Access 97 picture suggestions

[pw]

Hi,

I'd like to have each client record have a picture of themselves.

Any ideas on what the best way to do this in my Access 97 application?

Thanks,
-pw
remove astericks (*) from e-mail address
(use paulwilliamson at spamcop dot net)

[Trevor Best]

pw wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to have each client record have a picture of themselves.

Any ideas on what the best way to do this in my Access 97 application?

Dunno about the absolute best way but a good way is to avoid the worst
way :-)

Avoid storing in OLE fields, you may paste a 20K jpeg in there but
Access will store a 1GB bitmap representation of it (OK, slight
exaggeration)

Store the path of the image (preferably on a networked drive if multi
user) and use an image control to display it.

See:
http://www.trevor.easynet.co.uk/downloads/Images.zip (A2K2)
http://www.trevor.easynet.co.uk/down...Images2000.zip (A2K)
http://www.trevor.easynet.co.uk/downloads/Images97.zip (A97)

The 97 one I just converted from A2K2 and haven't tested as I don't have
A97 (ye gads man, that application's nearly 8 years old, a lifetime in
computerspeak).

--
This sig left intentionally blank

[pw]

>pw wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to have each client record have a picture of themselves.

Any ideas on what the best way to do this in my Access 97 application?
Dunno about the absolute best way but a good way is to avoid the worst
way :-)

Avoid storing in OLE fields, you may paste a 20K jpeg in there but
Access will store a 1GB bitmap representation of it (OK, slight
exaggeration)

Store the path of the image (preferably on a networked drive if multi
user) and use an image control to display it.

See:
http://www.trevor.easynet.co.uk/downloads/Images.zip (A2K2)
http://www.trevor.easynet.co.uk/down...Images2000.zip (A2K)
http://www.trevor.easynet.co.uk/downloads/Images97.zip (A97)

Thanks! Great info!
The 97 one I just converted from A2K2 and haven't tested as I don't have
A97 (ye gads man, that application's nearly 8 years old, a lifetime in
computerspeak).

We (it's just my wife and I) decided to skip later versions of Access
after reading a bunch of negative posts here.

We do have Access 2003. Know of any issues with the latest version?
We are thinking about converting our two A97 applications to it.

Thanks again!

-paul
-pw
remove astericks (*) from e-mail address
(use paulwilliamson at spamcop dot net)

[Trevor Best]

pw wrote:

We (it's just my wife and I) decided to skip later versions of Access
after reading a bunch of negative posts here.
Well there's not much wrong with 2002, 2000 was absolutely horrendous
when it came out, it's taken 3 SPs to get it in a usable state but
there's no point in anyone upgrading to that as it's 2 versions behind
the current now.
We do have Access 2003. Know of any issues with the latest version?
We are thinking about converting our two A97 applications to it.

There have been some reported, I've not used it in anger myself but one
of my clients does, well the app is for 2002 and they all run that but
one of the guys has 2003 on his machine. He hasn't reported any issues
concerning that version, but then his is a user's POV, not a developer's.

--
This sig left intentionally blank

[pw]

>pw wrote:

We (it's just my wife and I) decided to skip later versions of Access
after reading a bunch of negative posts here.

Well there's not much wrong with 2002, 2000 was absolutely horrendous
when it came out, it's taken 3 SPs to get it in a usable state but
there's no point in anyone upgrading to that as it's 2 versions behind
the current now.

We do have Access 2003. Know of any issues with the latest version?
We are thinking about converting our two A97 applications to it.

There have been some reported, I've not used it in anger myself but one
of my clients does, well the app is for 2002 and they all run that but
one of the guys has 2003 on his machine. He hasn't reported any issues
concerning that version, but then his is a user's POV, not a developer's.

Thanks Trevor! One reason we've thought about getting *away* from MS
Access is because it comes installed on so many PCs. The nightmare
with installing our A97 application on a PC that already has another
version of Access installed has us thinking about other alternatives.
When we have to give instructions to a client that he/she has to
rename a *font* to get our A97 app installed, database bloating,
database corruption, etc..... it's pretty embarrassing. I hope issues
like that have been addressed with 2003.

Thank you so much for your help Trevor!!!

-paul


-pw
remove astericks (*) from e-mail address
(use paulwilliamson at spamcop dot net)

[Trevor Best]

pw wrote:

Thanks Trevor! One reason we've thought about getting *away* from MS
Access is because it comes installed on so many PCs. The nightmare
with installing our A97 application on a PC that already has another
version of Access installed has us thinking about other alternatives.
When we have to give instructions to a client that he/she has to
rename a *font* to get our A97 app installed, database bloating,
database corruption, etc..... it's pretty embarrassing. I hope issues
like that have been addressed with 2003.

