aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote:
> that is not true, Jamie.
>
> MSDE 2.0 has no real hard governor; I believe.
I told it as stright as I could: after five concurrent users MSDE
degrades gracefully but repidly.
You are correct not to take my word for it; I suggest you google for
MSDE "five users" OR "5 users"
Jamie.
--
aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote:
> MDB is free; but still crap-- much like Excel.
How dare you!! Excel is *NOT* free!
> I've been to 30 companies
> over the past 7 years
Kicked from pillar to post ... (sorry old bean, I could resist).
Jamie.
--
MDB/ADP is free, Access runtime.. Excel doesnt have a runtime, does it
lol
I dont believe that the governor is quite as strong as you thought. In
MSDE 1, it was a very rigid limit-- in MSDE 2 (SQL 2000) it is a lot
more relaxed.
sum young, go and play with your spreadsheets little kid.. access
trumps excel any day of the week. it is better to place your bets on
SQL Server than MDB.
woud you rather make a report once and run it with different
parameters; or cut and paste 10,000 rows around?
i mean seirously
aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>MDB/ADP is free, Access runtime.. Excel doesnt have a runtime, does it
....
And you can create MDB or ADP databases using just the Access runtime?
>woud you rather make a report once and run it with different
>parameters; or cut and paste 10,000 rows around?
If one were making reports . . . but is making reports the only thing
you believe businesses do?
yes, making reports is all that you idiots do.
but you guys dont even know how to do it.
lol
what do you do, enter data into spreadsheets?
what a waste of time... i mean; there is no REAL validation in Excel
multiple users can't use Excel at the same time
what a joke.. i just cant' believe that you guys still actually use a
program that was passe in 1995.
-aaron
aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>yes, making reports is all that you idiots do.
How little you know . . . or understand.
aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
....
>i forgot.. you do all this complex math.. stuff that is WAY too complex
>for a database lol
OK, if it's so easy to do general math in databases, show us, Oh great
sage, how to generate all permutations of, say, 8 distinct tokens using
SQL queries.
Or show us how to calculate fitted coefficients of polynomial
regression curves.
Or how to calculate the FFT of time series data.
>it's time to wake up kids.. Excel is a total PITA for many reasons:
>
>a) 65k row limit
Only if you're misusing Excel as a database. There *are* things Excel
does poorly. Excel makes a much worse data store than databases. As
I've stated before, if you're using more than a few thousand rows, you
shouldn't be using Excel. If anyone needs data tables spanning more
than 65,535 records (yes, 2^16-1) *and* one doesn't have a database,
those tables should be stored in plain text files, and Excel should
fetch the data it needs from those files using MSFT Query or
SQL.REQUEST and the ODBC driver for text files.
>b) only single user functionality
Depending on what one's doing, that may be what's wanted & needed. It
*IS* possible for multiple users to access *closed* XLS files as dumb
data stores. If one needs to perform calculations, it's not unlikely
different users would want to perform different calculations, so the
need for multiple user functionality isn't obvious. At least not when
using spreadsheets for what they're best at doing.
There's also the quibble that separate memory images on different
users' PCs of the same XLT or XLS file isn't all that much different
than separate memory images on different users' PCs of the same
temporary database tables.
>c) lack of parameters
Here's you're demonstrating your ignorance. Well-designed spreadsheets
present users with screens (worksheets or user forms, aka dialogs)
prompting for parameters. There's also defined names and values loaded
from environment variables via Auto_Open macros or Workbook_Open
events.
>d) inability to have REAL data validation
As in Data > Validation, agreed - that feature is WEAK! However,
there's always the old fashioned way - allow any users entries but use
formulas to validate those entries. A few defined names referring to
formulas that check for valid entries coupled with Change, Calculate
and Deactivate event handlers is all that's needed. It may require more
programming effort than database validation, but 'inability' is
incorrect.
>e) it requires that you have formulas in hundreds of different cells
So? That's how spreadsheets work. It's not all that difficult to check
that all formulas in a given range have the same formula 'template',
i.e., that they're identical in R1C1 referencing mode. Formulas also
allow auditors to validate how every value in spreadsheet files other
than constants is produced.
>f) no real printing functionality
Here you must mean reporting functionality with grouping and section
breaks. Agreed. Excel isn't ideal as a reporting tool. However, Excel
isn't used exclusively to generate reports even if your wee tiny brain
can't grasp what these other tasks might be.
