Is this true about Macs?

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.
 
drhouseman said:
Please do at least try to be professional in your postings.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.

Thank you - I will disbar myself. I have no wish to remain in a site where SATCOMER (long time poster or not) can abuse people and not be asked to behave more professionally. In fact, why did you as moderator not pick up on it. SATCOMER's rant as a reply says it all, doesn't it!.

Thank you.
drhouseman
 
He didn't pick on anyone. He picked on sysadmins who claim to be sysadmins but have limited (or no) knowledge of systems outside their own. I'm usually against metaphors, but if your knowledge about catholicism is vast, yet you don't know anything about other religions or about religion in general, you shouldn't call yourself knowledgeable in "religion", but "catholicism". I'd say I agree that a sysadmin with knowledge only about Windows (or Mac OS X or SuSE Linux, pick one) should be called a "Windows administrator" (or Mac OS X administrator etc.). If you take a look at my badges in my signature (I've added those half-jokingly, btw., although I _do_ have them), I don't call myself a system administrator. I know a _lot_ about Macs. I've used (and administered) Windows and linux machines in the past, but I don't consider myself proficient in those systems. So I wouldn't call myself, this generally, a system administrator, although that was my job title in the past.

But again: Why didn't I pick up on Satcomer's post? I didn't consider it a rant. But even if: Rants are okay. The question is how much, what tone, how wrong. Satcomer's post, in my not so humble, personal opinion, was perfectly okay.
 
CactusData: thank you for clarifying your points, and for sharing your knowledge on the subject.

drhouseman: you will not be missed!

(and btw - your namesake, the prestigious dr house, can back his bad attitude up in spades.
You, however, have failed in that area. I suggest some remedial work)



:D
 
CactusData, you still haven't justified using Access, but I realize maintaining faulty databases makes for a good living—the problems just appear by themselves and can be explained with erroneous theories for a hefty hourly price tag ^^
 
He he.

But really, if you think any of the points mentioned in your article causes database corruption, you should either be recommending your clients to immediately switch to another RDBMS to avoid data loss, and/or base your conclusions on empirical research rather than presumptions.
 
Leo, why didn't you behave and put these relevant comments in your first post?

The answer is empirical research since version 1.0.

You seem to have the faulty assumption that Access/JET databases turns corrupt all the time. I guess you have read the word "prevent" in the title of the article as if the 10 advices given are not followed, any Access/JET database will corrupt. The title is not mine.
However, that is not the case, on the contrary. They don't:
<quote>
.. Access/JET does run mission critical applications around the world wether you like it or not - and at just about zero cost. We have clients here running different applications with Access/JET as the backend database experiencing 0 (zero) failures for more than 10 years. This is a fact.
</quote>

But - as with any other technology/software - issues may be experienced, and to keep these at zero or at least at a minimum some guidelines exist of which the 10 mentioned are some.

Have in mind too, that Access (the application) is used by many normal or super users which don't have much experience as db admins. It is easy for pros like me and (I guess) you to point fingers playing the clever guy. You gain much more by helping and guiding.

As for choosing another RDBM, you are right, indeed when so many high-quality server based engines are available for free like FireBird, PostgeSQL, MySQL, MaxDB, and (with their limitations) the "express" versions of DB2, Oracle, and SQL Server, even though these often require skilled maintenance:
<quote>
.. we may very well advice clients to use some other database for their specific task if we can see Access/JET won't fit the bill.
</quote>

In many cases, though, Access/JET as an backend database will fulfill the task, indeed for single user applications. Even though, MS pushes the use of SQL Server 3.5 Compact Edition which is a file based database very much like JET but for one concurrent user only. It has only one thing in common with its likely named server based big brothers, the SQL language, or rather a subset of the language. This means that you can design an application with the CE as the backend, and if or when you feel the need, the data can easily be moved to a server based engine, and the application can use this with minimal tweaking. Not a bad combo.

So - for databases as for so much else - one tool doesn't fit all purposes.

/gustav
 
And again, I repeat: If the database can be corrupted by a couple of Macs sharing files with each other via SMB or AFP, then there's something wrong with the network or the database, not the Macs. And that's the only interesting point about that article from a Mac user forum point of view, which this is.

To answer the thread's OP (or rather the question in the thread title) once and for all:

No, it isn't.
 
Fryke, it's only a question of network traffic.

To clarify, the scenario is a set of workstations (typically Windows) sharing an Access/JET database hosted on some SMB host, typically a Windows Server or a general purpose NAS.
Bringing this into a very busy network _will_ not but _may_ cause issues for the database users. A well-designed network will, as you correctly state, cause zero problems for the database sharing but the world is not ideal - any of you pros must have met such a network which typically has grown wild from a few workstations to something which calls for a total make-over.

<quote>
In a shared environment, use only high-quality network components.
</quote>

If issues are experienced and a make-over of the network is requested but not possible for whatever reason, the suggested (and quick and very cheap) solution is to establish a separate network for the database users.

Heavy load on a network is not specific to the Macs; it is just so, that in this part of the world such networks are nearly always dealing with "media" in a broad sense and populated with Macs. I'm sorry, that due to the obtuse nature of the article such finer details are lost.

I believe this should answer the question.

/gustav
 
I think some of the issues taken here have to do with the mention of the presence of Macintosh computers in a networked environment where an Access/JET database is being shared, and the implication that somehow the Macs themselves are a potential cause of database corruption.

