471,579 Members | 1,279 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post +

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 471,579 software developers and data experts.

have to use Access XP with wireless network

Thank you for any help you can give me. I have a database that I've
been working on... a backend for the server and front ends for the
users. Now I've found out that the network is wireless and that
wireless & Access don't get along... I have been reading what I could
find in this group... but I would like to clarify.
The users have Windows XP... so I put the backend on the server in the
root directory and put a front end for each user in a seperate folder
for each user on the server, right? Then use the remote desktop web
connection for the user to get to his front end? If I don't want a
corrupt database and that's why I'm not putting the front ends on the
users' pc... can't I get corruption if they don't close down the
remote connection properly?
Is there anything else I need to be worried about?
Thanks for your patience and attention.
Debbie
Nov 12 '05 #1
8 1965
On 31 Jan 2004 08:26:58 -0800, de****@seaportnet.com (Debbie) wrote:

Placing the front-end on the server in a user folder doesn't help,
because the app will still be loaded in the workstation's memory, and
the db connection still occurs over the wireless lan.
If you truly want to execute on the server, you need to use Windows
Terminal Server.

I run Access apps wirelessly all the time, and I don't get corruption.
Of course I ensure a good connection - my driver came with a signal
strength applet. I don't try to run the app from the basement around
the corner :-)

I have a feeling 802.11g is better than the older 802.11b
specification, and cheaper than when I bought my first set.

-Tom.

Thank you for any help you can give me. I have a database that I've
been working on... a backend for the server and front ends for the
users. Now I've found out that the network is wireless and that
wireless & Access don't get along... I have been reading what I could
find in this group... but I would like to clarify.
The users have Windows XP... so I put the backend on the server in the
root directory and put a front end for each user in a seperate folder
for each user on the server, right? Then use the remote desktop web
connection for the user to get to his front end? If I don't want a
corrupt database and that's why I'm not putting the front ends on the
users' pc... can't I get corruption if they don't close down the
remote connection properly?
Is there anything else I need to be worried about?
Thanks for your patience and attention.
Debbie


Nov 12 '05 #2
Tom van Stiphout <to*****@no.spam.cox.net> wrote in
news:ut********************************@4ax.com:
I have a feeling 802.11g is better than the older 802.11b
specification, and cheaper than when I bought my first set.


Ya think? 54mbps is probably better than 11mbps?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #3
Tom van Stiphout <to*****@no.spam.cox.net> wrote in
news:ut********************************@4ax.com:
I run Access apps wirelessly all the time, and I don't get corruption.
Of course I ensure a good connection - my driver came with a signal
strength applet. I don't try to run the app from the basement around
the corner :-)
Me too .... never a bit of a problem.
I have a feeling 802.11g is better than the older 802.11b
specification, and cheaper than when I bought my first set.


Way better! It seems as fast and as stable as a wire.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)
Nov 12 '05 #4
Lyle Fairfield <Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote in
news:Xn*******************@130.133.1.4:
Tom van Stiphout <to*****@no.spam.cox.net> wrote in
news:ut********************************@4ax.com:

I have a feeling 802.11g is better than the older 802.11b
specification, and cheaper than when I bought my first set.


Way better! It seems as fast and as stable as a wire.


There are some problems with wireless networks that are not there
with wired networks.

Consider, that the bandwidth on any channel on a particular wireless
network is not increased by adding hardware. That is, if you have a
single 802.11g wireless router (a single network), you have 54mbps
of bandwidth. If you add a second router, you still have that amount
of bandwidth.

Consider, then, an office building where you have an 802.11g
wireless network and the people in the office next door have one,
too. You're sharing your bandwidth will everyone in the area of
coverage who is operating on the same channel.

Indeed, if I remember correctly, 802.11g works by combining
channels, so it has less flexibility than 802.11b, even at its lower
bandwidth (11mbps).

A wired network is never affected by the wiring on a completely
different network.

And none of this is even touching on all the security issues, and
how shakey WEP and MAC authorization is and how much of the
bandwidth those soak up.

Wireless networking as it exists now is fine for delivering the
Internet easily, but I'm not sure I'd base a business network on it.

And I certainly wouldn't try to run Access across it, as wireless
networks simply have too many dropouts, in my experience.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #5
starwars <no****@tatooine.homelinux.net> wrote:
Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.


Folks

Please ignore this posting.

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
Nov 12 '05 #6
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:51:53 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

I don't mean faster, I mean more reliable.
-Tom.

Tom van Stiphout <to*****@no.spam.cox.net> wrote in
news:ut********************************@4ax.com :
I have a feeling 802.11g is better than the older 802.11b
specification, and cheaper than when I bought my first set.


Ya think? 54mbps is probably better than 11mbps?


Nov 12 '05 #7
Actually, in fact, one of the major SOHO brands of network gear... either
NETGEAR or LINKSYS, as I recall, has some 801.11g equipment that supports
108MB -- probably a dual linking arrangement. The price that I've seen
adverised at Fry's is not much more than 54MB 801.11g gear.

That's as fast as any network connection over which I have run a split
Access-Jet multiuser application. It ought to be just fine, if it provides a
reliable connection, as well as a fast one.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
Nov 12 '05 #8
"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote in
news:M7******************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
Actually, in fact, one of the major SOHO brands of network gear...
either NETGEAR or LINKSYS, as I recall, has some 801.11g equipment
that supports 108MB -- probably a dual linking arrangement. The
price that I've seen adverised at Fry's is not much more than 54MB
801.11g gear.
I think 802.11b has 5 or 6 channels, while 802.11g has only 2, and
802.11g gets bigger bandwidth by combining the channels of 802.11b
(if I'm remembering all of this correctly -- all the preceding
statements could be wrong!). So the 108mbps (not MBs, Larry) could
be using both channels.

But it's still shared bandwidth with anyone else using the same
broadcast space. If you have a 108mpbs router within range of your
next-door neighbor with an 802.11b router, you'll be sharing the
bandwidth with them, because you're overlapping in the same part of
the radio spectrum.
That's as fast as any network connection over which I have run a
split Access-Jet multiuser application. It ought to be just fine,
if it provides a reliable connection, as well as a fast one.


Reliability on 802.11b networks is not good enough for me to
consider running Access over it. The new standard would have to be
substantially more reliable than that for Access to work. Given how
many problems flakey wired NICs can cause, I don't think I'd risk
it!

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #9

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

2 posts views Thread by happymeteor | last post: by
22 posts views Thread by Nuno Fonseca | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Coffmans | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by mfleet1973 | last post: by
1 post views Thread by =?Utf-8?B?QmVmdWRkbGVkLTE=?= | last post: by
11 posts views Thread by =?iso-8859-1?b?VG9t4XMg0yBoyWlsaWRoZQ==?= | last post: by
reply views Thread by XIAOLAOHU | last post: by
reply views Thread by leo001 | last post: by
reply views Thread by lumer26 | last post: by
reply views Thread by Vinnie | last post: by
reply views Thread by lumer26 | last post: by

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.