Is it possible only backup Tables!

John W. Vinson wrote in
:

there are advantages to splitting - I'd say more and call it
ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.

Every Access application with more than one user should be split. NO
EXCEPTIONS.

Every Access application where the user needs to get updates to the
forms/reports from someone else should be split, even if it has only
one user. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Every replicated Access app should be split. NO EXCEPTIONS.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"Chris O'C via AccessMonster.com" u29189@uwe wrote in
news:8945b0b84d903@uwe:

There's no button on a toolbar or menu choice, if that's what
you're looking for. But it's possible to back up a back end even
if you don't have the runtime. At the command console, type:

copy C:\db.mdb C:\backup\db.mdb

Backing up through the file system is not necessarily going to
produce a valid backup copy, since the disk image could be in an
inconsistent state. The only valid backup would be through Jet.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote in

:

splitting is not reccomended.

Splitting is depecrated.
single connection to sql server- where all data SHOUD belong is a
much much simpler architecture.

And it's a SPLIT architecture, in that your application is in a
front-end file:

FILE, NEW, Project (Existing Data)

.... an ADP file in this case, and your data is in a back end
separate from the application file (in this case SQL Server, since
that's the only back end database engine that an ADP can be used
with).

So, splitting is not only not deprecated, IT'S BEING RECOMMENDED BY
YOU, in the same post where you say it's not recommended.

When you recommend it, you're giving good advice.

When you're deprecating it, you're being your usual moronic self,
posting crap that nobody should pay attention to.

I must say it's quite impressive that you managed to do both things
within the same post.

anything else is a waste of time

Reading your posts is a waste of time.

With regard to users of a Jet data store and splitting:

Every Access application with more than one user should be split. NO
EXCEPTIONS.

Every Access application where the user needs to get updates to the
forms/reports from someone else should be split, even if it has only
one user. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Every replicated Access app should be split. NO EXCEPTIONS.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Every Access application with more than one user should be upsized. NO
EXCEPTIONS.

Every Access application where the user needs to get updates to the
QUERIES from someone else should be UPSIZED, even if it has only
one user. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Every replicated Access app should be UPSIZED. NO EXCEPTIONS.






On Aug 28, 1:56*pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
John W. Vinson wrote :

there are advantages to splitting - I'd say more and call it
ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.

Every Access application with more than one user should be split. NO
EXCEPTIONS.

Every Access application where the user needs to get updates to the
forms/reports from someone else should be split, even if it has only
one user. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Every replicated Access app should be split. NO EXCEPTIONS.

--
David W. Fenton * * * * * * * * *http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com * *http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

splitting is unmanageable, because Microsoft doesn't have the idea to
'make the linked table manager support sql passthrough queries'.

if MS made Jet easier, it might make sense in some situations.
if MS made Jet more reliable, it might make sense in some situations.
if MS made Jet faster, it might make sense in some situations.
if MS made Jet development easier than SQL Server, it might make sense
in some situations.(things like a lack of 'query analyzer for jet' is
a major shortcoming, IMHO)






On Aug 28, 2:01*pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote
:

splitting is not reccomended.

Splitting is depecrated.
single connection to sql server- where all data SHOUD belong is a
much much simpler architecture.

And it's a SPLIT architecture, in that your application is in a
front-end file:

FILE, NEW, Project (Existing Data)

... an ADP file in this case, and your data is in a back end
separate from the application file (in this case SQL Server, since
that's the only back end database engine that an ADP can be used
with).

So, splitting is not only not deprecated, IT'S BEING RECOMMENDED BY
YOU, in the same post where you say it's not recommended.

When you recommend it, you're giving good advice.

When you're deprecating it, you're being your usual moronic self,
posting crap that nobody should pay attention to.

I must say it's quite impressive that you managed to do both things
within the same post.

anything else is a waste of time

Reading your posts is a waste of time.

With regard to users of a Jet data store and splitting:

Every Access application with more than one user should be split. NO
EXCEPTIONS.

Every Access application where the user needs to get updates to the
forms/reports from someone else should be split, even if it has only
one user. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Every replicated Access app should be split. NO EXCEPTIONS.

--
David W. Fenton * * * * * * * * *http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com * *http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote in
news:bc83f6ec-b8d0-4f28-93cf-727acb41cd0f@
25g2000prz.googlegroups.com
:

Every Access application with more than one user should be
upsized. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Totally moronic aaron.

Every Access application where the user needs to get updates to
the QUERIES from someone else should be UPSIZED, even if it has
only one user. NO EXCEPTIONS.

totally moronic aaron

Every replicated Access app should be UPSIZED. NO EXCEPTIONS.


If you upsize a replicated database to SQL Server, the ability to
synchronize copies of the database is lost.
but that's a totally aaronic statement.

GO Away, NO EXCEPTIONS.


--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote in

m:


if MS made Jet development easier than SQL Server, it
might make sense in some situations.(things like a lack of 'query
analyzer for jet' is a major shortcoming, IMHO)

I've previously posted a link to show how to use Jet's query analyser,
so you are a moron for repeating that lie.

--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **