Is this true about Macs?

[ElDiabloConCaca]

I'm going to have to chime in here and express my opinion that the blog on the Access database shows several misunderstandings about Macs, Windows machines, and databases in general.

It's quite clear from the blog entry that the author has little-to-no experience with Mac computers and is operating off of hearsay. Macs are no more "chatty" on a network than Windows computers are. The quip about the fact that Macs transfer large graphic files shows that the author is still under the decades-old assumption that Macs are used for graphics and Windows computers are used for other things.

I don't want to go into depth about this as I feel it's been discussed in detail already, but I do feel the need to stand up and say, "Hey, there are a lot of inaccuracies, misunderstandings and half-truths in the article, and the article as a whole should be taken with a grain of salt."

I would be glad to elaborate greatly, point-by-point, if the author of the blog entry would so desire.

Just some background so that no one misunderstands or misconstrues my experience: I use Macintosh computers, Windows computers, and Linux (as well as UNIX) computers in my career, all about equally. I have over 20 years of experience with all three platforms (including other platforms such as BeOS, and limited Rhapsody/OpenStep/NextStep). I am highly educated by a well-respected university (UTexas, baby!) in the realm of computer science -- specifically software development, networking, database theory and implementation, and computer architecture. I do not limit myself to loving one platform and hating another (which seems to be prevalent with Windows users biased against Mac users, and Mac users biased against Windows users). I use, and, if I may say so myself, rock each platform individually and spectacularly.

I know what I'm talking about, I'm educated on the topics on which I speak, and I don't claim to know anything that I do not know. The blog entry, while helpful and informative in some respects, is largely inaccurate and, plainly, gives some very bad advice and perpetrates "old wives' tales" about both the Macintosh and Windows platforms as well as databases and Access in general.

As I said before, I would be glad to elaborate greatly on any point in the blog or any point that has been discussed here... I felt it necessary to make these points so that other readers can (and should) question the information put forth by those who claim to know what they're talking about. There's nothing more damaging than purporting to be an expert in an area that you are not an expert in -- while less experienced people may not be able to see through the smoke and fog, all it takes is someone more experienced and knowledgeable to come along and call the bluff.

I'm calling the author's bluff. It's clear that they are indeed experienced, but are overstepping their comfort zone and perpetrating myths and half-truths.

[CactusData]

Please Jeff (that is Jeff, right), step forward - it sounds like you know what you are talking about.

However, you don't talk much about Access, so please keep in mind that you will talk to someone who does.

Just to clarify, let me stress that the advice given in the article about Macs has nothing to do with how Macs can and should behave, it's about how some handle their Mac environment and how to circumvent that situation. I'm happy to learn about people like you and the other contributors and I wish you had been present at some of the cases we've seen.

Also, you are right about Windows workstations running graphic applications as Macs do. It is just so, that this situation is not common here; advertising agencies (which is where we meet the Macs) _is_ Mac country here.

Finally, please have in mind that editors don't leave much room to this-and-if-and-that; articles have to be brief and to the point and the finer details have to go. That said, not much can be added to the nine other advices given based on real-life experience as they are.

Thanks for stepping in. That made me spend more than five minutes on this thread.

/gustav

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Yes, Jeff is correct.

I understand completely about "editorial decisions" and that the author, many times, does not have much control nor say about what goes in and what gets axed from an article due to length constraints and audiences and other factors. I realize that sometimes it is difficult to summarize a point of view and limit it to a certain number of words or sentences -- and when this does happen, sometimes the point trying to be made is "lost in translation." Some things just need lengthier explanations and cannot be explained accurately when they're limited by space. Perhaps some of the ideas and concepts expressed in the blog were misconstrued by myself due to this.

I do have experience with Access -- perhaps not as much as to go writing blog entries about it, but I do know it quite well. The points that I took issue with were concerned with the storage of certain datum (for example, "images") and the assumption that storage of a specific data type inherently causes or is a factor in database corruption. My experience says that this is impossible -- an integer is no more likely to corrupt a database than a floating-point value, and a BLOB is no more likely to corrupt a database than an image (which are basically the same thing, anyway). What can corrupt a database with the use of these data types is improper use of them -- unsafely writing, modifying or adding data to a database that could cause some or all of the data to be written incorrectly or incompletely. This is more user behavior, though, than the binary data itself causing the corruption, and I agree -- it happens more frequently with those data types (simply because writing integers is closer to being an atomic operation than writing a much larger data type; in some cases, binary image data).

At any rate, perhaps we can swing back to some middle ground here and have ourselves a nice conversation about the pros and cons of this or that. We all have our opinions here, and because of the fact that they're opinions, that means that neither you nor I are "right" or "wrong;" in fact, there is no "right" or "wrong" -- simply "this view" and "that." I love a good debate, as long as it stays friendly and does not venture too far into the personal realm (hell, check out our nice little ditty in the "Viruses on OS X thread" -- fun conversation!).

