Which is better- MSAccess or mySQL???

[info@dreamsonline.net]

Hello,
Well i'm preparing to launch my new site. Since i want to start with little investments i plan to go for linux hosting with mysql support and 10mb space.
But before i start i just want to know whether 10 mb space will be enough during the first 2 to 3 months. Since i wont be using graphics in this site my concern is only abt the database. Suppose there is a directory containing a list of sites based on catagories and there are a record of 1000 websites in it with their url, title, discription, etc. wht would be its file size.
Please reply to me fast coz i'm already behind my schedule.

Harish
Dreams Online Web Services (http://www.dreamsonline.net)

[Cyber-SEO]

Ammmm 10MB???? that's bs

Contact me i'll hook you up with hosting which can get you unlimited bandwidth and HD space.

Ohh and to answer your question if your server is a linux box then go with MYSQL, otherwise got with MSAccess.

[eCommando]

I would go with MySQL.
File based systems like MsAccess always have problems. I have used MsAccess and MS SQL, but not MySQL.

[grunt]

Your choice should be between mySQL and msde. http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/default.asp ... access isn't really up to it... it may work ok in the first instance but over time it will cause only hastles

[info@dreamsonline.net]

Hey cyber thx

Well my budget is $20 only for linux hosting with mysql support.

Do u know anyweb host that can give me hosting and domain in tht amount!

Regards,
Harish
DreamsOnline Web Services (http://www.dreamsonline.net)

[wlh]

access is very limited on the amount of rows you can have

if your running something small it will be alright

[wyrickj]

OK I think you all know I am a big MS supporter but this is from what I tested / used.

I much rather use MSDE over MySQL Server. Though I would need to go out and get a GUI tool to manage it. Hmmm I personaly love Windows Servers over Linux (More powerful aka ASP.NET).

I currently use Windows 2003 & IIS 6 along with SQL Server 2000 and I am totaly happy with it. BTW MSDE is a clone of SQL Server 2000 but with limitations.

[seojoe]

Lol, I just used a hacked version of MSSQL 2000, works like a charm. As for hosting I am with rick on this one. Windows all the way :-). Heck, pay me that $20 per month and I'll host your website on a windows server with php and mysql and 10mb? Don't even bother with that one. Log files are going to be more than that if you do enough transactions.

[wyrickj]

lol I really am not that good with ASP but I can design cool little apps with ASP.NET and SQL Server.

BTW I don't want to learn ASP since it's very outdated. SEO Joe have you been waitng for ASP.NET 2.0 to come out? I know I have.

[seojoe]

didnt even know there was a 2.0 lol :P Ive been so busy lately ive kind of lost touch of all that stuff. One things for sure, if it helps save me time on shit then im all for it. thats the whole reason one would upgrade for asp to .net. who would have thought that we would have had to hand code that calendar control at one time in time :eyes:

[wyrickj]

Oh man when ASP.NET 2.0 comes out you better tell your boss Mr. SEO Guy to get VS.NET 2005.

VS.NET 2005 will reduce your coding by 75% for all languages you are able to develop for - ASP.NET, VB.NET, etc. Once I heard this I was like jumping out of my chair hehe. Nah I was like "Come on MS I need this fast"

It's gonna rock I'll tell you.

[jlknauff]

SQL is far better IMO plus it's far more scaleable from what I'm told-but I am by no means a database expert.

[wyrickj]

Yes Microsoft SQL is the best IMO better then MySQL Server. But the cost of MS SQL may not be a reach to most.

[wyrickj]

Standard Edition Processor License cost $4,999 US per processor so I highly think most people use Access / MSDE for basic stuff.

Enterprise Edition is $19,999 US per processor

A processor license requires NO client license but still the pricing is very expensive.

[xml]

Not much point in resorting to a large scale RDBMS for web applications like MS SQL. Total overkill, totally over-priced.

MySQL will outperform MSSQL for your requirements - FACT. Also reduces cost of hosting etc etc.

[wyrickj]

But for Large Scale Web Applications IMO MS SQL performs better and it's a bit more faster also IMO. I am no way a MS Employee but I have tested almost every piece of there software and I am truely a MS God. People that say "Windows Sucks" well I have had no major problems ever in my life of using Windows for 8 years except overfilling a hard drive then it crashed hehe.