>g) no real exporting functionality (Microsoft Document Imaging doesnt
>count since they have changed standards after MDI into their 'real PDF
>killer')
See (f).
>h) inability to reuse your applications.. you have to recopy your
>spreadsheets
....
Depends on what you mean by reuse. The average Excel user may reinvent
the wheel over and over again, but more advanced Excel users have
libraries of Excel formulas and data structures that they can reuse
(yes, by copy & paste). There are also XLT template files. You may
consider XLS files generated from XLT files as multiple copies, but
sensible people would consider them necessarily multiple instances of
the same thing, in much the same way different programs would have
their own instances of object classes.
It's also possible to design Excel models to use shared, read-only XLS
files as black box back ends in conjunction with multiple instances of
template front end workbooks. It takes some nontrivial event
programming, but it's not impossible.
>You guys are a dime a dozen; you dont do real math.
....
You do? Adding or subtracting billions of numbers is math, but it isn't
sophisticated, only tediously repetitious.
Have you ever generated descriptive statistics? Do you even know what
descriptive statistics are? Do you know how to model default or call
risk on corporate bond portfolios? Do you know how to perform what-if
analysis on project NPV using simulated variable factor costs and
market demand?
Or do you just know how to build queries like
SELECT *
FROM WhatAaronUnderstands;
and work with NULL results?
aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>listen dude.. the problem with Excel is that you DO have 10 formulas
>per calculation.
I didn't mention formulas per calculation. Sometimes that's the case,
but there are some types of analysis that require a lot of calculations
to return a given result. Linear regression is one such type. One
formula on N+K entries necessarily performs O(N^3+K) underlying
calculations.
>it is much more efficient to have these as set based operations--
>instead of having hundreds and hundreds of lines of unnneeded formulas.
If set operations would work. You don't get it about order-dependent
and recursive algorithms. There are things set based operations can't
do without a LOT of contortions. Generally, it's easier to make
procedural and functional languages provide set based operations than
to make set oriented languages like SQL provide order-dependent and
recursive referencing.
If you don't believe me, go on and write a permutation generator in SQL.
aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>hahahah yeah how funny.. you ***** about having to recreate the wheel
>WHEN YOU MAKE THE EXACT SAME SPREADSHEET 3 TIMES PER WEEK WITH
>DIFFERENT DATA
....
How little you know (or are capable of learning). Are all of your
tables completely normalized? No duplicate entries anywhere? Do you
know the relative cost of eliminating *ALL* duplication vs allowing a
little bit of duplication?
If you mean I use workbooks based on the same template (all the labels
and formulas but no data), in which other people have entered different
customers' data then saved multiple different workbooks with different
customer's data in each, then you're right. But, since you seem
incapable of understanding this, that's analagous to running the same
parametrized query with different parameter values. The workbooks
*SHOULD* *BE* exactly the same except for the entered data AND the
formula results.
>all im saying is that you LAWYERS and 'ANALYSTS (GAG)' could be more
>efficient if you built a reliable, scalable solution from the ground
>up.
....
How? (Rhetorical question, the answer is obviously 'No') Do you have
any idea how securities lawyers create the filings necessary for equity
or debt offerings? Do you believe every single client of theirs fits
into a single cookie-cutter model? Same for financial analysts.
Different clients have different characteristics. Maybe a single,
highly parametrized approach could be developed, costing $ millions,
but lawyers are smarter than you. They don't waste either their time or
money on pointless generalization when tools exist to create what they
need in hours rather than months. Even if they have to recreate the
hours of work for each customer, that's still cheaper than building
general systems.
>im talking about MSDE/SQL Server-- im talking about letting you guys
>actually DO SOMETHING instead of spinning your wheels recreating the
>same spreadsheet 3 times per week
....
To repeat yet again, for anyone who works for a company that doesn't
use SQL Server and gives most of their employees Office Standard rather
than Office Professional, your ranting is completely irrelevant. Those
people won't have SQL Server and they won't have Access. Some other
people may have Access but not SQL Server, and unless their IT
departments either installed MSDE for them or give them Office CDs
(both are extremely unlikely), those other people can't do squat with
MSDE or SQL Server.
You've deluded yourself into thinking that most business PC users have
access to these software packages. WRONG!
>every software in the world can interface with Access.. it's called
>ODBC.. and it friggin ROCKS. Excel is just a poor repository for data.
