473,322 Members | 1,610 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,322 software developers and data experts.

Distinguishing Mac OS X Versions

Is there a way to use JavaScript to distinguish between Mac OS X 10.4
and earlier OS X versions like with Windows? browserType.UserAgent
outputs the following on a 10.4 machine, which (to me) says nothing
about the specific OS:

mozilla/5.0 (macintosh; u; ppc mac os x mach-o; en-us; rv:1.8.1.3)
gecko/20070321 firefox/2.0.0.3

Thanks,
Will

Aug 7 '07 #1
20 1389
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 8/7/2007 1:31 PM:
wi**********@gmail.com wrote:
>Is there a way to use JavaScript to distinguish between Mac OS X 10.4
and earlier OS X versions like with Windows?

There is no such way, not even with Windows.

IBTD
var OS = "What Operating System are you using?";
<snip>
PointedEars
Your sigsep is in the wrong place.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Aug 7 '07 #2
wi**********@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to use JavaScript to distinguish between Mac OS X 10.4
and earlier OS X versions like with Windows? browserType.UserAgent
outputs the following on a 10.4 machine, which (to me) says nothing
about the specific OS:

mozilla/5.0 (macintosh; u; ppc mac os x mach-o; en-us; rv:1.8.1.3)
gecko/20070321 firefox/2.0.0.3
There is some logic you can apply to the Safari version number to
determine the OS version. With Firefox you won't be so lucky. For
Firefox the best you can determine is whether it's an Intel processor
(and therefore >= Tiger) or not. Here's a wiki page (with a long URL)
that someone with the same need as you created:
http://tinyurl.com/2b68bw

You need to filter out the others in this microverse who'll tell you
that you can't rely on the user agent. They don't live in the real world
and have the luxury of telling their employers "NO" to any request to
produce code that would require looking at the user agent string. Those
of us that have to live with reality know that the user agent is the
best info we've got and does the job as well as we need it to. I've
tried staying out of the threads they had about it because they were
just back and forth amongst themselves. When I see them force that
diatribe on an unsuspecting noob like yourself then I don't want to let
them convince you (with the two replies so far) that you can't do
anything. You can do something and it's better than nothing. I'm
assuming you have a genuine need for it and can't do feature detection.

</js>
Aug 7 '07 #3
Johannes Schmidt wrote:
You need to filter out the others in this microverse who'll tell you
that you can't rely on the user agent. They don't live in the real world
and have the luxury of telling their employers "NO" to any request to
produce code that would require looking at the user agent string.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just mindboggingly incompetent?

The correct answer is: *No*, you *can* *not* rely on the User-Agent header
or on navigator.userAgent for that matter. Nor are you required to, there
are *far better* means to facilitate graceful degradation.

We have discussed the pitfalls of browser detection at great length here,
there is even a section about it in the FAQ Notes.
Those of us that have to live with reality know that the user agent is the
best info we've got [...]
Tell me, how is the weather in your parallel universe?
PointedEars, with a fitting random sig
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
Aug 7 '07 #4
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just mindboggingly incompetent?
Don't pretend you haven't already made your mind up which it is.
The correct answer is: *No*, you *can* *not* rely on the User-Agent header
or on navigator.userAgent for that matter. Nor are you required to, there
are *far better* means to facilitate graceful degradation.
How does graceful degradation come into this topic? The OP didn't say
anything about wanting to facilitate graceful degradation. What are
these better means anyway? It seems that most of the people here just
want to say "[insert anything here] is not possible, don't try and do
it" and never provide a working alternative.

You'd all be great assets in projects that break new ground I'm sure.
Sorry - can't be done. Can't do it. No. No. No. Go away and stop asking
me. Real pioneer spirit. What people that come here need is something
that will work.

What I imagine the OP wants to do is offer a different program download
based on the OS. So how does feature detection help there?

