467,122 Members | 1,283 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
Ask Question

Home New Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 467,122 developers. It's quick & easy.

Using an Access app without Access?

NB
In a small business environment where budget does not allow more
licence for Access, is there any way to have more users to use the
current Access application (built on Access 2002 and VBA with DAO
codes)?

I have tried put some data on the intranet using DAP, but it's not as
feature-rich as teh original application. I also heard of Citrix and
Terminal Server. Can someone give some pointer here.

Also, is there any free alternative to Citrix and the likes for an
intranet environment?

Thks
NB
Nov 12 '05 #1
  • viewed: 1548
Share:
5 Replies
"NB" <ni******@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5c**************************@posting.google.c om...
In a small business environment where budget does not allow more
licence for Access, is there any way to have more users to use the
current Access application (built on Access 2002 and VBA with DAO
codes)?


Use the run time version, presumably. You need to buy the Office Developers
Edition though.

Mike MacSween
Nov 12 '05 #2
"NB" <ni******@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5c**************************@posting.google.c om...
In a small business environment where budget does not allow more
licence for Access, is there any way to have more users to use the
current Access application (built on Access 2002 and VBA with DAO
codes)?

I have tried put some data on the intranet using DAP, but it's not as
feature-rich as teh original application. I also heard of Citrix and
Terminal Server. Can someone give some pointer here.

Also, is there any free alternative to Citrix and the likes for an
intranet environment?


You could buy the Developer's version and install the Runtime on those PCs
without a licensed version of Access, but unless you need this on several
machines you wouldn't achieve much cost savings.

Citrix and Terminal server don't help you because all users running apps in that
environment are still required to purchase legitimate licenses to the products
being used. So while you might be *installing* fewer instances of Access, you
would still be paying the same amount for licensing.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Nov 12 '05 #3
TC
Hi Rick

I've not used Citrix, but have considered doing so.

Not being rude at all, but: "who says" each connected user must have an
Access licence? Is that a Citrix requirement, or an Access one?

TIA,
TC
"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:br************@ID-98015.news.uni-berlin.de...
"NB" <ni******@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5c**************************@posting.google.c om...
In a small business environment where budget does not allow more
licence for Access, is there any way to have more users to use the
current Access application (built on Access 2002 and VBA with DAO
codes)?

I have tried put some data on the intranet using DAP, but it's not as
feature-rich as teh original application. I also heard of Citrix and
Terminal Server. Can someone give some pointer here.

Also, is there any free alternative to Citrix and the likes for an
intranet environment?
You could buy the Developer's version and install the Runtime on those PCs
without a licensed version of Access, but unless you need this on several
machines you wouldn't achieve much cost savings.

Citrix and Terminal server don't help you because all users running apps

in that environment are still required to purchase legitimate licenses to the products being used. So while you might be *installing* fewer instances of Access, you would still be paying the same amount for licensing.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

Nov 12 '05 #4
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:07:05 +1200 in comp.databases.ms-access, "TC"
<a@b.c.d> wrote:
Hi Rick

I've not used Citrix, but have considered doing so.

Not being rude at all, but: "who says" each connected user must have an
Access licence? Is that a Citrix requirement, or an Access one?


Use the runtime, no additional licence required.

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.
Nov 12 '05 #5
"TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote in message news:1071282999.346681@teuthos...
Hi Rick

I've not used Citrix, but have considered doing so.

Not being rude at all, but: "who says" each connected user must have an
Access licence? Is that a Citrix requirement, or an Access one?


I consider it a common sense issue. Terminal Server and Citrix solve a lot of
technical problems and have many administrative advantages, but they don't
absolve users from paying for the software they are running.

From Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...censoffice.asp

Note: Every device that connects to a terminal server will need to be properly
licensed for its own terminal server usage, in addition to being licensed
appropriately to use other applications and servers. Use terminal servers to
centrally manage and support the deployment of Office suites in your
organization. Dedicate a license for Office for every computer on which you plan
to use Office. Examples of computers that might run Office on a terminal server
include Windows-based workstations, Macintoshes, and UNIX workstations. The
terminal servers themselves do not require Office licenses, unless someone
sitting at the console will be running Office.

Scenario 1:
A customer has 50 Windows-based workstation devices in a call center and would
like to use Office XP on all these workstations. Two terminal servers support
the 50 Windows-based workstations. The customer will need to acquire 50 Office
licenses—one for each computer that will run Office. Even if a workstation is
expected to run Office only infrequently, the customer will still need to
acquire and dedicate an Office license for that workstation. If 20 of these
workstation will never run Office, then the customer will only need to acquire
30 licenses.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com
Nov 12 '05 #6

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

121 posts views Thread by typingcat@gmail.com | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Screenbert | last post: by
reply views Thread by screenbert@gmail.com | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.