Yes, but without MSDE or SQL Server, Access only provides MDB
databases, no? And what have you said about MDB databases? When are you
gonna pull your head out?
>It's not all about off the shelf products. Those never work like you
>need them to.
....
Maybe not exactly like you need them to, but close enough that they're
ready to use AT MUCH LOWER COST than screwing around reinventing their
functionality in an rdbms.
>what i still dont understand.. mr Harlan KNOW IT ALL
>is WHAT IS THE OP SUPPOSED TO DO TO GET AROUND THE 64K LIMIT?
....
As I've said before, use a database. For anyone who need to manage
thousands or records of data, spreadsheets aren't the best tool to use.
However, you're the one claiming databases can do EVERYTHING
spreadsheets can and more efficiently. There you're dead wrong. Large
amounts of data with a few simple calculations (such as the ATMs you
keep bringing up), databases are best. Small amounts of data with lots
or complex calculations, spreadsheets are much better than databases
(though there may be even better software to use, but few people would
have such alternatives or know how to use them). Large amounts of data
and lots of complex calculations, mainframes running SAS or SPSS would
probably be best, and comparable stats packages on PC if no access to
mainframes.
>it's the difference between using a bicycle vs a 4x4. Databases can go
>ANYWHERE and bicycles CAN'T GO ANYWHERE FAST ENOUGH
....
Nice analogy. I suppose that makes Oracle the analog to freight trains
and DB/2 supertankers and container ships.
If you need to travel long distances carrying lots of stuff (and you
don't need to maneuver much), you have access to more power. On the
other hand, if you don't have much to carry and you want to move
between the trees in a thick forest or travel through narrow streets
with lots of pedestrians, the bike would be the better vehicle. Not
everyone needs to carry tons of data to go where they want to go.
>I can automate you out of a job in an HOUR
Go on. Spend and hour and then show us all how a permutation generator
can be implemented in an rdbms.
Pure BS! You know nothing except a little bit about a handful of
different databases. You seem to think that's more important than
knowing how to sell product or manage people. If you could ever pull
your head out of your backside, the fresh air might be enough to allow
your brain to begin functioning.
>Excel is a total waste of time; the formulas aren't powerful enough--
>it is a dead end street.. and it's basically impossible to automate.
No, it's only impossible for *YOU* to automate because you're incapable
of learning how to use it efficiently.
>A HUNDRED BILLION PAGES OF EXCEL VBA CANT BE WRONG CAN IT?
>
>actually.. yes-- it can be wrong. go ahead and record your macros--
>rely on a house of cards if you want.
....
And no one has ever made any mistakes using databases. ??!
>i just know from first hand experience.. that there are TOO MANY
>INDIANS AND NOT ENOUGH CHIEFS. Too many soldiers and not enough tanks.
You don't understand your place in the grand scheme of things. Those of
use with jobs that involve daily customer interaction, we're maybe the
infantry. Your kind are rear area latrine diggers, not tank crew.
Still, your kind performs necessary and useful tasks, but the average
infantry soldier would prefer a collapsible shovel that he can carry
along with weapon, ammunition and rations to trying to carry a backhoe
on his back, and driving around in a backhow makes one more of a target
than a soldier.
>Learn to move data around on a schedule.. WITHOUT WRITING A SINGLE LINE
>OF CODE
....
And how does one do that if most of the data one needs comes from
customers via e-mail?
>YOUR MATH IS NOT TOO COMPLEX FOR DATABASES JACKASS
If only you could PROVE that. All you seem to be able to do is just SAY
databases can do things I've already provided detailed instructions for
doing in Excel. Those instructions are brief because the tasks are so
simple to do in Excel. If they're so simple to do in Excel, wouldn't
they be even simpler to do in databases? That so, EVEN YOU could figure
out how to do them them post the instructions here in order to show me
how stupid I am.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to thoroughly humiliate me. But
feel free to try.
any IT person that prevents you from installing an OFFICE COMPONENT
should be shot. I swear to god.. JUST WALK AWAY FROM ANY COMPANY THAT
WONT GIVE YOU YOUR OWN OFFICE DISK.
I mean-- you spend; what.. 50% of your time in outlook, excel and word?
If you want to be able to read docs that shipped on the office cd-- you
should be free to do that.. If you want to install an add-in for
excel to be able to XYZ-- that should be your perogative.
i strongly disagree with all these companies that don't give the end
users enough FREEDOM to get their jobs done.
who the hell are they to dictate how you do your job? I just swear to
god.. These idiot IT people run around and won't let you have an Office
CD-- they do a 'minimal installation' -- what happens when you need the
analysis toolpack for Excel?