People that say MS needs major security improvements well there right BUT Network Administrators need to take action also. I always keep my machines up to date for latest security patches and other stuff. Most home users do not even update there computers so that's one reason MS has problems.
Mac OS has even had a major security flaw and I see no one attacking them for it. I guess because Mac has like 4% Market Share so I think it's not a big concern unlike MS but still.

[xml]

I'm in no way trying to take away anything from Microsoft, they have acheived alot, and i use their developer software, office software and operating systems.

However on the topic of DB's for the web check: http://www.mysql.com/it-resources/benchmarks/

I agree MS SQL is superior for data mining and other enterprise level activities, but the speed of MySQL just cannot be beat for online developments.

[xan]

SQL is a query language. MySQL is a very robust database system although a very expensive but equally robust system is DB2/3.

Access is like using excel or something to do a job. Fine if you don't need a hyper secure environement. My sql is great for storing data dynamically generated by forms and so on online.


"Unfortunately, MS Access is very limited compared to MySQL and SQL Server. Access does not support many multiple connections to the database and does not perform as fast as MySQL and SQL Server. For very small web applications, Access may be perfect, especially given its low price, but for large numbers of database calls from multiple users visiting your web site, Access can be unreliable and slow."
(http://www.findmyhosting.com/web-resources/Develop-web-site/access.htm)

MySQL is free to download, and you might like to download the MySQL command center, or my favorite phpMyAdmin. But the command line can be a godsend!

[Web Gazelle]

I need to add my two cents here and say that anything by Microsoft can not be the best option.

[xml]

lol, their VS IDE's are AWESOME tho second to none... gotta admit that.

[wyrickj]

Yep VS.NET IDE is so sweet. I hope to get ASP.NET 2.0 Rockin and rollin soon hehe.

[vivekar]

Well my budget is $20 only for linux hosting with mysql support.
Do u know anyweb host that can give me hosting and domain in tht amount!


is $20 per month or year?
I know a host who offers 100MB with mysql + 2GB datatransfer at your rate. PM me.

On Linux hosting, Always MySQL is better. You can't use MSAccess on a Linux box. Any one?
StarOffice database would do.

[Web Gazelle]

You know, Rise of Nations is nice for something that is made by Microsoft.

[Atomical]

[QUOTE=wyrickj]But for Large Scale Web Applications IMO MS SQL performs better and it's a bit more faster also IMO. I am no way a MS Employee but I have tested almost every piece of there software and I am truely a MS God.[/QUOTE]

Mysql is far better in my opinion. The better part comes in when you take into account the cost of $0. Anyone can install 8 gigs of a ram, a few SCSI drives, and dual processors. Mysql is starting to become the solution for everyone. Jeremy Zawodny's book on mysql is on my christmas list.


People that say MS needs major security improvements well there right BUT Network Administrators need to take action also. I always keep my machines up to date for latest security patches and other stuff. Most home users do not even update there computers so that's one reason MS has problems.
Mac OS has even had a major security flaw and I see no one attacking them for it. I guess because Mac has like 4% Market Share so I think it's not a big concern unlike MS but still.

Mac OS X has had one major security flaw. And that flaw didn't apply to 99% of mac users who have shell turned off, and their firewall turned on. No one attacks Mac for security exploits because there isn't an abundance of them.

[Atomical]

[QUOTE=Cyber-SEO]Ammmm 10MB???? that's bs

Contact me i'll hook you up with hosting which can get you unlimited bandwidth and HD space.

Ohh and to answer your question if your server is a linux box then go with MYSQL, otherwise got with MSAccess.[/QUOTE]


There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth and space. When you start using too many resources your host will terminate your account and it will take you a few days to sort out the mess. This is a common fallacy, or marketing point depending how you take it, that's associated with webhosting.

[wyrickj]

Atomical imagine Linux having a marketshare if 95%. Do you think we would see reports of linux having security problems like Windows? We sure would. To make Windows secure you turn off any unnessary services and buy a decent firewall and update your system. I've been in the Windows networking area for 4 or so years and never once have I had viruses, hackers, etc. Maybe cuz I know how to keep my network safe and secure.

It not only takes Microsoft to secure Windows but also good network administrators. I have ran Windows all my life from 3.1 til now. I started working with 2000 server / client 4 to 5 years ago and have learned all aspects of Active Directory, Exchange Server, ISA Server, IIS Server, etc. So you really can't call me a Windows n00bie lol.

[Atomical]

[QUOTE=wyrickj]Atomical imagine Linux having a marketshare if 95%. Do you think we would see reports of linux having security problems like Windows? We sure would. To make Windows secure you turn off any unnessary services and buy a decent firewall and update your system. I've been in the Windows networking area for 4 or so years and never once have I had viruses, hackers, etc. Maybe cuz I know how to keep my network safe and secure.

It not only takes Microsoft to secure Windows but also good network administrators. I have ran Windows all my life from 3.1 til now. I started working with 2000 server / client 4 to 5 years ago and have learned all aspects of Active Directory, Exchange Server, ISA Server, IIS Server, etc. So you really can't call me a Windows n00bie lol.[/QUOTE]

Don't you think that's a cop out? What do you think corporate websites used before IIS came out or whatever other rubbish microsoft releases? Linux is top dog when it comes to web servers, database servers, etc. Gates and his empire are slow to release updates, where as Linux exploits are well-documented and released before the sun goes down. Bill Gates and his goons are backing Darl McBride. The sole reason is that: It's hard to compete against a product that is better than yours and free. Ask yourself this, if Linux is so unpopular and unuseful would Bill Gates be slamming the GPL all the time?

[wyrickj]

I'm not saying Linux is unpopular. I am saying there are not wide spread of viruses and hackers for Linux due to it's marketshare. If Linux were to overtake Windows I'm sure virus writers and hackers will be moving to Linux also. Both Windows and Linux are very powerful OS's. People think by paying for an OS upfront you don't save money in the long-run. People that think that are very wrong. Somethings in life you pay an upfront fee.

[Atomical]

I realize I'm going to get all kinds of guff for this, but people who use Mac are more creative than people who use PC's. The best audio and video tools are made on mac. Apple continues to pursue the visual agenda. In the history of Mac and Linux we have hardly seen any viruses. Linux has had maybe one or two viruses. Mac has had about 20 back in the early system 7 days. None of these were serious and I've played around with most of them. Several of the access controls that are contained in Mac and Linux are preventing total takeover of a users system.

[jlknauff]

[QUOTE=wyrickj]People think by paying for an OS upfront you don't save money in the long-run. People that think that are very wrong. Somethings in life you pay an upfront fee.[/QUOTE]
Yup. You pay for everything, whether you realize it or not. With M$ you pay up front w/ cash. With open source you also pay upfront, but with your time & convenience. If you don't have the technical background to use & modify open source then you pay all the way around–time, convenience & cash!

[jlknauff]

[QUOTE=Atomical]I realize I'm going to get all kinds of guff for this, but people who use Mac are more creative than people who use PC's.[/QUOTE]
Thats the most uneducated statement that I've heard around here in a while.

[wyrickj]

Hmm Atomical your statement about Macs I think is very wrong. People that use PC's are also creative. I use a PC and I design sites that look good. I use animation software (Flash, 3ds max, Vue 5, Poser 5, etc.) and that's all on both PC and Mac versions. Macs are more for the looks vs. creativity. Sorry but you can do as good on a PC as you can with a Mac.

[Atomical]

It's true. Final Cut Pro among other things was used to make Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings was rendered on a linux cluster. I'm not personally interested in how many of those tools the average PC user uses, though if I was I would say that Mac OS X's digital applications (the ones that come with the OS) are much better than microsofts. Instead I'm saying that movies, soundtracks, and musical scores are predominately created on Macintosh.

[Atomical]

[QUOTE=jlknauff]Yup. You pay for everything, whether you realize it or not. With M$ you pay up front w/ cash. With open source you also pay upfront, but with your time & convenience. If you don't have the technical background to use & modify open source then you pay all the way around–time, convenience & cash![/QUOTE]


If you don't have a technical background you're not going to be able to modify anything. Making any sort of serious modification requires programming talent. If you could choose between a product that was easy to use, and one that was scalable, which one would you choose? I think the average computer user could live with Linux as long as it came with a long line of preinstalled applications.

[jlknauff]

First of all, a majority of the software available for mac is available for PC.

Second, someones choice in tools does not determine their creativity. That was an ignorant statement.

Mac is (and has been for a long time) loosing market share even with graphic designers & sfx people. That's why they're making such a hard push to get a bunch of 13 year old kids to buy their overpriced computers.

[Atomical]

[QUOTE=jlknauff]First of all, a majority of the software available for mac is available for PC.

Second, someones choice in tools does not determine their creativity. That was an ignorant statement.

