Is adp or mdb better SQL Server 2005 front end?

[Guest]

I understand that one cannot do development in SQL Server 2005 through an
Access 2003 .adp (except maybe if SQL Server is in 2000 compatibility mode).
I've been doing it the SQL Server Management Studio. But I had assumed until
now that an adp rather than mdb front end for *users* is still the preferred
solution since this is still what adp's are specially designed for. Now I am
starting to think that MS sees adp's as archaic, and will not really be
supporting them going forward--that the Access 2003-SQL Server 2005
incompatibilities are more than a temporary hiccup. For example, I find that
Access 2003 treats SQL Server 2005 views as read-only even when they have
instead-of triggers and unique clustered indexes.

Is this right? Should I stick with an mdb with linked tables via ODBC?

Thanks for any wisdom you can offer.

 

[Norman Yuan]

Since Access 2003 was released long before there was SQL Server2005. It is
understandable that Access 2003 cannot be used to create/modify SQL
Server2005's server objects. However, this time thing was a bit different
from when SQL Server2000 was released (also after Access2000). Then, MS make
an Access SQL Server2K compatibility service pac quckly for the ADP. This
time, after SQL Server2K5, poeple simply avoided the topic of ADP with SQL
Server2K5 after SQL Server2K5 comming out, well, until MS Office Beta2
proves that Access2007 would still support ADP. But no SQL Server2K5
cpmpatibility pack for Access2003 for sure.

So, you can still use ADPin Access2003 with SQL Server2005, or even develop
new ADP, but simply cannot use it to do server object design, as you did
with SQL Server2000.

It is almost sure that MS would not invest into ADP any more. On MS Access
team blog, they recommended using MDB front end for new development (it was
last year sometime, I remember, then even no one knows if ADP would be
available in Access2007 or not, do not know if it has changed or not, now
that Access2007 indeed support ADP). If I were you, using MDB as front end
for new development seems a bit safer.

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

At the present time development in SQL-Server 2005 is unavailable from
Access. To develop you will need to do that in SQL-Server itself. I haven't
tried, but you could probably use Data Definition Language to do some
development.

Using an MDB does have several advantages (and a few disadvantages) with
SQL-Server. With an MDB, you can build VBA code that's usable in queries.
That is invaluable for reporting. For me, that's the decision maker. Even
when I built sophisticated ADPs, I still used MDBs for much of my reporting.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access downloads
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

 

[aaron.kempf]

NORMAN

DONT SPREAD MISINFORMATION STUPID JERK

That guy is just blatantly wrong.
He is a MDB-PUSSY.

MDB is for babies.
Spit on people that use it.

ADP is superior performance, development, security.. there is NO
BENEFIT to using MDB anywhere.


Access 2000,2002,2003 work GREAT against SQL 2000.
Access 2002,2003 works GREAT against SQL 2005-- from an end user
perspective. Development is a pain in the ass.. so develop on SQL 2000
and then move it to SQL 2005 for deployment.

Access 2007 is going to support SQL 2005.
Don't listen to anyone that tells you otherwise.

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

Arvin;

for the record; development in SQL Server Management Studio EXPRESS
comes with SQL 2005 Express.

Develop in SQL 2000, migrate to SQL 2005.. use SSMS instead of EM and
QA.

MDB has.. and i quote ZERO advantages to SQL Server.
The reason that Arvin uses MDB for reporting is because HE IS A PUSSY
AND DOESNT KNOW SQL SERVER.

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

Arvin

WHY THE **** DO YOU LIE?

ADP IS SUPERIOR, IT IS SUPPORTED IN 2005-- ANYONE THAT UPDATES AGAINST
A VIEW IS A ****ING RETARD ANYWAYS.

GROW SOME BALLS, LOSE THE TRAINING WHEELS PUSSY MDB SCRIPT KIDDIE

 

[Guest]

Thanks to both of you for your help.