</js>
Aug 7 '07 #5
On Aug 7, 12:31 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
william.o...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to use JavaScript to distinguish between Mac OS X 10.4
and earlier OS X versions like with Windows?

There is no such way, not even with Windows.

http://pointedears.de/scripts/test/whatami
browserType.UserAgent

Never heard of that. Do you mean navigator.userAgent?
Oops, sorry. Copied and pasted the wrong snippet. :P

It is true that userAgent can be spoofed to become near anything. In
the vast majority of cases, though, it likely is legit, so it seems
like checking userAgent is reasonable. The browser/feature check code
I'm modifying is supposed to prevent uncertifiable behaviour. If users
want to lie their way into a system they make inoperable, well...sucks
to be them.
>
outputs the following on a 10.4 machine, which (to me) says nothing
about the specific OS:
mozilla/5.0 (macintosh; u; ppc mac os x mach-o; en-us; rv:1.8.1.3)
gecko/20070321 firefox/2.0.0.3

Try feature detection instead.
Were I writing this from the start and knew precisely what stylistic
web elements were needed, that would be a wise move. Sadly, it's hand-
me-down code, and it's gotta be browser/OS detection or nothing.

Aug 7 '07 #6
wi**********@gmail.com wrote:
[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
>william.o...@gmail.com wrote:
>>Is there a way to use JavaScript to distinguish between Mac OS X 10.4
and earlier OS X versions like with Windows?
There is no such way, not even with Windows.

http://pointedears.de/scripts/test/whatami
>>browserType.UserAgent
Never heard of that. Do you mean navigator.userAgent?

Oops, sorry. Copied and pasted the wrong snippet. :P

It is true that userAgent can be spoofed to become near anything.
It is spoofed already and that is not going to change in the foreseeable
future. Granted, UAs for Mac are not that likely a target; still a possible
one.
In the vast majority of cases, though, it likely is legit,
It's not.
so it seems like checking userAgent is reasonable.
So it *seems*.
The browser/feature check code
Wait a minute. A browser check is not a feature check, which is the cause
of the problem. Are you saying you use feature-testing code already? If
yes, would it not be better to find out if there was a way to improve it?
I'm modifying is supposed to prevent uncertifiable behaviour.
It would help a great deal if you wrote what that so-called "uncertifiable
behavior" was before you readily jump to the conclusion that there is no
other way than browser detection. There is always a possibility that you
have overlooked something.
If users want to lie their way into a system they make inoperable,
well...sucks to be them.
You are forgetting that it is mainly not the users who lie, but the UAs
they use. Because their vendors want to sell them. That has not changed
since the browser wars and is not going to change in the foreseeable future.

You are not proposing that users use a different UA or a different (mobile)
device just to have a look at your fascinating Web sites, are you?
>>outputs the following on a 10.4 machine, which (to me) says nothing
about the specific OS:
mozilla/5.0 (macintosh; u; ppc mac os x mach-o; en-us; rv:1.8.1.3)
gecko/20070321 firefox/2.0.0.3
Try feature detection instead.

Were I writing this from the start and knew precisely what stylistic
web elements were needed, that would be a wise move. Sadly, it's hand-
me-down code, and it's gotta be browser/OS detection or nothing.
Unlikely.
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Aug 7 '07 #7
Johannes Schmidt meinte:

[utter crap]

But what can you expect from somebody of the Jerusalem School of
Synoptic Research who ventures into the realm of client side scripting...