Mac is (and has been for a long time) loosing market share even with graphic designers & sfx people. That's why they're making such a hard push to get a bunch of 13 year old kids to buy their overpriced computers.[/QUOTE]

You're missing the point. Those tools may be for other platforms, but there is a reason why Peter Jackson didn't buy a PC to run Final Cut Pro. You end up paying more for tech support and administration than you do for the computer. Macs stability and usability has been a sought after commodity in the computer world.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to market share. I'd have to say that when Apple enters an arena it conquers. The ipod is taking the world by storm. The cost of owning a mac is much cheaper when you consider technical support and all that other bullshit that comes with owning a PC. Let's see you don't need virus protection, tech support, firewall, spyware removal... Mac is better on every level. Add all those things up and it becomes a lot more expensive than any mac. That combined with the headaches and the lost productivity. You may be into computers, and you may enjoy trouble shooting these problems, but the average computer user doesn't have time for that shit. I approve this Mac message :)

[jlknauff]

[QUOTE=Atomical]You're missing the point.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm not missing the point. You said...

[QUOTE=Atomical]I realize I'm going to get all kinds of guff for this, but people who use Mac are more creative than people who use PC's.[/QUOTE]
Which has nothing to do with the amount of money spent or viruses or stability. You started you're argument with one thing and then when you realized that there was nothing to back it up with you started throwing out other unrelated issues.

Mac is not the god that you think it is-and I can guarantee that if they reach even close to the same market share as PCs you can bet that virus writers will start writing viruses for them too. The only reason you don't see widespread viruses on the mac side is because so few people use macs that the virus writers wouldn't get any results-thus they write for the PC side. ;)

[Atomical]

[QUOTE=jlknauff]No, I'm not missing the point. You said...


Which has nothing to do with the amount of money spent or viruses or stability. You started you're argument with one thing and then when you realized that there was nothing to back it up with you started throwing out other unrelated issues.

Mac is not the god that you think it is-and I can guarantee that if they reach even close to the same market share as PCs you can bet that virus writers will start writing viruses for them too. The only reason you don't see widespread viruses on the mac side is because so few people use macs that the virus writers wouldn't get any results-thus they write for the PC side. ;)[/QUOTE]

I of course am sticking to my story that macs are used more in the creative disciplines. My college just got a whole new lab filled with macs for graphic design. I can name off a half a dozen programs that dominate their area of expertise and are used chiefly on a mac.

Mac is god and I doubt you can prove to me, though you will try, that macs are somehow inferior to PC's. I work with PC's a lot, and I know the weaknesses of XP that simply don't exist in Mac. Microsoft will hire any shmuck to write code for its operating system. If you look at the last 20 years Microsoft has never innovated. Instead they copy everyone elses business platform. The macintosh is moving forward. The problem right now is that Mac's aren't available in traditional shopping outlets. But the Apple store is going to spread like wildfire.

[Atomical]

http://www.teach-nology.com/tutorials/pc_mac/no_one_tells/

Scroll down and read number 11:


11. While PC dominates sales worldwide, "Apple... dominates the creative markets 3 to 1." (Trendmatch, 1999 Creative Atlas Guide)


hmm.. burn


Also read this:
http://www.teach-nology.com/tutorials/pc_mac/good_macs/

Some of Apple's key strengths over the PC. Of course this is farely old and there is bound to be a list over 1000 by now.

[jlknauff]

[QUOTE=Atomical]If you look at the last 20 years Microsoft has never innovated.[/QUOTE]
While M$ may have a lot of problems, they would never have gotten to where they are without innovating. The fact of the matter is that Mac has done less innovating than M$.

As far as the 3 to 1 thing – it used to be exclusively Mac. You just proved my point that Mac is loosing market share. So, sorry buddy, no burn ;)

[Atomical]

[QUOTE=jlknauff]While M$ may have a lot of problems, they would never have gotten to where they are without innovating. The fact of the matter is that Mac has done less innovating than M$.

As far as the 3 to 1 thing – it used to be exclusively Mac. You just proved my point that Mac is loosing market share. So, sorry buddy, no burn ;)[/QUOTE]

Gotten this far? Any company can get this far based on lies and deceit. Windows sucked before and it still sucks. All my relatives complained before, and they still complain. Bill innovated with his business model. An innovative business model does not mean an innovative product.

As far as Mac losing market share... Used to be? I see no proof that it isn't top dog now.

[jlknauff]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. While I agree that windows needs a lot of work, if everyone thought it sucked it wouldn't be the most comon OS in the market.

Do you even read these posts or do you just keep rambling your retoric over and over. I said design used to be exclusivly on Macs-if based only on your outdated information then Macs have lost a lot of market share. Regardles of who is "top dog" your beloved Mac has been & will continue to loose market share even in the design world.

It's funny how you Mac people sit around and bash PCs and then get all upset & defensive when someone disagrees. Don't be so hostile just because your computers are falling by the wayside.

[Atomical]

[QUOTE=jlknauff]Well, you are entitled to your opinion. While I agree that windows needs a lot of work, if everyone thought it sucked it wouldn't be the most comon OS in the market.[/quote]

You're assuming too much with your opinion. People are afraid of change. This is complicated by the daunting fact that everyone wants to be like everyone else. This is why designer clothing sells. Sometimes a majority means all the fools are on the same side.


Do you even read these posts or do you just keep rambling your retoric over and over. I said design used to be exclusivly on Macs-if based only on your outdated information then Macs have lost a lot of market share. Regardles of who is "top dog" your beloved Mac has been & will continue to loose market share even in the design world.

You're also assuming here that the trend continued. Which you don't know and can't testify to. That article was probably written before Jobs came back. I'd just like to add that Jobs kicks ass and doesn't sell out to anyone. Once Radeon broke word that they were providing Apple with graphic cards for the Cube. Steve pulled all the Radeon cards on the mac's before they shipped.


It's funny how you Mac people sit around and bash PCs and then get all upset & defensive when someone disagrees. Don't be so hostile just because your computers are falling by the wayside.

I'm not hostile about anything. My computer experience has been and will be better than yours. Do you think that this younger generation, and the older generation, who have faithfully bought the ipod and ipod accessories are going to get a plain jane ugly pc for their next computer? If so you have underestimated the human mind. The glow of Apple is starting to spread.

You can't stop Mac and you can't stop Linux. Bill Gates hates Linux because he hates competition. He hates a free world where people have the right to choose something other than Microsoft. IBM and Sun are the companies that are brining Linux to the mainstream, and fighting court battles against SCO.

And in all this haste to promote upfront costs you forget that your scripts aren't very portable. Especially with new versions of ASP and all the legal memorandum that comes with anything microsoft.

[jlknauff]

Yawn.

[wyrickj]

Just to let you know that I can build a PC that is as good as a Mac. I don't care if Mac G5 is better then others home machines. I am not talking about a entry level PC. I could build a dual xeon 3.4ghz and buy the best of the best video card and memory. What Macs use is what I can also buy from a decent store or right from the manufacture. I have had memory problems with a Mac G4 and OS9.2 but question is does OS9.2 come with virtual memory? No and inorder to clone a PC you would need tons more ram then a PC would.

[Atomical]

[QUOTE=wyrickj]Just to let you know that I can build a PC that is as good as a Mac. I don't care if Mac G5 is better then others home machines. I am not talking about a entry level PC. I could build a dual xeon 3.4ghz and buy the best of the best video card and memory. What Macs use is what I can also buy from a decent store or right from the manufacture. I have had memory problems with a Mac G4 and OS9.2 but question is does OS9.2 come with virtual memory? No and inorder to clone a PC you would need tons more ram then a PC would.[/QUOTE]

Mac OS X and Mac OS 9.2 both have virtual memory. I'm pretty sure VM goes back to 8. Virtual memory is memory that is stored on the hard disk. It's extremely unefficent. I wouldn't rely on VM for shit. It's debatable whether you would want to store VM on a raid though :P

And on another note. When a few things break on your computer, you have to call several different vendors to get it replaced if it's under warranty. With Apple you just call Apple.

[wyrickj]

If I bought a high powered Alienware Workstation I would just need to call Alienware. All though I am really A+ Certified (Have not been officaly certified) I am an expert when it comes time for hardware and MS issues. I mean I had OS9.2 locked up in a heart beat running just an IE and Photoshop session. Now these where not the high end macs (Dual Processor, etc.) I think Macs require a lot more ram memory then say a PC as I have less ram in one of my machines and never locks up when I run IE and Photoshop. The machines lacked a lot of memory as Photoshop takes a ton of memory but still I should not have to cold boot it. Thing is I think OS9.2 was not multitask ready so that could explain a lot why it locks up where's Windows 95+ was multitask enabled.

