Sujet : Re: MS Access
De : 186283 (at) *nospam* ud0s4.net (186282@ud0s4.net)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.misc alt.comp.os.windows-10Date : 08. Aug 2024, 02:44:32
Autres entêtes
Organisation : vector apex
Message-ID : <cuScnfiT4v2cvin7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@earthlink.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
On 8/7/24 6:44 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:30:18 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2024-08-07, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 02:02:57 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
As for the 'limits' of Access ... I developed a few DBs using it over
the years and it was quite capable.
>
Sure, if you think 2GB is enough for a database.
>
2GB ought to be enough for anybody. :-)
Microsoft still thinks that “26 drive letters ought to be enough for
anybody”.
With 16tb drives these days ... yea.
Or is 26x16tb not enough ?
However it ACTUALLY encourages referencing
external storage as URLs, not as mapped
drive letters.
Frankly, humans PREFER the drive letters - far
easier to remember/reference/relate. The payroll
stuff goes on the 'P:' drive ....
…