons, the
> most
> > important one is that I have about 15 people who need to add data to my
> > database at one time. Is Access 2003 better at handling multiple users
> than
> > Access 97?
>
>
>

DFIChris wrote:
> Joseph -
>
> I didn't split my database; that's my problem, I now understand.
>
> What I don't understand is Irish Math. Does it work because 3 - 2 =
> 1???

We started off with one Island and one people. We survived an number of
invasions, adding each to the Celtic mix. Then the English came to civilize
us (and make a few pounds in the deal). They left us with one island, but
divided into 26 counties of the Republic and 6 counties of the North. I am
hoping to live to see the day when we have a single republic with just
treatment of all our citizens and again build one country better than either
of the parts.

>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> --DFIChris
>
> "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
>
>> First make sure you have the database split. Second read up on
>> data record - page locking.
>>
>> Adding records should not be a problem, but if they are editing
>> records, and even when you are sure you have the locking options set
>> properly, you may need to batch the files so all the updates are
>> done at one time.
>>
>>> Is Access 2003 better at handling
>>> multiple users than Access 97?
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Meehan
>>
>> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math