No, the Hatten font thing has gone, corruption is still possible but
it's not like it will corrupt as soon as look at it. I use SQL Server
back-ends nowadays, which itself has gotten more stable over the years,
6.5 and below were prone to corruption from power outages, etc but 7.0
onwards has been rock solid. Bloating in Access front ends is not so bad
if you distribute an MDE, only temp table usage will bloat it but that's
avoidable.

A2003 has introduced the namby pamby macro security found in Word and
Excel so that needs turning off

--
This sig left intentionally blank

[pw]

>pw wrote:

Thanks Trevor! One reason we've thought about getting *away* from MS
Access is because it comes installed on so many PCs. The nightmare
with installing our A97 application on a PC that already has another
version of Access installed has us thinking about other alternatives.
When we have to give instructions to a client that he/she has to
rename a *font* to get our A97 app installed, database bloating,
database corruption, etc..... it's pretty embarrassing. I hope issues
like that have been addressed with 2003.
No, the Hatten font thing has gone, corruption is still possible but
it's not like it will corrupt as soon as look at it. I use SQL Server
back-ends nowadays, which itself has gotten more stable over the years,
6.5 and below were prone to corruption from power outages, etc but 7.0
onwards has been rock solid.

We are using SQL Server with our developing web application. How does
it work if we decide to use it for our desktop application as far as
installing an Access 2003 Front End with a SQL Server back end?

Do people have to have a license for it, pay extra $, require specific
services or does the setup program just install the application like
it does with an Access back-end?

Bloating in Access front ends is not so bad
if you distribute an MDE, only temp table usage will bloat it but that's
avoidable.

A2003 has introduced the namby pamby macro security found in Word and
Excel so that needs turning off

That is one thing(s) that may stop us from converting to it. As far
as I know, no matter what you do, the user still sees that annoying
message(s).

Thanks!
-pw
remove astericks (*) from e-mail address
(use paulwilliamson at spamcop dot net)

[Trevor Best]

pw wrote:

We are using SQL Server with our developing web application. How does
it work if we decide to use it for our desktop application as far as
installing an Access 2003 Front End with a SQL Server back end?

Do people have to have a license for it, pay extra $, require specific
services or does the setup program just install the application like
it does with an Access back-end?
Yes, they either need a licensed copy of Access itself or if you use the
developer tools you can distribute a royalty free runtime. They need to
license SQL Server also unless you distribute MSDE[1] to them.
That is one thing(s) that may stop us from converting to it. As far
as I know, no matter what you do, the user still sees that annoying
message(s).

I think you can digitally sign your app but that requires paying money
for a certificate from someone like Verisign. I haven't tried it myself
but I bet there's still a popup box with publisher info like you get on
ActiveX controls on the web.

[1] MSDE is a royalty free version of SQL Server, it's the full product
except for the following:
1. Limited to 5 simultaneous query threads (note this does not limit it
to 5 users but will hamper performance with more than 5 users)
2. 2GB database size limit
3. Cannot be a replication publisher, only a subscriber.
--
This sig left intentionally blank

[pw]

>pw wrote:

We are using SQL Server with our developing web application. How does
it work if we decide to use it for our desktop application as far as
installing an Access 2003 Front End with a SQL Server back end?

Do people have to have a license for it, pay extra $, require specific
services or does the setup program just install the application like
it does with an Access back-end?

Yes, they either need a licensed copy of Access itself or if you use the
developer tools you can distribute a royalty free runtime. They need to
license SQL Server also unless you distribute MSDE[1] to them.

That is one thing(s) that may stop us from converting to it. As far
as I know, no matter what you do, the user still sees that annoying
message(s).

I think you can digitally sign your app but that requires paying money
for a certificate from someone like Verisign. I haven't tried it myself
but I bet there's still a popup box with publisher info like you get on
ActiveX controls on the web.

[1] MSDE is a royalty free version of SQL Server, it's the full product
except for the following:
1. Limited to 5 simultaneous query threads (note this does not limit it
to 5 users but will hamper performance with more than 5 users)
2. 2GB database size limit
3. Cannot be a replication publisher, only a subscriber.

Thanks again Trevor!

-paul
-pw
remove astericks (*) from e-mail address
(use paulwilliamson at spamcop dot net)