I welcome any knowledge I can leech off of you as I'm sure you do me. I mean, that's why we're here, right? "The more you know..." as they say, and I am a believer that knowledge of and familiarity with a subject breeds convenience.

[Satcomer]

To get back to the Access portion is to say why hasn't Microsoft added Access to OS X? The author should have talked about that. Plus the "noisy" Mac portion drop off the radar since macs went to TCP/IP back in the day (probably before the author was born) and Apple drop AppleTalk as a network language. so the author is just grasping at very old arguments and probably never touched a Mac since 1983.

Now getting a Mac onto a windows domain is easier and than it has ever been. Just read the thread (that I started - shameless plug) called [HOW TO] Bind Leopard to Active Directory.

Lastly IMHO anyone who claims to be a System Administrator and that person only know Windows (badly most of the time) should never be called a System Admin. If that can't support even another computer than Windows then they are no expert it anything and are just posers.

[drhouseman]

Please do at least try to be professional in your postings. You say "called a System Admin. If that can't support even another computer than Windows then they are no expert it anything and are just poser" Well, they didn't say they were an export they said the were a System Admin! or do I read English somewhat different from you? A System Admin needs to know the system he is supporting and no other. If their experience extends to other areas then that is fine, but if it is limited to to Windows then that is no reflection on them, but it does reflect badly on you for making purile statements. Take care and please do try to adjust your professional standing.

[Satcomer]

Originally Posted by drhouseman

Please do at least try to be professional in your postings.

What? As a long time helper at this site you are telling me I'm not being professional? Who are you coming to this site telling me (who happens to work at all levels of networking) that I am not helpful? I wasn't pointing any finger at you, just the author of the stupid article that tried to tell a lie about Apple Networking.

[fryke]

The thread is close to being closed because of flamebait and trolling. drhouseman & cactusdata: please read the board rules about those things. I'd be sorry to ban you two, but I wouldn't hesitate if the behaviour stays consistent.

drhouseman: Creating an account on this forum just to blame an old-time member seems like perfect trolling. Take this as a first warning. There won't be a second.

cactusdata: Again - it's you who revived a year-old thread. I've mentioned that there is no interest in you deciding who's "good" and who's "bad" among our members.

[CactusData]

Jeff, corruption in Access databases for image and memo fields is a topic for discussion; some tell they experience it regularly, some (like me) experience it never or seldom. In fact, we have had the issue at one single client only. But when some have reported about it, I felt it should be mentioned.
The reason for the possible issue is that these data objects are stored in a different matter than other fields due to their potentially large size. If a record has such a field, only a pointer is stored with the record while the actual data are saved at separate "pages" which can be located anywhere in the database file. Creating such a record represents no problem - however, issues may arise when multiple users start editing such a record. The result can be that the pointer doesn't get updated correctly, and the record looses track of its memo/image/blob field. Quite often, text stored in memo fields are nothing special, just more than the 255 chars that a text field can hold. If so, and if corruption is experienced, the method described is quite simple to implement.

Satcomer, why Access is not available for the Mac is a very good question. It has been requested by many, indeed when MS Office is available. An answer has never been given. In fact, the JET database which Access uses is not even available for 64 bit native Windows (must run in a 32 bit subsystem) and will not be, so one might wonder what database MS will use for Office should it arrive in a 64 bit version. I doubt they will push everyone to install a SQL Server 2008 Express 64 bit, and the single-user SQL Server 2008 Compact Edition (much like JET but SQL Server compatible) won't fit the bill. Time will show.
That said, today it is nearly a non-issue to bring a Windows app to a Mac user. We use the Terminal Client (Apple download) and a terminal server like that from Microsoft or - more often - ThinSoft WinConnect XP which is cheaper, much easier to set up, and much easier to administrate licenses for. Highly recommended.
As you can figure out, this has the advantage that we can mix Mac users and Windows users with a very predictable result. Windows users and the terminal server are connected on a separate network, and the Mac users need only to gain access to the terminal server. The Mac admin relax because no traffic is brought into his net, and the Windows users live quietly with their own network printer and servers.
Again, I'm not saying that a totally integrated network can't be established, of course it can as you and Jeff know, but this is a simple and pragmatic solution with a success rate of 100%. If no one else then the CFO loves such.

It seems as you regard age as a qualification - thank you - so let me just put, that my former company did networking with Luxor workstations before the IBM PC was brought to market, and I have been with pc networking since Novell NetWare version 2.0 (running on ArcNet which you may recall).

Though somewhat off topic (neither Access nor JET nor the article originally referred to is dependant on AD) I'll certainly make a note on your link to Macs on AD, though that's the kind of work we normally leave to our Mac friends.

Fryke, the super moderator, sorry to disturb you, that was not my intention, but the original questioneer as well as readers who later might look up this thread - I guess you regard your forum as a knowledge base as well - deserved a little more in favour of his modest and polite question. He could have left a note by the article, then I would have been notified right away - sorry to have caught attention to the thread at a later moment.

/gustav