You call HELPDESK?
OMG i just dont know where the hell these people came up with these
crap ideas.
to be honest harlan; i never realized that there was an Office Standard
Edition.. i honestly thought that all large companies HAD TO USE the
professional edition since Small Business was only for SMB.
But the bottom line.. is that if you work for a company that doesnt
have Access licenses; you can use the Office Developers' edition (the
name changes every version) to create an installer with the Access
Runtime.. this is a FREE option (on the client).. and it's beautiful.
It won't let you write queries-- but it'll let you run forms and
reports-- and that combined with a good access developer; and you've
got all you need (for typical excel dorks you can just let them RUN the
report instead of REWRITING a different copy of it for each week/month)
But the bottom line is that since Office Pro is only $100 more than
Office standard; it's kindof retarded for companies to buy office
standard.
Do you know that Crystal Reports costs?? what, a grand for designing
reports and $50k for having a single CPU report server?
ACCESS is $100 per seat-- tops.. and www.rptsoftware.com has a report
server component for Access that is something like $300 for a SERVER.
It's all about not recreating the wheel. And that's why i dont use
Excel, I dont use Visual Basic (for a bunch of reasons).. Access is a
MUCH better environment. It's faster-- there are no deployment
problems (to speak of).. and it's VERYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY powerful.
for quick and dirty apps; I won't use ASP or ASP.net (dont worry i sure
as HELL dont use Visual Studio to do it.. a bunch of Excel dorks and C#
dorks designed that.. for sure)-- if I had a month I can build
amazon.com in ASP--- but that's not the right tool for every project.
The fact of the matter is that, by and large-- you guys are making the
same reports week in and week out.. you make spreadsheet messes-- and
when you hit the limits of Excel; you call in someone to spend a
million dollars and turn it into a crystal report.. or a J2ee
component.. I mean.. WTF?
there is a better way; it is called ACCESS.
I'm just tired of having to copy objects to a hundred different
documents.. I'm tired of cutting and pasting info into Excel... And I'm
tired of having dirty data from spreadsheets infecting my databases.
If Excel was a RELIABLE STORE FOR INFORMATION-- maybe i wouldn't be so
militantly anti-XLS... but as it is; validation needs to be about 1,000
times STRONGER in order to make Excel a decent platform.
And I know that you're tired of this 1-dimensional stuff also. It's
just so 1995 to copy and paste data around like you guys do. It's
error-prone.. it's repetitive.. it's boring..
-Aaron
Hi Aaron,
<aaron.kempf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124093714.637059.129340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> any IT person that prevents you from installing an OFFICE COMPONENT
> should be shot. I swear to god.. JUST WALK AWAY FROM ANY COMPANY THAT
> WONT GIVE YOU YOUR OWN OFFICE DISK.
>
> I mean-- you spend; what.. 50% of your time in outlook, excel and word?
>
> If you want to be able to read docs that shipped on the office cd-- you
> should be free to do that.. If you want to install an add-in for
> excel to be able to XYZ-- that should be your perogative.
>
> i strongly disagree with all these companies that don't give the end
> users enough FREEDOM to get their jobs done.
>
> who the hell are they to dictate how you do your job? I just swear to
> god.. These idiot IT people run around and won't let you have an Office
> CD-- they do a 'minimal installation' -- what happens when you need the
> analysis toolpack for Excel?
>
> You call HELPDESK?
>
> OMG i just dont know where the hell these people came up with these
> crap ideas.
>
> to be honest harlan; i never realized that there was an Office Standard
> Edition.. i honestly thought that all large companies HAD TO USE the
> professional edition since Small Business was only for SMB.
>
> But the bottom line.. is that if you work for a company that doesnt
> have Access licenses; you can use the Office Developers' edition (the
> name changes every version) to create an installer with the Access
> Runtime.. this is a FREE option (on the client).. and it's beautiful.
> It won't let you write queries-- but it'll let you run forms and
> reports-- and that combined with a good access developer; and you've
> got all you need (for typical excel dorks you can just let them RUN the
> report instead of REWRITING a different copy of it for each week/month)
>
>
> But the bottom line is that since Office Pro is only $100 more than
> Office standard; it's kindof retarded for companies to buy office
> standard.