Gregor
--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
Aug 7 '07 #8
On Aug 7, 2:01 pm, Johannes Schmidt <j...@js.orgwrote:
william.o...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to use JavaScript to distinguish between Mac OS X 10.4
and earlier OS X versions like with Windows? browserType.UserAgent
outputs the following on a 10.4 machine, which (to me) says nothing
about the specific OS:
mozilla/5.0 (macintosh; u; ppc mac os x mach-o; en-us; rv:1.8.1.3)
gecko/20070321 firefox/2.0.0.3

There is some logic you can apply to the Safari version number to
determine the OS version. With Firefox you
What sort of logic would you apply to an arbitrary sequence of
characters to determine anything but their character codes and length?

won't be so lucky. For
Firefox the best you can determine is whether it's an Intel processor
(and therefore >= Tiger) or not. Here's a wiki page (with a long URL)
that someone with the same need as you created:http://tinyurl.com/2b68bw

You need to filter out the others in this microverse who'll tell you
that you can't rely on the user agent. They
Why? They are right.

don't live in the real world
and have the luxury of telling their employers "NO" to any request to
produce code that would require looking at the user agent string. Those
In other words, because you don't understand browser scripting, you
stick your employers with unreliable code.
of us that have to live with reality know that the user agent is the
best info we've got and does the job as well as we need it to. I've
The best info for what job? Writing incompetent scripts?
tried staying out of the threads they had about it because they were
You would do well to stay out of them. You have no idea what you are
talking about.
just back and forth amongst themselves. When I see them force that
diatribe on an unsuspecting noob like
yourself then I don't want to let
them convince you (with the two replies so far) that you can't do
anything. You can do something and it's better than nothing. I'm
I feel the same way when I see clueless developers spreading
misinformation.
assuming you have a genuine need for it and can't do feature detection.
And why couldn't they do feature detection? Features can always be
tested. Browsers cannot and even if they could, writing script for a
specific build or a specific browser on a specific OS is madness.

Aug 8 '07 #9
David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 9:05 PM:

<snipped a lot I totally agree with>
And why couldn't they do feature detection? Features can always be
tested. Browsers cannot and even if they could, writing script for a
specific build or a specific browser on a specific OS is madness.
The window.external was solved and I am still hopeful that feature
detection can solve my createTextNode issue with IE. Until it is, I have
to disagree with the assessment that features can always be tested for.
Although I have a work around for it, it would be nice not to have to
kludge around a flaw in IE.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Aug 8 '07 #10
On Aug 7, 2:19 pm, Johannes Schmidt <j...@js.orgwrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just mindboggingly incompetent?

Don't pretend you haven't already made your mind up which it is.
I know I have.
>
The correct answer is: *No*, you *can* *not* rely on the User-Agent header
or on navigator.userAgent for that matter. Nor are you required to, there
are *far better* means to facilitate graceful degradation.

How does graceful degradation come into this topic? The OP didn't say
A better question is why did you come into this thread? You clearly
don't understand the discussion.
anything about wanting to facilitate graceful degradation. What are
these better means anyway? It seems that
You've been told more than once. Go back and re-read the posts in
this thread.

most of the people here just
want to say "[insert anything here] is not possible, don't try and do
it" and never provide a working alternative.
Utter nonsense unless the question is along the lines of "I want to
detect Netscape." More like "[insert anything here]" is stupid and/or
unnecessary, so try to do it another way. Whatever the method, do not
employ the user agent string to create the illusion of a solution.
>
You'd all be great assets in projects that break new ground I'm sure.
When you break new ground with browser detection, get ready to bury
your credibility (and perhaps your career) in the resulting hole.
Sorry - can't be done. Can't do it. No. No. No. Go away and stop asking
It seems you are frustrated about something. Okay, what are you
trying to do?
me. Real pioneer spirit. What people that come here need is something
that will work.
What they certainly don't need is "advice" such as yours.
>
What I imagine the OP wants to do is offer a different program download
based on the OS. So how does feature detection help there?
Not a whit. Nor does browser detection, which never helps anything as
it is impossible.

Here are two solutions to the problem:

1. Present the user with a select element that lists the operating
system choices. As long as the user knows what OS they are using,
they will download the correct program.

2. Parse an arbitrary string and determine the "likely" OS based on
some Wiki article and use the resulting "information" to automate the
choice. You just saved the user two seconds, but if your "logic" is
not infallible (which it obviously can't be), you run the risk of
sending them the wrong software, which could waste several minutes (if
not hours.)

Which do you think your customer and/or employer would prefer?

The lesson is that feature detection is not a solution for everything,
but browser detection is never a solution for anything.

Aug 8 '07 #11
On Aug 7, 9:26 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 9:05 PM:

<snipped a lot I totally agree with>
And why couldn't they do feature detection? Features can always be
tested. Browsers cannot and even if they could, writing script for a
specific build or a specific browser on a specific OS is madness.

The window.external was solved and I am still hopeful that feature
detection can solve my createTextNode issue with IE. Until it is, I have
to disagree with the assessment that features can always be tested for.
Right. They can always be tested for, but the results won't always be
helpful. A better way to put it is that feature testing can't solve
everything, but browser detection solves nothing as results from that
method are always unreliable.

What is the createTextNode issue in IE? For script blocks?
Although I have a work around for it, it would be nice not to have to
kludge around a flaw in IE.
I have to figure the workaround solution does not involve th UA
string. Regardless, as you say, it would be preferable if a reliable
feature test could be determined.

Aug 8 '07 #12
David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 9:52 PM:
On Aug 7, 9:26 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 9:05 PM:

<snipped a lot I totally agree with>
>>And why couldn't they do feature detection? Features can always be
tested. Browsers cannot and even if they could, writing script for a
specific build or a specific browser on a specific OS is madness.
The window.external was solved and I am still hopeful that feature
detection can solve my createTextNode issue with IE. Until it is, I have
to disagree with the assessment that features can always be tested for.

Right. They can always be tested for, but the results won't always be
helpful. A better way to put it is that feature testing can't solve
everything, but browser detection solves nothing as results from that
method are always unreliable.

What is the createTextNode issue in IE? For script blocks?
Yes. If you createElement('script') and then use createTextNode to
create the text of the script element, all is fine. When you try to
appendChild the script element, IE barfs all over you.

<URL:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/7e23f42490c301de/56d47ba8d4d73e30?lnk=gst&q=createtextnode+randy+we bb&rnum=1#56d47ba8d4d73e30>

Is the very long winded thread on it.
>Although I have a work around for it, it would be nice not to have to
kludge around a flaw in IE.

I have to figure the workaround solution does not involve th UA
string.
No, it doesn't but something that is just as fragile and that is
conditional compilation.
Regardless, as you say, it would be preferable if a reliable
feature test could be determined.
I haven't given up on it yet. The problem is that all browsers (that I
know of) except one on a MAC supports simply setting the .text property.
It supports createTextNode with a script element but IE doesn't.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Aug 8 '07 #13
On Aug 8, 2:10 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 9:52 PM:
[...]
What is the createTextNode issue in IE? For script blocks?

Yes. If you createElement('script') and then use createTextNode to
create the text of the script element, all is fine. When you try to
appendChild the script element, IE barfs all over you.

<URL:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread...>

Is the very long winded thread on it.
Although I have a work around for it, it would be nice not to have to
kludge around a flaw in IE.
I have to figure the workaround solution does not involve th UA
string.

No, it doesn't but something that is just as fragile and that is
conditional compilation.
Regardless, as you say, it would be preferable if a reliable
feature test could be determined.

I haven't given up on it yet. The problem is that all browsers (that I
know of) except one on a MAC supports simply setting the .text property.
It supports createTextNode with a script element but IE doesn't.
Is conditional compilation for IE more reliable than UA string
matching to detect Safari?
--
Rob

Aug 8 '07 #14
On Aug 8, 12:10 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 9:52 PM:


On Aug 7, 9:26 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 9:05 PM:
<snipped a lot I totally agree with>
>And why couldn't they do feature detection? Features can always be
tested. Browsers cannot and even if they could, writing script for a
specific build or a specific browser on a specific OS is madness.
The window.external was solved and I am still hopeful that feature
detection can solve my createTextNode issue with IE. Until it is, I have
to disagree with the assessment that features can always be tested for.
Right. They can always be tested for, but the results won't always be
helpful. A better way to put it is that feature testing can't solve
everything, but browser detection solves nothing as results from that
method are always unreliable.
What is the createTextNode issue in IE? For script blocks?

Yes. If you createElement('script') and then use createTextNode to
create the text of the script element, all is fine. When you try to
appendChild the script element, IE barfs all over you.

<URL:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread...>

Is the very long winded thread on it.
Although I have a work around for it, it would be nice not to have to
kludge around a flaw in IE.
I have to figure the workaround solution does not involve th UA
string.

No, it doesn't but something that is just as fragile and that is
conditional compilation.
Regardless, as you say, it would be preferable if a reliable
feature test could be determined.

I haven't given up on it yet. The problem is that all browsers (that I
know of) except one on a MAC supports simply setting the .text property.
I looked at the thread, but I assume it is outdated at this point.
What Mac browser fails and is reading back the text property an
indication of failure?
It supports createTextNode with a script element but IE doesn't.
Without seeing your latest logic, I can't follow the ramifications of
that statement. If you don't like conditional compilation or think it
is inappropriate for this problem, I suggest you wrap the appendChild
line in a try/catch block.

Aug 8 '07 #15
Gregor Kofler wrote:
Johannes Schmidt meinte:

[utter crap]

But what can you expect from somebody of the Jerusalem School of
Synoptic Research who ventures into the realm of client side scripting...
Ah, I had not watched for meaning of the From header :)

Please do not feed the troll.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Aug 8 '07 #16
Richard Cornford wrote:
The reality of User Agent headers is that the HTTP 1.1 specification
requires no more than that the User Agent send such a header.
Not even that. "SHOULD" specifies a strong recommendation, not a
requirement (that would be "MUST"). See RFC2616, 14.43, and RFC2119.
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Aug 8 '07 #17
RobG said the following on 8/8/2007 12:52 AM:
On Aug 8, 2:10 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>David Mark said the following on 8/7/2007 9:52 PM:
[...]
>>What is the createTextNode issue in IE? For script blocks?
Yes. If you createElement('script') and then use createTextNode to
create the text of the script element, all is fine. When you try to
appendChild the script element, IE barfs all over you.

<URL:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread...>

Is the very long winded thread on it.
>>>Although I have a work around for it, it would be nice not to have to
kludge around a flaw in IE.
I have to figure the workaround solution does not involve th UA
string.
No, it doesn't but something that is just as fragile and that is
conditional compilation.
>>Regardless, as you say, it would be preferable if a reliable
feature test could be determined.
I haven't given up on it yet. The problem is that all browsers (that I
know of) except one on a MAC supports simply setting the .text property.
It supports createTextNode with a script element but IE doesn't.

Is conditional compilation for IE more reliable than UA string
matching to detect Safari?
Rather than let this get lost amongst the UA detection debate, I started
a new thread on it.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Aug 8 '07 #18
David Mark said the following on 8/8/2007 12:54 AM:
On Aug 8, 12:10 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
<snip>
>I haven't given up on it yet. The problem is that all browsers (that I
know of) except one on a MAC supports simply setting the .text property.

I looked at the thread, but I assume it is outdated at this point.
Most of the data in it isn't outdated. The thread itself is old but the
problems in it still remain.
What Mac browser fails and is reading back the text property an
indication of failure?
> It supports createTextNode with a script element but IE doesn't.

Without seeing your latest logic, I can't follow the ramifications of
that statement. If you don't like conditional compilation or think it
is inappropriate for this problem, I suggest you wrap the appendChild
line in a try/catch block.
Rather than letting this get lost in a debate about UA detection, I
started a new thread on it.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Aug 8 '07 #19
David Mark said the following on 8/8/2007 8:18 PM:
On Aug 8, 9:38 am, william.o...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Aug 7, 12:10 pm, william.o...@gmail.com wrote:
>>Is there a way to use JavaScript to distinguish between Mac OS X 10.4
and earlier OS X versions like with Windows? browserType.UserAgent
outputs the following on a 10.4 machine, which (to me) says nothing
about the specific OS:
mozilla/5.0 (macintosh; u; ppc mac os x mach-o; en-us; rv:1.8.1.3)
gecko/20070321 firefox/2.0.0.3
Thanks,
Will
<snip>
>web components check page, and one of the prerequisites as established
is a Firefox, IE or Safari 2 (Safari 1.2 if 10.3) browser. I don't

So put a form on that page for the user to pick which they are using.
Do you have any idea how many non-IE agents identify themselves as IE?
I know of one that mimicks IE in the UA string perfectly but it is *far*
from being IE.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Aug 9 '07 #20
On Aug 8, 8:34 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
David Mark said the following on 8/8/2007 8:18 PM:
On Aug 8, 9:38 am, william.o...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 7, 12:10 pm, william.o...@gmail.com wrote:
>Is there a way to use JavaScript to distinguish between Mac OS X 10.4
and earlier OS X versions like with Windows? browserType.UserAgent
outputs the following on a 10.4 machine, which (to me) says nothing
about the specific OS:
mozilla/5.0 (macintosh; u; ppc mac os x mach-o; en-us; rv:1.8.1.3)
gecko/20070321 firefox/2.0.0.3
Thanks,
Will

<snip>
web components check page, and one of the prerequisites as established
is a Firefox, IE or Safari 2 (Safari 1.2 if 10.3) browser. I don't
So put a form on that page for the user to pick which they are using.
Do you have any idea how many non-IE agents identify themselves as IE?

I know of one that mimicks IE in the UA string perfectly but it is *far*
from being IE.
Certain versions of NetFront I think. ICEBrowser for another.

On the flip side, there are likely hundreds of agents out there
compatible with this site that don't identify as IE, FireFox or Safari
and therefore would be turned away at the gate. In other words, "we
don't want your money as your UA string isn't on the list."
Aug 9 '07 #21

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

7
by: Ted | last post by:
I would like to collect opinions on which versions of Python should be considered watershed versions. By this I mean versions which are stable and contain significant landmark features. As an...
0
by: Oliver Elphick | last post by:
The attached proposal is written primarily for Debian. Its motivation is that the current package upgrade process is pretty flaky and also that the current packaging does not really provide for...
14
by: wolftor | last post by:
1) Is there a free runtime version of Access available that is more recent than the one for Access 2000? 2) If I create an application (MDE) in A2K, will it run on all later versions of Access?...
4
by: Dalan | last post by:
After reading and experiencing the phenomenon of installing MS Office 2000 on a system that already has MS Office 97, or for that matter just Access 97 Runtime, I saw the ugliness that ensues. If...
1
by: Andreas Busse | last post by:
Hello, is there a way to distinguish between VC.NET 2002 and VC.NET 2003 at compile-time (pre-defined preprocessor macros)? I have only found _MSC_VER to be set to 1300 in both versions, which...
5
by: Michael Maes | last post by:
Hi, We have an ERP-Application that needs to interact with an "external accountancy program". This is acchieved through a "Connector" (ActiveX-dll) so kindly provided by the Accountancy-Program....
37
by: Allen Browne | last post by:
If you develop for others, you probably have multiple versions of Access installed so you can edit and create MDEs for clients in different versions. This works fine under Windows XP, even with...
26
by: tjhnson | last post by:
Hi, With properties, attributes and methods seem very similar. I was wondering what techniques people use to give clues to end users as to which 'things' are methods and which are attributes. ...
1
by: M.-A. Lemburg | last post by:
On 2008-07-25 08:13, python@bdurham.com wrote: Yes. But then Intel Itanium is being phased out anyway and the AMD64 build works on both Intel and AMD processors. True.
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

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.