Christian Muelle-Straten wrote:

>Dear Friends,
>As far as I know, MS does not tell users that it is confined to about
30.000
>objects. The more objects are stored, the slowly it will work. For larger
>museums MS Access does not seems to be a good idea. A real data base is
better.
>Or am I wrong?

The speed at which you get information out of your database is directly
related to how much you have, how much you ask for at any one time, and how
well the database is designed.  If anyone is looking to use Access I would
recommend that you take a look at SNAP! goto http://www.willo.com for
details.
If you intend to start from scratch you will spend far more than the cost of
a couple licenses of SNAP!.

Second, I wish Christian would clarify "real database".  Access is a "real"
relational database program.  I'm sure what is meant here is a server driven
relational database system like Microsoft SQL Server or Oracle.  Using such
is systems is the only logical route with large organization.  Of course, if
anyone is looking at one of these, chances are you are not the one building
the collections system.  Besides, many of the shrink wrapped collections
programs around either use a desktop database like Access or a server
database like SQL Server.  And many of the shops that built them will work
with you to tailor it around to fit your needs saving you lots of time and
money.

Gary Acord
Acord Information Management
[log in to unmask]