>
> Do you know that Crystal Reports costs?? what, a grand for designing
> reports and $50k for having a single CPU report server?
>
> ACCESS is $100 per seat-- tops.. and www.rptsoftware.com has a report
> server component for Access that is something like $300 for a SERVER.
>
> It's all about not recreating the wheel. And that's why i dont use
> Excel, I dont use Visual Basic (for a bunch of reasons).. Access is a
> MUCH better environment. It's faster-- there are no deployment
> problems (to speak of).. and it's VERYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY powerful.
>
> for quick and dirty apps; I won't use ASP or ASP.net (dont worry i sure
> as HELL dont use Visual Studio to do it.. a bunch of Excel dorks and C#
> dorks designed that.. for sure)-- if I had a month I can build
> amazon.com in ASP--- but that's not the right tool for every project.
>
> The fact of the matter is that, by and large-- you guys are making the
> same reports week in and week out.. you make spreadsheet messes-- and
> when you hit the limits of Excel; you call in someone to spend a
> million dollars and turn it into a crystal report.. or a J2ee
> component.. I mean.. WTF?
>
> there is a better way; it is called ACCESS.
>
> I'm just tired of having to copy objects to a hundred different
> documents.. I'm tired of cutting and pasting info into Excel... And I'm
> tired of having dirty data from spreadsheets infecting my databases.
> If Excel was a RELIABLE STORE FOR INFORMATION-- maybe i wouldn't be so
> militantly anti-XLS... but as it is; validation needs to be about 1,000
> times STRONGER in order to make Excel a decent platform.
>
> And I know that you're tired of this 1-dimensional stuff also. It's
> just so 1995 to copy and paste data around like you guys do. It's
> error-prone.. it's repetitive.. it's boring..
>
> -Aaron
Is it possible that *you* are the same Aaron Kemp who recently posted:
'================================
i just wish that they would take the help for products and make it a
seperate download.. just like books online for sql server.
because i have a dozen problems with their help system per week.
and i work for a company where i cant get an office disk
-aaron
'================================
To refresh your memory, see the full thread at:
http://tinyurl.com/933nc
BTW, how many IT people have you shot in your company?
---
Regards,
Norman
Responding on the initial Question.
You should go for a database.
Why:
You can filter better/faster on a database then a excelsheet.
If you have a low budget go for Access (DAO database)
You do not need Access to create and maintain a Access database if you have Office 2002 or higher installed. the Microsoft Jet engine is included with or without Access so I'm told (couldn't check because I'v got Access on all stations)
if you have money and time to spend go for a combination of VB, C++ or .net App and a proffesional database.
The first thing I would do is make the information easier to find so you have to use a form in Excel, Access or your stand alone App anyway The advantage of a stand alone app is the use off a flexgrid to present info in a spreadsheet kind of format
"Be your Best"
I do not like to search 65.000 or more lines to find the information I need.
<aaron.kempf@gmail.com> wrote in message...
>any IT person that prevents you from installing an OFFICE COMPONENT
>should be shot. I swear to god.. JUST WALK AWAY FROM ANY COMPANY THAT
>WONT GIVE YOU YOUR OWN OFFICE DISK.
If you don't use MSDE, you should be fired, and if your company won't let
you install MSDE, you should quit!?
You should get a strong dose of reality.
>i strongly disagree with all these companies that don't give the end
>users enough FREEDOM to get their jobs done.
What you don't understand is that most people's jobs probably could be done,
perhaps more slowly, without any computer at all. Business PCs are just
tools either to simplify users lives OR simplify data entry and control.
Users have some limited say in the former, none in the latter. With regard
to the former, it's their choice as to what works best for them of the tools
their employer provides.
>who the hell are they to dictate how you do your job? . . .
Those who pay get to call the shots. You're really unaware of this?!
>But the bottom line is that since Office Pro is only $100 more than
>Office standard; it's kindof retarded for companies to buy office
>standard.
....
Multiply that $100 by the number of seats AND the additional training and
support, and even you should begin to see why some companies stick with
Office Standard.
Aaron, it’s such a shame that you devote so much time to denigrating excel and not your work.
Did you have a bad experience with excel in your childhood?
Did it harm you in any way?
There must be some reason for the hate.
I believe there are professional councillors who may help you out with your problems, idiosyncrasies, delusions of grandeur.
Get a life and get back to work.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks