Access 97 vs. newer versions

[James Stewart]

If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a datasheet that
would include two related tables to create an encyclopedic style database
and then create some fairly indepth forms to filter and query the info in
the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading from Access97
to a later version?

[Lyle Fairfield]

"James Stewart" <ji*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:_b*******************@fe02.news.easynews.com:

If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a datasheet
that would include two related tables to create an encyclopedic style
database and then create some fairly indepth forms to filter and query
the info in the database, would there be any great advantage to
upgrading from Access97 to a later version?

If you use Access 2003 you won't have those recruiters from Antiques
Roadshow bothering you.

Access 97 is just fine. So is driving to California from Oklahoma in a
Model A Ford. It's especially fine for those who are not capable or do not
wish to familiarize themselves with the complexities of overhead cam
engines, or automatic transmissions, and want be exploited as fruit pickers
because they have no current marketable skills. And the use of Access 97
qualifies you for immediate Access to DAO heaven should you be DOA, which
is very convenient as it’s quite easy to mistake the one for the other.

--
Lyle Fairfield

[James Stewart]

> If you use Access 2003 you won't have those recruiters from Antiques

Roadshow bothering you.
What?!?
Access 97 is just fine. So is driving to California from Oklahoma in a
Model A Ford. It's especially fine for those who are not capable or do not
wish to familiarize themselves with the complexities of overhead cam
engines, or automatic transmissions, and want be exploited as fruit
pickers
because they have no current marketable skills. And the use of Access 97
qualifies you for immediate Access to DAO heaven should you be DOA, which
is very convenient as it's quite easy to mistake the one for the other.

Is this supposed to make sense??? 'cause it didn't address my question or
any other for that matter!?!

[Rick Brandt]

"James Stewart" <ji*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kA********************@fe05.news.easynews.com ...

If you use Access 2003 you won't have those recruiters from Antiques
Roadshow bothering you.

What?!?

Access 97 is just fine. So is driving to California from Oklahoma in a
Model A Ford. It's especially fine for those who are not capable or do not
wish to familiarize themselves with the complexities of overhead cam
engines, or automatic transmissions, and want be exploited as fruit pickers
because they have no current marketable skills. And the use of Access 97
qualifies you for immediate Access to DAO heaven should you be DOA, which
is very convenient as it's quite easy to mistake the one for the other.

Is this supposed to make sense??? 'cause it didn't address my question or any
other for that matter!?!

Lyle like "new stuff" better.

You need to examine the "What's New?" documents for the newer versions to see if
any of those features appeal to you enough to pay for an upgrade. Nothing
you've described seems to mandate anything newer.

If you intend to share your file with others then a version that produces the
2000 file format would have the largest compatibility because anyone with 2000,
2002, or 2003 would not only be able to open it (MDB or MDE), but also make
design changes (MDB only).

If you were only concerned with others "using" it and didn't mind distributing
an MDB then Access 97 file format would have the largest compatibility since the
newer versions can use a 97 file (MDB only), they just can't make design changes
without converting it first.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Larry Linson]

Give 'em Hell, Lyle!
"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@aim.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@216.221.8 1.119...

"James Stewart" <ji*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:_b*******************@fe02.news.easynews.com:

If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a datasheet
that would include two related tables to create an encyclopedic style
database and then create some fairly indepth forms to filter and query
the info in the database, would there be any great advantage to
upgrading from Access97 to a later version?

If you use Access 2003 you won't have those recruiters from Antiques
Roadshow bothering you.

Access 97 is just fine. So is driving to California from Oklahoma in a
Model A Ford. It's especially fine for those who are not capable or do not
wish to familiarize themselves with the complexities of overhead cam
engines, or automatic transmissions, and want be exploited as fruit
pickers
because they have no current marketable skills. And the use of Access 97
qualifies you for immediate Access to DAO heaven should you be DOA, which
is very convenient as it's quite easy to mistake the one for the other.

--
Lyle Fairfield

[Bob Quintal]

"James Stewart" <ji*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:_b*******************@fe02.news.easynews.com:

If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a
datasheet that would include two related tables to create an
encyclopedic style database and then create some fairly
indepth forms to filter and query the info in the database,
would there be any great advantage to upgrading from Access97
to a later version?

Unless you are interested in suffering the effects of newly
introduced b\u\g\s\features like Name Autocorrupt or much ADO about
nothing, there is little point in upgrading.

--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

[Baz]

"James Stewart" <ji*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_b*******************@fe02.news.easynews.com. ..

If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a datasheet that would include two related tables to create an encyclopedic style database
and then create some fairly indepth forms to filter and query the info in
the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading from Access97 to a later version?

Access 97 is fine.

[Tim Marshall]

James Stewart wrote:

the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading from Access97
to a later version?

In my opinion, yes.

What Lyle says makes perfect sense. His analogy is the Model A and a
modern vehicle compared to A97 and later versions of Acccess.

In my own experience, I've found that while A97 is pretty solid, I've
had difficulty deploying my apps on WinXp machines. Frequently, these
machines have had A97 installed along with later versions of Office. I
have no control over these machines, but it seems that frequently,
software support people don't do such installs correctly. In such
situations and sometimes even in cases where only Office 97 is installed
on the WinXp OS, I encounter cripppling problems that usually manifest
themselves when library references are screwed up.

I prefer to deploy mde's and it's really not worth the headache to go
out and try and compile these on the many problem machines there are.
This was one of a couple of major reasons for my decision to switch to
A2003.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

[James Stewart]

Thanks for the advise. For the time being, I'll stick with 97. I can always
upgrade later if the need arises.

Thanks again

[Rick Brandt]

"Tim Marshall" <TI****@PurplePandaChasers.Moertherium> wrote in message
news:e2**********@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...

James Stewart wrote:

the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading from Access97
to a later version?

In my opinion, yes.

What Lyle says makes perfect sense. His analogy is the Model A and a modern
vehicle compared to A97 and later versions of Acccess.

In my own experience, I've found that while A97 is pretty solid, I've had
difficulty deploying my apps on WinXp machines. Frequently, these machines
have had A97 installed along with later versions of Office. I have no control
over these machines, but it seems that frequently, software support people
don't do such installs correctly. In such situations and sometimes even in
cases where only Office 97 is installed on the WinXp OS, I encounter
cripppling problems that usually manifest themselves when library references
are screwed up.

I prefer to deploy mde's and it's really not worth the headache to go out and
try and compile these on the many problem machines there are. This was one of
a couple of major reasons for my decision to switch to A2003.

While I don't doubt your experiences I have Access 97 runtime apps deployed on
hundreds of machines (which I have NEVER seen physically) using everything from
Win95 all the way to Windows Server 2003 and have zero problems that can be
attributed to the Access version. These days the majority of those users are
running WinXP. I have never compiled my MDEs on anything but my single office
PC at work. I hear stories about people needing to compile their apps "per
environment", but have never seen that issue either.

Access 97 is not the best choice on machines where NT accounts are set up and
the user is not an admin of the machine, but even with that I have seen few
issues that were not easily solved. It is also not a good choice for Terminal
Server apps on newer versions of Windows as the "high percentage, low priority"
CPU usage of Access 97 that is normally not a problem in other situations does
seem to bog the machine down in that scenario.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[rkc]

James Stewart wrote:

Thanks for the advise. For the time being, I'll stick with 97. I can always
upgrade later if the need arises.

You may as well hold out for Access 2007 and really be on the cutting
edge.

[Lyle Fairfield]

"James Stewart" <ji*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xu*******************@fe08.news.easynews.com:

Thanks for the advise. For the time being, I'll stick with 97. I can
always upgrade later if the need arises.

Sounds Marxian to me.

--
Lyle Fairfield

[Tim Marshall]

Rick Brandt wrote:

While I don't doubt your experiences I have Access 97 runtime apps deployed on
hundreds of machines (which I have NEVER seen physically) using everything from
Win95 all the way to Windows Server 2003 and have zero problems that can be
attributed to the Access version.

That's reassuring to hear. Here's some more background on my situation
for information's sake. 8)

Most of my problem has to do with a different part of our organization
over which the network support guy runs a reign of iron control and
terror (in my opinion) and has all individual PCs locked down tightly,
not permitting anyone to do anything on their PCs except in their own
user space. While I know there are some organizations where such
control is warranted, this one example is certainly *NOT* one of them.
As far as I'm concerned, this network admin, who also handles PC
support, does not do Office installs correctly when there are multiple
versions of Office required (such as Office 2000 and A97, for example).
The very small number of similar problems in my own area can, I think
be attributed to similar mis-installations.

One of those local problems I attribute to a commercial VB app installed
on one user's PC that uses some version of Jet.

All of these I'm pretty sure I can attribute to two (sometimes more)
versions of Office, ie, A97 and a later version of Office running.

I couldn't be bothered to keep up with stuff so the only A97 apps I
support are when people come to me with an issue on a machine where I
can see the format, left, etc functions are still working properly.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

[David W. Fenton]

"James Stewart" <ji*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:_b*******************@fe02.news.easynews.com:

If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a
datasheet that would include two related tables to create an
encyclopedic style database and then create some fairly indepth
forms to filter and query the info in the database, would there be
any great advantage to upgrading from Access97 to a later version?

