473,729 Members | 2,177 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Life with Different Versions of Access

After reading and experiencing the phenomenon of installing MS Office
2000 on a system that already has MS Office 97, or for that matter
just Access 97 Runtime, I saw the ugliness that ensues. If one elects
the standard installation, then Office 2000 deletes a large percentage
of the older files. Of course, if one happens to choose Custom
installation and elects not to uninstall prior versions, then things
are happier. Yes, the archives are nearly replete with related
information, but is it possible that something new has emerged on this
subject?

I have done my own custom installation scripts of Access 97 Runtime
and place the files in a new, separate folder under Program Files. If
installed after Office 2000, there is no problem, except that each
takes a bit of time to reregister itself at startup. I believe that I
read somewhere about modifying the .srg files for Access 97 to
overcome this issue. Is this true? And what steps are needed to
accomplish it?

Also, does installing Office XP and/or Office 2003 onto a system that
has a prior version (well, specifically 97) cause the same havoc as
Office 2000 noted above? Or was Microsoft more circumspect with the
development and deployment of the later two versions?

Not that I want to augment the finances of SageKey, but I have read
that their Wise installation scripts for Access 97 have been designed
to prevent later versions of Office from removing earlier ones. This
is an interesting twist, but how did they do it? Is there a way to
conceal the identity of the older Office files? Has anyone insight
into this matter? Although logic may not be in an abundance at
Microsoft, why would they not have taken the reverse approach to this
issue with the installation of later Office versions - default of not
removing and optional custom of removing? Or if the later version,
after finding the older version in a folder other than Program
Files\Microsoft Office, does not remove?

Most Access developers might remark that they have control over their
installations, and therefore, the above issue is not significant.
However, for those of us where that method does not apply, then what
options or workarounds do we have, besides the pricey SageKey scripts
(not to mention the Wise installer) and the basic just disclose it
method?

Thanks for your anticipated answers and opinions. Dalan
Nov 12 '05 #1
4 2324
Dalan, see what michka has to say on the coexistence of A97 and 2000 at:
http://www.trigeminal.com/usenet/usenet019.asp?1033

The later versions are similar.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Dalan" <ot***@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
news:50******** *************** ***@posting.goo gle.com...
After reading and experiencing the phenomenon of installing MS Office
2000 on a system that already has MS Office 97, or for that matter
just Access 97 Runtime, I saw the ugliness that ensues. If one elects
the standard installation, then Office 2000 deletes a large percentage
of the older files. Of course, if one happens to choose Custom
installation and elects not to uninstall prior versions, then things
are happier. Yes, the archives are nearly replete with related
information, but is it possible that something new has emerged on this
subject?

I have done my own custom installation scripts of Access 97 Runtime
and place the files in a new, separate folder under Program Files. If
installed after Office 2000, there is no problem, except that each
takes a bit of time to reregister itself at startup. I believe that I
read somewhere about modifying the .srg files for Access 97 to
overcome this issue. Is this true? And what steps are needed to
accomplish it?

Also, does installing Office XP and/or Office 2003 onto a system that
has a prior version (well, specifically 97) cause the same havoc as
Office 2000 noted above? Or was Microsoft more circumspect with the
development and deployment of the later two versions?

Not that I want to augment the finances of SageKey, but I have read
that their Wise installation scripts for Access 97 have been designed
to prevent later versions of Office from removing earlier ones. This
is an interesting twist, but how did they do it? Is there a way to
conceal the identity of the older Office files? Has anyone insight
into this matter? Although logic may not be in an abundance at
Microsoft, why would they not have taken the reverse approach to this
issue with the installation of later Office versions - default of not
removing and optional custom of removing? Or if the later version,
after finding the older version in a folder other than Program
Files\Microsoft Office, does not remove?

Most Access developers might remark that they have control over their
installations, and therefore, the above issue is not significant.
However, for those of us where that method does not apply, then what
options or workarounds do we have, besides the pricey SageKey scripts
(not to mention the Wise installer) and the basic just disclose it
method?

Thanks for your anticipated answers and opinions. Dalan

Nov 12 '05 #2
Thanks Allen for the tip, but I have read the same article twice
before. I haven't attempted modifying the .srg files yet. So, no new
news on the subject - hey? You said "similar" regarding later versions
of MS Access and their installation protocols. So yes, if a custom
installation is not selected, then the older files are removed? And
what is so unique about SageKey's scripts that they can automatically
prevent this occurrence? Any additional insight will be appreciated.
Dalan
"Allen Browne" <Al*********@Se eSig.Invalid> wrote in message news:<3f******* *************** @freenews.iinet .net.au>...
Dalan, see what michka has to say on the coexistence of A97 and 2000 at:
http://www.trigeminal.com/usenet/usenet019.asp?1033

The later versions are similar.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Dalan" <ot***@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
news:50******** *************** ***@posting.goo gle.com...
After reading and experiencing the phenomenon of installing MS Office
2000 on a system that already has MS Office 97, or for that matter
just Access 97 Runtime, I saw the ugliness that ensues. If one elects
the standard installation, then Office 2000 deletes a large percentage
of the older files. Of course, if one happens to choose Custom
installation and elects not to uninstall prior versions, then things
are happier. Yes, the archives are nearly replete with related
information, but is it possible that something new has emerged on this
subject?

I have done my own custom installation scripts of Access 97 Runtime
and place the files in a new, separate folder under Program Files. If
installed after Office 2000, there is no problem, except that each
takes a bit of time to reregister itself at startup. I believe that I
read somewhere about modifying the .srg files for Access 97 to
overcome this issue. Is this true? And what steps are needed to
accomplish it?

Also, does installing Office XP and/or Office 2003 onto a system that
has a prior version (well, specifically 97) cause the same havoc as
Office 2000 noted above? Or was Microsoft more circumspect with the
development and deployment of the later two versions?

Not that I want to augment the finances of SageKey, but I have read
that their Wise installation scripts for Access 97 have been designed
to prevent later versions of Office from removing earlier ones. This
is an interesting twist, but how did they do it? Is there a way to
conceal the identity of the older Office files? Has anyone insight
into this matter? Although logic may not be in an abundance at
Microsoft, why would they not have taken the reverse approach to this
issue with the installation of later Office versions - default of not
removing and optional custom of removing? Or if the later version,
after finding the older version in a folder other than Program
Files\Microsoft Office, does not remove?

Most Access developers might remark that they have control over their
installations, and therefore, the above issue is not significant.
However, for those of us where that method does not apply, then what
options or workarounds do we have, besides the pricey SageKey scripts
(not to mention the Wise installer) and the basic just disclose it
method?

Thanks for your anticipated answers and opinions. Dalan

Nov 12 '05 #3
Yes, later versions also remove previous Office products unless you do a
Custom install.

Can't comment on SageKey: not something I use.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Dalan" <ot***@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
news:50******** *************** ***@posting.goo gle.com...
Thanks Allen for the tip, but I have read the same article twice
before. I haven't attempted modifying the .srg files yet. So, no new
news on the subject - hey? You said "similar" regarding later versions
of MS Access and their installation protocols. So yes, if a custom
installation is not selected, then the older files are removed? And
what is so unique about SageKey's scripts that they can automatically
prevent this occurrence? Any additional insight will be appreciated.
Dalan
"Allen Browne" <Al*********@Se eSig.Invalid> wrote in message

news:<3f******* *************** @freenews.iinet .net.au>...
Dalan, see what michka has to say on the coexistence of A97 and 2000 at:
http://www.trigeminal.com/usenet/usenet019.asp?1033

The later versions are similar.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Dalan" <ot***@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
news:50******** *************** ***@posting.goo gle.com...
After reading and experiencing the phenomenon of installing MS Office
2000 on a system that already has MS Office 97, or for that matter
just Access 97 Runtime, I saw the ugliness that ensues. If one elects
the standard installation, then Office 2000 deletes a large percentage
of the older files. Of course, if one happens to choose Custom
installation and elects not to uninstall prior versions, then things
are happier. Yes, the archives are nearly replete with related
information, but is it possible that something new has emerged on this
subject?

