From: Ellen K. 

The only downside to Access is that you have to compact it regularly
(preferably daily).

I'm thinking maybe I will give them space on one of my existing SQL Server
boxes, just for the database, and make them put the app on the webserver
box that's already doing the webserving for the other web app we have.  For
the amount of database activity I expect it to generate it won't affect the
performance of the main database on that box.

The other difference to your bridge is that it probably has a better chance
of withstanding horrible acts of nature than if you had made it 5 tons. 
(You guys get tornados or hurricanes or something, right?)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:39:50 -0500, "Geo" 
wrote in message :

>"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>news:re4g11d1fni607bkce9s8agsifr965gfpo{at}4ax.com...
>> Honestly I don't see what they need SQL Server for this for, it's just
>> gonna track our helpdesk tickets.  They could put that in an Access
>> database.   (We have fewer than 1000 employees.)
>
>I know what you mean. I have people ask about using sql for the backend for
>a website when we have sites that get 100X the traffic and 1000X the data
>they see running on an access db.
>
>Some people simply have no concept of how to gauge requirements so they just
>over engineer it. I did that when I built the bridge in my driveway. I
>needed a bridge that could handle a car, maybe a 5 ton rating. I ended up
>building a bridge that was rated for 25 tons.
>
>The difference between my bridge and a website is significant though, my
>bridge cost me 40% extra to overengineer, a website could cost 2500% more
>due to the licensing requirements so it's a little more important to try and
>gauge the requirements in that case.
>
>Geo.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5