If it's what you own and for personal use, definitely not.

If it's for a client then I'd say A2K3 is the best development
platform (though using the A2K file format so all of the last 3
versions of Access can use it).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

Tim Marshall <TI****@PurplePandaChasers.Moertherium> wrote in
news:e2**********@coranto.ucs.mun.ca:

James Stewart wrote:

the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading
from Access97 to a later version?
In my opinion, yes.

What Lyle says makes perfect sense. His analogy is the Model A
and a modern vehicle compared to A97 and later versions of
Acccess.

That's the biggest pile of BS I've ever seen. It's more like the
comparison between a 2003 model car and the corresponding 1997
model. There's hardly any difference in how both will work for
transportation, though there may be nice little useful features
offered by the later model (the latest in airbag technology, or GPS,
etc.).
In my own experience, I've found that while A97 is pretty solid,
I've had difficulty deploying my apps on WinXp machines.
Frequently, these machines have had A97 installed along with later
versions of Office. I have no control over these machines, but it
seems that frequently, software support people don't do such
installs correctly. In such situations and sometimes even in
cases where only Office 97 is installed on the WinXp OS, I
encounter cripppling problems that usually manifest themselves
when library references are screwed up.
I've never seen a single problem on a WinXP machine, and several of
my clients' A97 apps are running on them.
I prefer to deploy mde's and it's really not worth the headache to
go out and try and compile these on the many problem machines
there are. This was one of a couple of major reasons for my
decision to switch to A2003.

If it's reference paths, then the problem would wouldn't change with
a later version of Access, no?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:PP******************@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et:

Access 97 is not the best choice on machines where NT accounts are
set up and the user is not an admin of the machine, but even with
that I have seen few issues that were not easily solved. . . .
I've never seen any such problems. Word97 needs a registry
permissions change for the spell checker to work, but I"ve never had
to make any adjustments for Access. And all my clients for whom I'm
the sysadmin are *not* running as administrative users (which is
very bad practice).
. . . It is also not a good choice for Terminal
Server apps on newer versions of Windows as the "high percentage,
low priority" CPU usage of Access 97 that is normally not a
problem in other situations does seem to bog the machine down in
that scenario.

Really? Is A97 different from A2K in regard to the low-priority
Access message thread?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"James Stewart" <ji*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:kA********************@fe05.news.easynews.com :

If you use Access 2003 you won't have those recruiters from
Antiques Roadshow bothering you.

What?!?

Lyle thinks that software code "rusts" when it gets old (i.e., older
than 5 years or so). He's crazy on this point, so far as I'm
concerned.

Access 97 is just fine. So is driving to California from Oklahoma
in a Model A Ford. It's especially fine for those who are not
capable or do not wish to familiarize themselves with the
complexities of overhead cam engines, or automatic transmissions,
and want be exploited as fruit pickers
because they have no current marketable skills. And the use of
Access 97 qualifies you for immediate Access to DAO heaven should
you be DOA, which is very convenient as it's quite easy to
mistake the one for the other.

Is this supposed to make sense??? 'cause it didn't address my
question or any other for that matter!?!

It's an absolutely ludicrous comparison -- and not worth paying the
slightest attention to.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[kaniest]

James Stewart wrote:

If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a datasheet that would include two related tables to create an
encyclopedic style database and then create some fairly indepth forms to filter and query the info in the database, would there be
any great advantage to upgrading from Access97 to a later version?

What's an encyclopedic style database? It could mean
a long process of refining relations between articles,
enabling users to find meaningful related information.
IMNSHO newer versions of Access (or other relational
style database) will be an improvement.
A97 works ok with Visiomodeler. It may be a good idea
to maintain some design while adding indexes and extra
(encyclopedic?) reference tables.

--
Kaniest

[Rick Brandt]

David W. Fenton wrote:

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:PP******************@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et:

Access 97 is not the best choice on machines where NT accounts are
set up and the user is not an admin of the machine, but even with
that I have seen few issues that were not easily solved. . . .

I've never seen any such problems. Word97 needs a registry
permissions change for the spell checker to work, but I"ve never had
to make any adjustments for Access. And all my clients for whom I'm
the sysadmin are *not* running as administrative users (which is
very bad practice).

. . . It is also not a good choice for Terminal
Server apps on newer versions of Windows as the "high percentage,
low priority" CPU usage of Access 97 that is normally not a
problem in other situations does seem to bog the machine down in
that scenario.

Really? Is A97 different from A2K in regard to the low-priority
Access message thread?

I can't say for sure as I have only our one anecdotal incident, but we were
using Access 97 runtime on a two server Citrix farm running on NT 4 TS Edition
for a few years. The system guys noticed the idle CPU usage, but I explained
what it was and we had no problems. When we upgraded those servers (new boxes
and server 2003) we suddenly had all kinds of resource problems. Killing the
Access instances always freed up the resources. It "appeared" that the same
idle CPU process was still there, but no longer acting as if it had low
priority.

We installed Access 2000 (did not remove A97 runtime) and I converted a copy of
the app to 2K file version and all the problems went away. Ever since that I
have been converting a copy of my app strictly for use on the Citrix farm.
Everyone who does not run off of Citrix still uses the A97 runtime.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Tim Marshall]

David W. Fenton wrote:

That's the biggest pile of BS I've ever seen. It's more like the
8) Well, consider it this way - are you more likely to sell a car with
an airbag and a modern suspension system or someting with a steel wheel
and leaf springs? Design expertize in which is more likely to be relevant?

I was trying to explain Lyle's analogy. Whether or not you agree with
it is up to you.
I've never seen a single problem on a WinXP machine, and several of
my clients' A97 apps are running on them.
As rkc mentioned. See my response to him for further clarification on
my experiences.
If it's reference paths, then the problem would wouldn't change with
a later version of Access, no?

Actually I meant the reference path conflicts that are the result of two
or more different versions of Office when they are not installed as
recommended. What often happens is the format(), left() etc functions
that may be part of an expression in a form's textbox(es) display
something like error#. When I open the A97 app on the offending
computer, the DAO reference is usually 3.6. This is when the
application is developed on my machine and reference checks show the
reference to correctly be 3.51. And yes, this happened quite frequently
to me before I had anything but Office 97 on my own machine. You can
reset this to 3.51 usually and let the user carry on with no difficulty.
But it's a total PITA.

The above is caused by improper installs of later versions of Office. I
base that on myriad posts on the subject in this newsgroup since people
first began complaining of problems with A2K.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

[David W. Fenton]

Tim Marshall <TI****@PurplePandaChasers.Moertherium> wrote in
news:e2**********@coranto.ucs.mun.ca:

David W. Fenton wrote:

That's the biggest pile of BS I've ever seen. It's more like the
8) Well, consider it this way - are you more likely to sell a car
with an airbag and a modern suspension system or someting with a
steel wheel and leaf springs? Design expertize in which is more
likely to be relevant?

It all depends on what you are building and why. I note that NASA
uses computer technology that is quite primitive in comparison to
what we have on our own desktops, but that's because the technology
is tested and proven.
I was trying to explain Lyle's analogy. Whether or not you agree
with it is up to you.

If you need the features in the new model, well, of course, get the
new model. If you don't, the older will serve just fine. In that
regard, my alteration of Lyle's analogy makes more sense. Likening
A97 to a Model A is ludicrous in light of the minor differences
between A97 and A2K3. I wouldn't even say that dBase II would be a
Model A, by analogy.

I've never seen a single problem on a WinXP machine, and several
of my clients' A97 apps are running on them.

As rkc mentioned. See my response to him for further
clarification on my experiences.

If it's reference paths, then the problem would wouldn't change
with a later version of Access, no?

Actually I meant the reference path conflicts that are the result
of two or more different versions of Office when they are not
installed as recommended. What often happens is the format(),
left() etc functions that may be part of an expression in a form's
textbox(es) display something like error#. When I open the A97
app on the offending computer, the DAO reference is usually 3.6.
This is when the application is developed on my machine and
reference checks show the reference to correctly be 3.51. And
yes, this happened quite frequently to me before I had anything
but Office 97 on my own machine. You can reset this to 3.51
usually and let the user carry on with no difficulty.
But it's a total PITA.

The above is caused by improper installs of later versions of
Office. I base that on myriad posts on the subject in this
newsgroup since people first began complaining of problems with
A2K.

So, it really doesn't have anything to do with any kind of flaw in
A97.

And the situation you describe is simply not relevant to the
original poster's question -- if you've got A97 and a newer version
of Access available on the desktops you're developing for, then it's
a no-brainer to use the latest version, seems to me (even if it's
A2K).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:p7******************@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et:

We installed Access 2000 (did not remove A97 runtime) and I
converted a copy of the app to 2K file version and all the
problems went away. Ever since that I have been converting a copy
of my app strictly for use on the Citrix farm. Everyone who does
not run off of Citrix still uses the A97 runtime.

Citrix of Windows Terminal Server?

I really wish people would be more careful with terminology.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Rick Brandt]

David W. Fenton wrote:

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:p7******************@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et:

We installed Access 2000 (did not remove A97 runtime) and I
converted a copy of the app to 2K file version and all the
problems went away. Ever since that I have been converting a copy
of my app strictly for use on the Citrix farm. Everyone who does
not run off of Citrix still uses the A97 runtime.

Citrix of Windows Terminal Server?

I really wish people would be more careful with terminology.

Citrix runs on top of TS so I assume that people know that the former includes
the latter.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[David W. Fenton]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4z******************@newssvr14.news.prodigy.c om:

David W. Fenton wrote:

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:p7******************@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et:

> We installed Access 2000 (did not remove A97 runtime) and I
> converted a copy of the app to 2K file version and all the
> problems went away. Ever since that I have been converting a
> copy of my app strictly for use on the Citrix farm. Everyone
> who does not run off of Citrix still uses the A97 runtime.

Citrix of Windows Terminal Server?

I really wish people would be more careful with terminology.

Citrix runs on top of TS so I assume that people know that the
former includes the latter.

But Citrix only provides *extensions* to Terminal Server. So the
main issue may be TS-related, and not Citrix at all.

Secondly, none of my clients using TS have any of the Citrix
extensions (I can't see that they provide any value now that MS
licensed most of their basic technology for inclusion in Windows
Server starting with Win2K Server), so if the isssue *is*
Citrix-only, that means I wouldn't have to worry.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Steve]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...

It all depends on what you are building and why. I note that NASA
uses computer technology that is quite primitive in comparison to
what we have on our own desktops, but that's because the technology
is tested and proven.

What primitive "computer technology" does NASA use?

In case they need extra copies, I still have old DOS versions, along with
WordStar, FoxBase, Clipper, QuickBasis, and SuperCalc - all on 5 1/4" disks
so they don't need to upgrade their hardware. I can't find my old dBASE II
disks though, nor my CPM operating system disks, so hopefully they don't
need those.

But I heard (yes, you are not the only one with sources to what NASA runs on
their desktops) that they are upgrading to Windows 3.11. If so, I have
copies of Windows, and even VB3 and Access 2.0. But the VB/Access programs
are on 3 1/2" disks, so they may need to find some money in their budget to
upgrade the hardware :(

Any insight on the computer technology, if any, being used by our government
to track those WMDs?

Steven

[Rick Brandt]

David W. Fenton wrote:

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4z******************@newssvr14.news.prodigy.c om:

David W. Fenton wrote:

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:p7******************@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et:

> We installed Access 2000 (did not remove A97 runtime) and I
> converted a copy of the app to 2K file version and all the
> problems went away. Ever since that I have been converting a
> copy of my app strictly for use on the Citrix farm. Everyone
> who does not run off of Citrix still uses the A97 runtime.

Citrix of Windows Terminal Server?

I really wish people would be more careful with terminology.

Citrix runs on top of TS so I assume that people know that the
former includes the latter.

But Citrix only provides *extensions* to Terminal Server. So the
main issue may be TS-related, and not Citrix at all.

Secondly, none of my clients using TS have any of the Citrix
extensions (I can't see that they provide any value now that MS
licensed most of their basic technology for inclusion in Windows
Server starting with Win2K Server), so if the isssue *is*
Citrix-only, that means I wouldn't have to worry.

My impression was that the "issue" was running multiple Access instances on
server 2003. The fact that those instances were being instantiated by remote
users via Citrix/TS is not relevant as far as I know.

Does straight TS allow for the use of "published applications" where the remoite
user has no access to a desktop or any other programs? I always assumed that
this was a Citrix-Only feature and was the primary reason that we use it.
--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[David W. Fenton]

"Steve" <st***@nospam.net> wrote in news:Tb*************@fe10.lga:

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...

It all depends on what you are building and why. I note that NASA
uses computer technology that is quite primitive in comparison to
what we have on our own desktops, but that's because the
technology is tested and proven.
What primitive "computer technology" does NASA use?

The space shuttle, for instance, uses computers that would have been
considered low-powered in 1990.

Recently I was watching a PBS show about the Mars rovers, and those
were using computers that would have been considered reasonable in
1990.

Granted, these are all missions that are designed long before they
pay off (especially the Mars rovers, which took 10 years or more
from conception to missiong completion), but the Mars rovers did
*not* use the latest technology available in the mid-90s (when they
were designed), but instead opted for older, proven technology. It
looks even more out-of-date today, but it seems to have worked
pretty darned well in the end.
In case they need extra copies, I still have old DOS versions,
along with WordStar, FoxBase, Clipper, QuickBasis, and SuperCalc -
all on 5 1/4" disks so they don't need to upgrade their hardware.
I can't find my old dBASE II disks though, nor my CPM operating
system disks, so hopefully they don't need those.

But I heard (yes, you are not the only one with sources to what
NASA runs on their desktops) . . .

Er, what the hell are you talking about? I said nothing about NASA's
desktops. You're just making that up out of whole cloth.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Saintor]

Your example is just non-sense.

A better comparaison could be a '86 Honda Accord vs a '06 Honda Accord. In
truth, the '86 wasn't that bad and some even prefer it to the new one.
Lighter, feels sportier. Very reliable and cheap to run.

Access 97 is just fine. So is driving to California from Oklahoma in a
Model A Ford. It's especially fine for those who are not capable or do not
wish to familiarize themselves with the complexities of overhead cam
engines, or automatic transmissions, and want be exploited as fruit pickers because they have no current marketable skills. And the use of Access 97
qualifies you for immediate Access to DAO heaven should you be DOA, which
is very convenient as it's quite easy to mistake the one for the other.

--
Lyle Fairfield

[Steve]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@127.0.0.1 ...

"Steve" <st***@nospam.net> wrote in news:Tb*************@fe10.lga:

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...

It all depends on what you are building and why. I note that NASA
uses computer technology that is quite primitive in comparison to
what we have on our own desktops, but that's because the
technology is tested and proven.
What primitive "computer technology" does NASA use?

The space shuttle, for instance, uses computers that would have been
considered low-powered in 1990.

Recently I was watching a PBS show about the Mars rovers, and those
were using computers that would have been considered reasonable in
1990.

Granted, these are all missions that are designed long before they
pay off (especially the Mars rovers, which took 10 years or more
from conception to missiong completion), but the Mars rovers did
*not* use the latest technology available in the mid-90s (when they
were designed), but instead opted for older, proven technology. It
looks even more out-of-date today, but it seems to have worked
pretty darned well in the end.

In case they need extra copies, I still have old DOS versions,
along with WordStar, FoxBase, Clipper, QuickBasis, and SuperCalc -
all on 5 1/4" disks so they don't need to upgrade their hardware.
I can't find my old dBASE II disks though, nor my CPM operating
system disks, so hopefully they don't need those.

But I heard (yes, you are not the only one with sources to what
NASA runs on their desktops) . . .

Er, what the hell are you talking about? I said nothing about NASA's
desktops. You're just making that up out of whole cloth.

Lighten up ...

And you didn't say anything about their desktops - I got confused since you
compared their technology to our desktops, so I was thinking of an apple to
apple comparison. It was not clear what technology of theirs you were
referring to.

Regardless, do you think, though, they need extra copies of some of these
old programs I have?

Steven

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Steve]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@127.0.0.1 ...

"Steve" <st***@nospam.net> wrote in news:Tb*************@fe10.lga:

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...

It all depends on what you are building and why. I note that NASA
uses computer technology that is quite primitive in comparison to
what we have on our own desktops, but that's because the
technology is tested and proven.
What primitive "computer technology" does NASA use?

The space shuttle, for instance, uses computers that would have been
considered low-powered in 1990.

Recently I was watching a PBS show about the Mars rovers, and those
were using computers that would have been considered reasonable in
1990.

Granted, these are all missions that are designed long before they
pay off (especially the Mars rovers, which took 10 years or more
from conception to missiong completion), but the Mars rovers did
*not* use the latest technology available in the mid-90s (when they
were designed), but instead opted for older, proven technology. It
looks even more out-of-date today, but it seems to have worked
pretty darned well in the end.

In case they need extra copies, I still have old DOS versions,
along with WordStar, FoxBase, Clipper, QuickBasis, and SuperCalc -
all on 5 1/4" disks so they don't need to upgrade their hardware.
I can't find my old dBASE II disks though, nor my CPM operating
system disks, so hopefully they don't need those.

But I heard (yes, you are not the only one with sources to what
NASA runs on their desktops) . . .

Er, what the hell are you talking about? I said nothing about NASA's
desktops. You're just making that up out of whole cloth.

Lighten up ...

And you didn't say anything about their desktops - I got confused since you
compared their technology to our desktops, so I was thinking of an apple to
apple comparison. It was not clear what technology of theirs you were
referring to.

Regardless, do you think, though, they need extra copies of some of these
old programs I have?

Steven

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Lyle Fairfield]

Let's see! The 86 Accord came in at 110 (most) horsepower and 27 mpg
(best).
The 2006: 244 hp and 37 mpg.

