Frontend on Windows PC/backend on a Mac?

[Squirrel]

I posted a question a couple of days ago about running different versions of
Access for the frontend versus the backend databases. Got some good advice
but now I've received this information:

"We are currently running AppleShare IP 6.3 and this allows machines running
Windows to connect via IP."

So the first choice of server is a Mac. The client is willing to buy a
Windows machine if necessary but would like to use an existing server if
possible. Could anyone advise me please? Could my database function if the
backend was on a Mac/not running Access? (My initial thought is no, that
the file systems would be different).

thx
Linda

[Bas Cost Budde]

Squirrel wrote:

I posted a question a couple of days ago about running different versions of
Access for the frontend versus the backend databases. Got some good advice
but now I've received this information:

"We are currently running AppleShare IP 6.3 and this allows machines running
Windows to connect via IP."

So the first choice of server is a Mac. The client is willing to buy a
Windows machine if necessary but would like to use an existing server if
possible. Could anyone advise me please? Could my database function if the
backend was on a Mac/not running Access? (My initial thought is no, that
the file systems would be different).

File systems shouldn't bother you. My backend currently is on a unix
machine. That is fine, as long as the file sharing mechanism does its work.

The Mac should support the smb protocol in sharing files. I can't
remember whether it does. Maybe the Apple site can tell you more.

--
Bas Cost Budde
http://www.heuveltop.nl/BasCB

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:04:22 +0100, Bas Cost Budde <ba*@heuveltop. org> wrote:

Squirrel wrote:

I posted a question a couple of days ago about running different versions of
Access for the frontend versus the backend databases. Got some good advice
but now I've received this information:

"We are currently running AppleShare IP 6.3 and this allows machines running
Windows to connect via IP."

So the first choice of server is a Mac. The client is willing to buy a
Windows machine if necessary but would like to use an existing server if
possible. Could anyone advise me please? Could my database function if the
backend was on a Mac/not running Access? (My initial thought is no, that
the file systems would be different).

File systems shouldn't bother you. My backend currently is on a unix
machine. That is fine, as long as the file sharing mechanism does its work.

The Mac should support the smb protocol in sharing files. I can't
remember whether it does. Maybe the Apple site can tell you more.

Actually, Access has a history of being very picky about its back-end server.
Only the fery best Netware engineers have ever made that work, and until
recently, SAMBA was pretty much a no-go, too. Squirrel is asking about using
AppleShare, and I don't know if that will work well or not, but there's a good
chance it won't. On OS X, you can probably run SAMBA 2.x, and that might even
be what it's doing by already, but I wouldn't be too sure about anything on OS
9.

[Trevor Best]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:59:20 -0800 in comp.databases. ms-access,
"Squirrel" <wi*****@covad. net> wrote:

I posted a question a couple of days ago about running different versions of
Access for the frontend versus the backend databases. Got some good advice
but now I've received this information:

"We are currently running AppleShare IP 6.3 and this allows machines running
Windows to connect via IP."

So the first choice of server is a Mac. The client is willing to buy a
Windows machine if necessary but would like to use an existing server if
possible. Could anyone advise me please? Could my database function if the
backend was on a Mac/not running Access? (My initial thought is no, that
the file systems would be different).

In theory the filesystem used on the server should not matter as it's
the workstation doing the work, e.g. you can have a MDB file on a
Linux ext2 partition. Your workstation doesn't know the difference as
the server makes it look like a network disk so in theory (that word
again) it should be possible but in practice, you may experience
locking problems, ISTR people here not having much luck with
Linux/Samba.

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.

[Bas Cost Budde]

Steve Jorgensen wrote:

Actually, Access has a history of being very picky about its back-end server.
Only the fery best Netware engineers have ever made that work, and until
recently, SAMBA was pretty much a no-go, too. Squirrel is asking about using
AppleShare, and I don't know if that will work well or not, but there's a good
chance it won't. On OS X, you can probably run SAMBA 2.x, and that might even
be what it's doing by already, but I wouldn't be too sure about anything on OS
9.

Are Samba versions for MacOS comparable to unix versions? I have had
Samba 1.9 without complaints from Access (97 that is)

--
Bas Cost Budde
http://www.heuveltop.nl/BasCB

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:49:40 +0100, Bas Cost Budde <ba*@heuveltop. org> wrote:

Steve Jorgensen wrote:

Actually, Access has a history of being very picky about its back-end server.
Only the fery best Netware engineers have ever made that work, and until
recently, SAMBA was pretty much a no-go, too. Squirrel is asking about using
AppleShare, and I don't know if that will work well or not, but there's a good
chance it won't. On OS X, you can probably run SAMBA 2.x, and that might even
be what it's doing by already, but I wouldn't be too sure about anything on OS
9.

Are Samba versions for MacOS comparable to unix versions? I have had
Samba 1.9 without complaints from Access (97 that is)

You made that work? Multi-user? I was told that that pretty much didn't
work, but 2.x worked well.

I don't know anything for sure about what SAMBA options are or aren't
available for OS X, I was just assuming SAMBA 2.0 should be able to run pretty
much unchanged because it works identically on many other different 'NIXes,
and OS X is based around a pretty standard BSD kernel. I wouldn't be
surprised if the OS X files haring for Windows is already SAMBA under the
hood.

[Bas Cost Budde]

Steve Jorgensen wrote:

Are Samba versions for MacOS comparable to unix versions? I have had
Samba 1.9 without complaints from Access (97 that is)
You made that work? Multi-user? I was told that that pretty much didn't
work, but 2.x worked well.

To be honest, I never tried to break it. I had only two users for the
application then ;-)
files haring for Windows

Uh? oh, fil esharing. I see. <G>

--
Bas Cost Budde
http://www.heuveltop.nl/BasCB

[Squirrel]

Steve, Bas, Trevor,

Thank you very much for your advice. I will try installing the backend on
their Mac and will be pleasantly surprised if it works. :-) These are
non-technical people and I need to leave them with a system which is easily
understood and maintained. Thank you so much for your help.

Linda

"Trevor Best" <bouncer@localh ost> wrote in message
news:p1******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:59:20 -0800 in comp.databases. ms-access,
"Squirrel" <wi*****@covad. net> wrote:

I posted a question a couple of days ago about running different versions ofAccess for the frontend versus the backend databases. Got some good advicebut now I've received this information:

"We are currently running AppleShare IP 6.3 and this allows machines runningWindows to connect via IP."

So the first choice of server is a Mac. The client is willing to buy a
Windows machine if necessary but would like to use an existing server if
possible. Could anyone advise me please? Could my database function if thebackend was on a Mac/not running Access? (My initial thought is no, that
the file systems would be different).

In theory the filesystem used on the server should not matter as it's
the workstation doing the work, e.g. you can have a MDB file on a
Linux ext2 partition. Your workstation doesn't know the difference as
the server makes it look like a network disk so in theory (that word
again) it should be possible but in practice, you may experience
locking problems, ISTR people here not having much luck with
Linux/Samba.

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.

[Tony Toews]

Steve Jorgensen <no****@nospam. nospam> wrote:

Are Samba versions for MacOS comparable to unix versions? I have had
Samba 1.9 without complaints from Access (97 that is)

You made that work? Multi-user? I was told that that pretty much didn't
work, but 2.x worked well.

Ah, thanks both for your comments. I'll add them to the Corruptions FAQ Causes Samba
page.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:36:24 GMT, Tony Toews <tt****@teluspl anet.net> wrote:

Steve Jorgensen <no****@nospam. nospam> wrote:

Are Samba versions for MacOS comparable to unix versions? I have had
Samba 1.9 without complaints from Access (97 that is)

You made that work? Multi-user? I was told that that pretty much didn't
work, but 2.x worked well.

Ah, thanks both for your comments. I'll add them to the Corruptions FAQ Causes Samba
page.

Well, sure, but given my level of certainty, you should probably file it as
"rumor" until you hear it from a more direct source.