[Atomical]

[QUOTE=wyrickj]If I bought a high powered Alienware Workstation I would just need to call Alienware. All though I am really A+ Certified (Have not been officaly certified) I am an expert when it comes time for hardware and MS issues. I mean I had OS9.2 locked up in a heart beat running just an IE and Photoshop session. Now these where not the high end macs (Dual Processor, etc.) I think Macs require a lot more ram memory then say a PC as I have less ram in one of my machines and never locks up when I run IE and Photoshop. The machines lacked a lot of memory as Photoshop takes a ton of memory but still I should not have to cold boot it. Thing is I think OS9.2 was not multitask ready so that could explain a lot why it locks up where's Windows 95+ was multitask enabled.[/QUOTE]

IE for macintosh is now unsupported. And you wonder why. Photoshop does take a lot of memory and that's what makes it fast. OS 9.2 had multi-tasking and it was possible to copy files and do work at the same time. Strangely enough I've always felt that IO is slightly better with mac.

[SEO George]

Ah, yes. The OS Flamewar...

This is addressed to everyone in general:

I personally like Linux for servers and MS for desktops. I have been using Microsoft Operating systems since, well, the first versions of DOS.

As for Linux, I started using it in 1997 in a C++ course in college.

I don't use Mac OS X - but it is really interesting. (Love the bash shell included.)



The bottom line of any OS choice should be - use what you know, and what works for you. I have a Red Hat 6.2 server in my computer room at home - and it is RH 6.2 because I never needed to upgrade it. It is stable, serves my files - and it just works. (Only ever crashed it once, and to be fair, it warned me *NOT* to install the flaky driver, and I used the --force flag.... kernel panic....)

My primary desktop OS is windows XP, but then this is because I like games. Microsoft has it right when it comes to Steve Ballmers comments: Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers. He looks silly, but he is correct.

Microsoft is a monopoly - they do some nasty stuff - but then all monopolies, and in general, most companies do. It is simple self preservation. You can either get mad at it, or, understand business and know where it comes from and why.

And, as to why Linux does not get viruses, more hacks etc. This is partly due to a larger number of windows machines on the net (However, there are more installations of Apache, Sendmail, etc than there are of Microsoft versions around.) The reason that these open source apps are generally more secure than the Microsoft versions is due to the persmissions system inherint in Unix. (Note, as for permissions, Active Directory gets it right on target.) Flaws are repaired much faster in Open-Source apps than in Microsoft apps. Also, Microsoft ties in a number of features (think Active-X and MSIE) that make it much more difficult to secure their products. Also, they have a greater turnaround time on patches.

Linux viruses are quite unlikely due to the Unix design (while individual apps such as Apache or others may be vunerable to worms). The only real risk of a linux virus would affect those who run as root always - which is *REALLY* dumb.

Microsoft has their market because of Monopoly dominance, and by this dominance they create a standard that is easier for most people to learn.

Linux has many standards (and file system layouts, and shells, and distros and...) this is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

Personally, what I would like to see start dominating in the next 10 years is the Gnu HURD - it runs drivers in user space!

Anyways, I guess what I am saying is that many people are stating valid points about all the OS'es, but not everyone will agree. Anyone who is familiar with microsoft products, will generally prefer them. (Getting me to learn /bin/bash after liking DOS for so long was hard - now I hate DOS and love /bin/bash...)

So, there is my take - everyone will like different things.

As for the database? Choose MySQL. For the simple reason that it is platform independant. This makes it much more portable, which is always valuable in the web world.

[Atomical]

MySQL is definitely the way you should go. Normally mysql is marketed with php. PHP is one of the most flexible languages out there. I'm finding that recently I don't have an abundance of time to code :(

[bustek]

Hi everyone!
Can anyone help me to choose the best database engine?
What I need to do is to put a database on a remote server. Then, that database must accessed and/or updated (at the same time or not) by several pcs connected do the server, showing the results on visual basic. Each pc would be connected to a local database, which would save the results to the query to the remote database. My first choice was Microsoft Access, because it's easy to use and easy to implement with visual basic. But I've been searching, and it seems that Access can't deal with multiple accesses at the same time on the same database. Since MSDE is free, and it's based on SQL, I think it's the best choice, since it's integration with VB seems easy. What do you think?
And which database is faster? Access or MSDE.
Thanks.