So the 2006 is quite a bit more than twice as powerful than the 1986
and 37 per cent more efficient.

So may I quote you that Access 2003 is more than twice as powerful as
Access 97 and at least 37 per cent more efficient?

Gee, who would want that?

[kaniest]

Lyle Fairfield:

Gee, who would want that?

let's see ... in 6 years:
X gained 100% raw power and 37% efficiency
Y gained, say, 300% raw power and y% efficiency

Suppose y<37% and rate(X)=rate(Y).
After six years of owning both an X and an Y,
which one should be replaced first?

[David W. Fenton]

"Steve" <st***@nospam.net> wrote in news:UX*************@fe11.lga:

And you didn't say anything about their desktops - I got confused
since you compared their technology to our desktops, so I was
thinking of an apple to apple comparison. It was not clear what
technology of theirs you were referring to.

Lyle compared Access 97 to a Model A. That's a much more confusing
comparison than mine.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@aim.com> wrote in
news:11*********************@e56g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:

So may I quote you that Access 2003 is more than twice as powerful
as Access 97 and at least 37 per cent more efficient?

No one but an idiot would say that the two versions of Access differ
by anything close to that much.

There is absolutely not one type of desktop database application
that you can create in A2K3 that you cannot create in A97. Yes, some
minor fraction of those applications are easier in A2K3, but they
are not significantly easier in A2K3 than they were in A2K, which
was released in 1999.

This is ludicrous, Lyle. Your chosen analogy was wildly hyperbolic.

I still say that the automobile comparison would be reasonable if
you used a model of car in the years the two versions of Access were
released (1996 and 2002).

Of course, software has no "wear-and-tear" factor, so it's not that
much of a comparison, either. You'd have to compare a mint condition
1996 car with virtually no miles on it to a brand-new 2002. If you
did that, the differences would not be worth that much, except to a
very few.

And that's exactly the case with Access, and especially so for
standalone apps for one's own personal use.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Lyle Fairfield]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1:

Lyle compared Access 97 to a Model A.

My father had a 1930 Model A. That's why I made the comparison, you know.
They are two things that were long ago and for which I feel some warmth. I
remember them, through the mists of the past, as being great, but I don't
want to return to them. Geez, Kyle and I had to ride in the rumble seat and
he was always leaning over me and spitting on people on my side as we drove
past, so that I got the blame. And in Access 97 I (almost) had to use DAO,
just like the Model A, bringing up the rear, a long way from any real
power, and associated with nut cases.
But I'll grant you that the Model A and Access 97 are both good for dead
people, even those who haven't bothered to get buried yet.

--
Lyle Fairfield

[Larry Linson]

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@aim.com> wrote

Sounds Marxian to me.

Amazing! I always wondered who The Boys and Girls in Redmond were. Now I got
it from the Canadian Access Sage: Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, and Zeppo.

[Lyle Fairfield]

I was referring Groucho's evil twin, Karl. Do you remember him?

[Br]

David W. Fenton wrote:

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@aim.com> wrote in
news:11*********************@e56g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:

So may I quote you that Access 2003 is more than twice as powerful
as Access 97 and at least 37 per cent more efficient?

No one but an idiot would say that the two versions of Access differ
by anything close to that much.

There is absolutely not one type of desktop database application
that you can create in A2K3 that you cannot create in A97. Yes, some
minor fraction of those applications are easier in A2K3, but they
are not significantly easier in A2K3 than they were in A2K, which
was released in 1999.

This is ludicrous, Lyle. Your chosen analogy was wildly hyperbolic.

I still say that the automobile comparison would be reasonable if
you used a model of car in the years the two versions of Access were
released (1996 and 2002).

Of course, software has no "wear-and-tear" factor, so it's not that
much of a comparison, either. You'd have to compare a mint condition
1996 car with virtually no miles on it to a brand-new 2002. If you
did that, the differences would not be worth that much, except to a
very few.

And that's exactly the case with Access, and especially so for
standalone apps for one's own personal use.

Esp is said car is still using the same engine (although it does have an
optional upgraded engine) :)
--
regards,

Br@dley

[Br]

David W. Fenton wrote:

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@aim.com> wrote in
news:11*********************@e56g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:

So may I quote you that Access 2003 is more than twice as powerful
as Access 97 and at least 37 per cent more efficient?

No one but an idiot would say that the two versions of Access differ
by anything close to that much.

There is absolutely not one type of desktop database application
that you can create in A2K3 that you cannot create in A97. Yes, some
minor fraction of those applications are easier in A2K3, but they
are not significantly easier in A2K3 than they were in A2K, which
was released in 1999.

This is ludicrous, Lyle. Your chosen analogy was wildly hyperbolic.

I still say that the automobile comparison would be reasonable if
you used a model of car in the years the two versions of Access were
released (1996 and 2002).

Of course, software has no "wear-and-tear" factor, so it's not that
much of a comparison, either. You'd have to compare a mint condition
1996 car with virtually no miles on it to a brand-new 2002. If you
did that, the differences would not be worth that much, except to a
very few.

And that's exactly the case with Access, and especially so for
standalone apps for one's own personal use.

Disregard my prev post... I misread it as a comparison of A2000 & 2003...
(off to inject more coffee now)
--
regards,

Br@dley

[Larry Linson]

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@aim.com> wrote

I was referring Groucho's evil twin, Karl. Do you remember him?

I think you may be mistaken, Lyle. All the Marx brothers' first names ended
in the letter "o". I think that would mean that Groucho's evil twin would
have to be named "Cheerio" (or something similar -- and wouldn't that be an
unusual name, "Something Similar Marx", the long-lost Marx brother?).

No, I don't remember any Marx brother named "Karlo" -- would that be someone
who wrote "Daso Kapital"?

[david epsom dot com dot au]

'Later versions of office' use the newer installation
system, which has the property that

Installation can run as if the user was Admin.

So if you have a partly installed Office (install on first
use) or an incorrectly installed Office (confused by A97),
then the installation can run as if the user was Admin.

Access 97 does not have this feature.

If you run Access 2000, it will re-register Access 2000,
including writing to HKLM, as if the user was Admin.

If you then try to run Access 97, it will try to load
MSAccess.SRG, including writing to HKLM, but unless the
user has admin permission on that PC, it will fail.

So characteristically, A97 applications will fail on fully
locked machines if Access 2K - 2K3 is used.

A solution is to remove the contents of MSACCESS.SRG, so
that A97 does not attempt to register itself when it is run.

This also makes starting A2000+ faster, since they don't
attempt to register if they haven't been de-registered by
A97.

(david)
"Tim Marshall" <TI****@PurplePandaChasers.Moertherium> wrote in message
news:e2**********@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...

James Stewart wrote:

the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading from
Access97 to a later version?

In my opinion, yes.

What Lyle says makes perfect sense. His analogy is the Model A and a
modern vehicle compared to A97 and later versions of Acccess.

In my own experience, I've found that while A97 is pretty solid, I've had
difficulty deploying my apps on WinXp machines. Frequently, these
machines have had A97 installed along with later versions of Office. I
have no control over these machines, but it seems that frequently,
software support people don't do such installs correctly. In such
situations and sometimes even in cases where only Office 97 is installed
on the WinXp OS, I encounter cripppling problems that usually manifest
themselves when library references are screwed up.

I prefer to deploy mde's and it's really not worth the headache to go out
and try and compile these on the many problem machines there are. This was
one of a couple of major reasons for my decision to switch to A2003.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

[Tim Marshall]

David W. Fenton wrote:

So, it really doesn't have anything to do with any kind of flaw in
A97.
No, and I said as much in my original post.
And the situation you describe is simply not relevant to the
original poster's question

It most certainly is.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

[David W. Fenton]

Tim Marshall <TI****@PurplePandaChasers.Moertherium> wrote in
news:e2**********@coranto.ucs.mun.ca:

David W. Fenton wrote:

So, it really doesn't have anything to do with any kind of flaw
in A97.

No, and I said as much in my original post.

And the situation you describe is simply not relevant to the
original poster's question

It most certainly is.

No, it isn't, because Citrix/Terminal Server was not involved, and
it was a standalone app for personal use.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Saintor]

Why do you publish false figures? Just because it is convenient to you?
It is a very good way to zilch your credibility.

27mpg was for CITY and 33 is for HIGHWAY.

For the 2006 V6, it is 24/37.

But you clearly miss the point. A lot of Accord '86-89 ex-owners are
nostalgic and don't find the same sportiness and zest in the newer versions.
And this generation was dead reliable.

Who needs the added complexity if you are not interested in speed and want
to keep the cost down.

A lot of parallels as we can see.


"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@aim.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@e56g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com...

Let's see! The 86 Accord came in at 110 (most) horsepower and 27 mpg
(best).
The 2006: 244 hp and 37 mpg.

So the 2006 is quite a bit more than twice as powerful than the 1986
and 37 per cent more efficient.

So may I quote you that Access 2003 is more than twice as powerful as
Access 97 and at least 37 per cent more efficient?

Gee, who would want that?