I have done my own custom installation scripts of Access 97 Runtime
and place the files in a new, separate folder under Program Files. If
installed after Office 2000, there is no problem, except that each
takes a bit of time to reregister itself at startup. I believe that I
read somewhere about modifying the .srg files for Access 97 to
overcome this issue. Is this true? And what steps are needed to
accomplish it?

Also, does installing Office XP and/or Office 2003 onto a system that
has a prior version (well, specifically 97) cause the same havoc as
Office 2000 noted above? Or was Microsoft more circumspect with the
development and deployment of the later two versions?

Not that I want to augment the finances of SageKey, but I have read
that their Wise installation scripts for Access 97 have been designed
to prevent later versions of Office from removing earlier ones. This
is an interesting twist, but how did they do it? Is there a way to
conceal the identity of the older Office files? Has anyone insight
into this matter? Although logic may not be in an abundance at
Microsoft, why would they not have taken the reverse approach to this
issue with the installation of later Office versions - default of not
removing and optional custom of removing? Or if the later version,
after finding the older version in a folder other than Program
Files\Microsoft Office, does not remove?

Most Access developers might remark that they have control over their
installations, and therefore, the above issue is not significant.
However, for those of us where that method does not apply, then what
options or workarounds do we have, besides the pricey SageKey scripts
(not to mention the Wise installer) and the basic just disclose it
method?

Thanks for your anticipated answers and opinions. Dalan

Nov 12 '05 #4
I believe SageKeys scripts are for Wise Installer and InstallShield. I know
of them primarily in regard to installing runtime support, although one of
my colleagues used his own Wise scripts to install Access 2.0 remotely.

If you simply mean the installation of retail Access, I have, on this
machine, Access 97, Access 2002, and Access 2003 all happily coexisting.
Yes, each was installed into a separte folder, and in each case, I told the
install not to replace the previous version. As best I remember, I installed
them in chronological order, but I might have installed Access 97 after one
of the others. If you get the "no license" message, take a look at Article
141373 in the Knowledge Base at http://support.microsoft.com.

I don't know if there is a SageKey newsgroup, but that would be a good
source for detail information, or SageKey's website. One would think they
would be prompt to answer questions from a potential customer.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

"Dalan" <ot***@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
news:50******** *************** ***@posting.goo gle.com...
Thanks Allen for the tip, but I have read the same article twice
before. I haven't attempted modifying the .srg files yet. So, no new
news on the subject - hey? You said "similar" regarding later versions
of MS Access and their installation protocols. So yes, if a custom
installation is not selected, then the older files are removed? And
what is so unique about SageKey's scripts that they can automatically
prevent this occurrence? Any additional insight will be appreciated.
Dalan
"Allen Browne" <Al*********@Se eSig.Invalid> wrote in message

news:<3f******* *************** @freenews.iinet .net.au>...
Dalan, see what michka has to say on the coexistence of A97 and 2000 at:
http://www.trigeminal.com/usenet/usenet019.asp?1033

The later versions are similar.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Dalan" <ot***@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
news:50******** *************** ***@posting.goo gle.com...
After reading and experiencing the phenomenon of installing MS Office
2000 on a system that already has MS Office 97, or for that matter
just Access 97 Runtime, I saw the ugliness that ensues. If one elects
the standard installation, then Office 2000 deletes a large percentage
of the older files. Of course, if one happens to choose Custom
installation and elects not to uninstall prior versions, then things
are happier. Yes, the archives are nearly replete with related
information, but is it possible that something new has emerged on this
subject?

I have done my own custom installation scripts of Access 97 Runtime
and place the files in a new, separate folder under Program Files. If
installed after Office 2000, there is no problem, except that each
takes a bit of time to reregister itself at startup. I believe that I
read somewhere about modifying the .srg files for Access 97 to
overcome this issue. Is this true? And what steps are needed to
accomplish it?