That implication and assumption is just flat-out wrong. The Macs themselves have nothing to do with potential corruption -- any computer on the network is just as likely to cause corruption as a Mac is... it doesn't matter what operating system is running. A Linux computer (or even another Windows computer) is just as likely to cause problems as a Mac is. The comment about that assumption being "racist" is spot-on in my opinion, and the article demonstrates an unfounded and incorrect bias towards Mac computers -- which I believe stems from lack of knowledge about Macintosh computers, not some real-world observation.

It's the same as saying that there is a rumor going around that a 12-year-old girl robbed a convenience store at gunpoint somewhere, sometime, and so we should never allow 12-year-old girls into convenience stores anymore. While that may (or may not) have occurred, it does not imply nor does it warrant a blanket statement that all 12-year-old girls have the potential to rob convenience stores. It demonstrates an unjust bias toward them, and causes people to be wary of the inclusion of 12-year-old girls in their convenience stores.

Replace "12-year-old girl" with "Macintosh" and "convenience store" with "network" and that last paragraph sounds eerily similar to some of the statements made in the article.

Ignorance of a platform is no reason for an unjust bias. Without real information and many examples of a Mac causing network troubles for Access/JET clients, the scientific method dictates that the statements referencing Macs on a network should never have been made. If those statements were simply speculation, then it should have been mentioned that there is no real data to back up the statement and that the statements about Macs causing database troubles were all conjecture.

Conjecture is hardly a platform on which to base an article about database stability and "good practice" rules, especially from someone who purports to be an expert on the subject. It only perpetrates more bias and is largely unhelpful -- I can see a situation where many people out there who read the blog post are now scrambling to unnecessarily remove any trace of Macintosh computer for their network out of fear that they're somehow doing something devious to their networked environment.

I fear that even given unlimited space in which to blog that this point would not be lost in translation -- I do feel that the author would have taken more lines, words and paragraphs to perpetrate the myth about "large graphic files" and Macs, and that limited space is not the reason that this statement could be misconstrued. I do believe the author intended to convey the point that Macs are a potential cause of network congestion and database corruption, no matter how much literary space they had to work within.

I worked in the graphic design industry for the better part of 10 years, and while "graphics" and "Mac" went together like peanut butter and jelly in 1995, during my time spent in that industry, I saw a heavy swing toward more platform-independent desktop publishing. I saw the proliferation of Macs in the industry dwindle, and by the time I left the industry, Macs made up no more of the desktop publishing tools than Windows computers, and, dare I say, even started to become a minority. Today, with my continuing ties to that industry, I can wholeheartedly and honestly say that Windows computers now completely dominate the industry (although Macs are still used and will continue to be used), partly due to popular desktop publishing software being largely produced for multiple platforms (e.g., Adobe Creative Suite, QuarkXPress, Creator, Suitcase, etc.) and is, feature-for-feature, indistinguishable regardless of platform.

I am zeroing-in on this point simply because this is a Macintosh-centric forum, and that is our main area of expertise.
 
Last edited:
> .. which I believe stems from lack of knowledge about Macintosh computers, not some real-world observation.

I'm astonished. It's exactly opposite and I have nowhere stated otherwise.

/gustav
 
We're all astonished, you see. Because you mention the traffic of graphics files. Nothing to do with Macs, then. If you'd take two PCs and transfer graphics files between _them_, the same network traffic happens. If it's a network traffic problem, as you state, you need to monitor and regulate network traffic. Again: Nothing to do with the Mac per se.
 
Ok then, thanks - now we are talking - I could not follow the free-flying fantasy of Jeff:

<quote>
Heavy load on a network is not specific to the Macs; it is just so, that in this part of the world such networks are nearly always dealing with "media" in a broad sense and populated with Macs ..
</quote>

Have a nice weekend!

/gustav
 
Okay, then. Now you can adjust the blog article and take out or edit point 8 to reflect that it's not about Macs. :) I'm glad this is settled.
 
CactusData said:
Ok then, thanks - now we are talking - I could not follow the free-flying fantasy of Jeff...
Click to expand...
Nothing about what I wrote was free-flying nor fantasy, and I do not believe that I wrote what I did in such a way that it was difficult to follow. Sure, it was lengthy, but I did not contradict myself nor use terminology that would be difficult to understand or have ambiguous meaning.

I simply meant to make the following points:

1) Macs on a network have no more or less impact than other computers running other operating systems, and that the correlation between database corruption and "Macs" and "graphic files" is flat-out wrong.

2) The assumption made in (1) perpetrates a bias -- and it is my opinion that the author has this bias based off of stereotypes that were perhaps true at one point in time but have no relevance today.

3) That if the author is not experienced with the Macintosh platform and how Macs operate on a network that the word "Macintosh" or "Mac" should not have been used at all in the article -- that hearsay does not translate into fact nor knowledge.

4) That the apparent bias in the article is not due to size or length restrictions and that the size/length restrictions did not contribute to anyone's misunderstanding of what the author was trying to say in certain points -- that, given an unlimited amount of space in which to write, that the author would have still conveyed the sense that Macs interfere/congest/misbehave/cause excessive amounts of network traffic more commonly than other computers.

I do believe the author has an unfounded bias against Macs (or at least worded the article in such a way that perpetrates a bias, whether held by the author or not), and I think that other members of the forum that have read the article (and, perhaps, other readers of the article that are not members here) have seen the same bias.

If I was unclear in my previous post or it was too wordy to be understood or if the length of it muddled or somehow made my points less clear, I would be glad to reword them in a fashion that is easier to understand.

None of it was free-flying fantasy, though... speculation based upon real-world experience, observations and knowledge? Perhaps... but not in the least bit fantastical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top