Also, does installing Office XP and/or Office 2003 onto a system that
has a prior version (well, specifically 97) cause the same havoc as
Office 2000 noted above? Or was Microsoft more circumspect with the
development and deployment of the later two versions?

Not that I want to augment the finances of SageKey, but I have read
that their Wise installation scripts for Access 97 have been designed
to prevent later versions of Office from removing earlier ones. This
is an interesting twist, but how did they do it? Is there a way to
conceal the identity of the older Office files? Has anyone insight
into this matter? Although logic may not be in an abundance at
Microsoft, why would they not have taken the reverse approach to this
issue with the installation of later Office versions - default of not
removing and optional custom of removing? Or if the later version,
after finding the older version in a folder other than Program
Files\Microsoft Office, does not remove?

Most Access developers might remark that they have control over their
installations, and therefore, the above issue is not significant.
However, for those of us where that method does not apply, then what
options or workarounds do we have, besides the pricey SageKey scripts
(not to mention the Wise installer) and the basic just disclose it
method?

Thanks for your anticipated answers and opinions. Dalan

Nov 12 '05 #5

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

1
2095
by: Max M | last post by:
I would like to install several copies of Python 2.4.2 on my machine, but it doesn't seem to be possible. If I allready has a version installed, the installer only gives the options to: - change python 2.4.2 - repair python 2.4.2 - remove python 2.4.2
14
4188
by: wolftor | last post by:
1) Is there a free runtime version of Access available that is more recent than the one for Access 2000? 2) If I create an application (MDE) in A2K, will it run on all later versions of Access? 3) If I create a CD using A2K Developer that includes the runtime version of Access 2K and an installation package, and if someone tries to install the application from the CD, what happens if someone already has Access 2000 or a later version...
6
3710
by: Ecohouse | last post by:
I have a computer with XP on it. I loaded Office 97 first because I needed Access 97 for some work. I then loaded Office 2000. Everything seemed to be running fine. But I have come across a few problems. 1) I have hyperlinks in some tables and when I try to access the hyperlinks I get an error message "An unexpected error has occurred. 2) I've been trying to do some automation through Access for MS Word using VBA code. I've been...
4
2810
by: Squirrel | last post by:
I've developed an Access 2002 database which will be deployed with the backend on a server and frontend on the users' PCs. I've now been advised that new employees will be given laptops with Access 2003 installed and that the server software will not be updated. Also some of the users are using Access 2000 and some Access 2002. My question is - will this work? There is a lack of IT support in this department - they've contracted with...
2
1524
by: ken | last post by:
I may need to have front ends configured for Access 2002 and 2000 and have one access 2000 backend. I think it might work? Right now I have access 97 and 2k on my computer and when I tried linking to a table from 2k to 97 it took it. So I'm thinking that if I have Frontends configured for different access versions and 1 backend I might be able to solve my problem. comments? THanks in advance.
2
1657
by: ken | last post by:
I just opened up an access database that works both in 2k3 and 2k. How is this possible? Usually access would pop up with a window that says you have to convert this database to the latest version. Otherwise you can only view it read only.. ? Thanks
0
1342
by: learnet | last post by:
Hi, I have a question about using different versions of same assembly from GAC.... I have created a assembly "testlib" and created a strong name for that assembly. Installed the assembly in GAC. Now I have created a client application (windows application) "usetestlib". In the assemblyinfo.cs file of usetestlib, i have given the version of the "testlib" assembly. while running the client application it is working fine.
12
2300
by: Drazen Gemic | last post by:
How long will PHP4 be supported ? When is PHP4 end of life scheduled ? DG
67
3348
by: bluejack | last post by:
A recent post asking for help with unions reminded me of this component of the C language that I have only used a couple of times, and those almost entirely out of personal whim -- Unions for the sake of Unions simply because I wanted to see one in action. Granted: it makes it possible to save a few bytes of storage when you have something that can be a chicken or a rooster, but not both, and you're always going to know which it is. ...
0
8913
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
8761
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
9280
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
0
9142
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
1
6722
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules. He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms. Adolph will...
0
6016
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
0
4525
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
1
3238
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
2
2677
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.