I have followed all the steps from Joan Wild's website for securing a
database. I'm still having trouble with other users being able to access the
database while I'm on it. (the Open Exclusive boxes are unchecked) They get
an error message that the 'Admin' user is already in use. If the other users
have different versions of Access (2000 as opposed to 2002), could that be
the problem?
--
Julie

Do all users have the proper windows permission on the folder? They need
read/write/create/delete permission.

Also if you have multiple users accessing the database, you should split it
and put the backend (tables only) on the server, and give each user a copy
of the frontend on their computer.

Since you've secured it, you should split it manually (details on my
website).

As long as you kept the format of the mdb as 2000, then the different
versions of Access shouldn't matter.


--
Joan Wild
Microsoft Access MVP

Julie wrote:
> I have followed all the steps from Joan Wild's website for securing a
> database. I'm still having trouble with other users being able to
> access the database while I'm on it. (the Open Exclusive boxes are
> unchecked) They get an error message that the 'Admin' user is
> already in use. If the other users have different versions of Access
> (2000 as opposed to 2002), could that be the problem?
> --
> Julie

Joan:
I will need to check on the proper permissions when I go back to work
tomorrow. I don't think they have "delete" permission.

I have trying to avoid splitting the database. Is that necessary with the
database being on a network server?

I secured the database on my computer, which has Access version 2002. Is
this a problem if other users have version 2000?

Thanks for your help.
--
Julie


"Joan Wild" wrote:

> Do all users have the proper windows permission on the folder? They need
> read/write/create/delete permission.
>
> Also if you have multiple users accessing the database, you should split it
> and put the backend (tables only) on the server, and give each user a copy
> of the frontend on their computer.
>
> Since you've secured it, you should split it manually (details on my
> website).
>
> As long as you kept the format of the mdb as 2000, then the different
> versions of Access shouldn't matter.
>
>
> --
> Joan Wild
> Microsoft Access MVP
>
> Julie wrote:
> > I have followed all the steps from Joan Wild's website for securing a
> > database. I'm still having trouble with other users being able to
> > access the database while I'm on it. (the Open Exclusive boxes are
> > unchecked) They get an error message that the 'Admin' user is
> > already in use. If the other users have different versions of Access
> > (2000 as opposed to 2002), could that be the problem?
> > --
> > Julie
>
>
>

Splitting the database is highly recommended. Your chances of database
corruption are significantly higher with an unsplit application.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)



"Julie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:388CFAC9-BC01-4DCD-9DDD-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Joan:
> I will need to check on the proper permissions when I go back to work
> tomorrow. I don't think they have "delete" permission.
>
> I have trying to avoid splitting the database. Is that necessary with the
> database being on a network server?
>
> I secured the database on my computer, which has Access version 2002. Is
> this a problem if other users have version 2000?
>
> Thanks for your help.
> --
> Julie
>
>
> "Joan Wild" wrote:
>
>> Do all users have the proper windows permission on the folder? They need
>> read/write/create/delete permission.
>>
>> Also if you have multiple users accessing the database, you should split
>> it
>> and put the backend (tables only) on the server, and give each user a
>> copy
>> of the frontend on their computer.
>>
>> Since you've secured it, you should split it manually (details on my
>> website).
>>
>> As long as you kept the format of the mdb as 2000, then the different
>> versions of Access shouldn't matter.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joan Wild
>> Microsoft Access MVP
>>
>> Julie wrote:
>> > I have followed all the steps from Joan Wild's website for securing a
>> > database. I'm still having trouble with other users being able to
>> > access the database while I'm on it. (the Open Exclusive boxes are
>> > unchecked) They get an error message that the 'Admin' user is
>> > already in use. If the other users have different versions of Access
>> > (2000 as opposed to 2002), could that be the problem?
>> > --
>> > Julie
>>
>>
>>

> I have trying to avoid splitting the database. Is that necessary with the
> database being on a network server?
>
So, how then do you make off-line changes to your application (program) and
then implement it? All program changes need writing, testing, and then
implementing!

Please don't tell me you make program changes live with "live data". Splitting
off the "program" allows you to write and test it, then easily implement it
without overwriting live data.

Security has little to do with your issues of other people having it open
whilst you're modifying it. You should not be in that situation in the first
place.

Where also, are your backups?

(shudder)
Chris

Chris:
I've just begun learning the process of user-level security. I haven't made
any changes so far to the "program." Just trying to figures things out. I
will be reading more about the procedures for "splitting" the database. It
seems that is the thing to do. Tables on the server, and the rest
distributed to local computers, right?

(I have back-ups)
--
Julie


"Chris Mills" wrote:

> > I have trying to avoid splitting the database. Is that necessary with the
> > database being on a network server?
> >
> So, how then do you make off-line changes to your application (program) and
> then implement it? All program changes need writing, testing, and then
> implementing!
>
> Please don't tell me you make program changes live with "live data". Splitting
> off the "program" allows you to write and test it, then easily implement it
> without overwriting live data.
>
> Security has little to do with your issues of other people having it open
> whilst you're modifying it. You should not be in that situation in the first
> place.
>
> Where also, are your backups?
>
> (shudder)
> Chris
>
>
>

Julie,
Please don't think any of my post was rude or "superior", to you or anyone. I
just immediately thought of the hard questions (and occasionally answers) I
have come across.

User-Level Security is in some ways simple (ignoring the thousands of
settings), but then I've been using it since 1995 (and probably still get some
things wrong, prefer the likes of Joan for the security details)

I just saw that "splitting a database" was an entirely different reason from
implementing User-Level Security. Both are necessary (from any reasonable
point of view).

It absolutely horrifies me, that some posters want/expect to modify a database
whilst live and on-line. What happened to the testing? Where is the backup if
they stuff-up live? How do you separate program testing from live data? (You
do it by splitting the database, which may not have been mentioned outside
security context)

> will be reading more about the procedures for "splitting" the database. It
> seems that is the thing to do. Tables on the server, and the rest
> distributed to local computers, right?

Right.
It's not just me. You will find 100% concurrence that that's the best way to
implement a multi-user Access database. Quite apart from User-Level Security,
which is a separate though equal subject.

Keep your posts up. There are many who will assist you, and I'm sure many who
have the same questions.
Chris

P.S.
Just last week, I visited a site and they wanted some program change. I could
do it live in 5 mins but I couldn't test it in 5 mins. Besides I needed time
to think, and also I hold the "master program copies" not the site. The real
time was an hour, not 5 minutes, to think and test the changed program
(actually several changes). I could then e-mail them the changed program. I
couldn't do that (e-mail them a new program) if their live data was in the
same mdb.

PPS
I have a legacy customer (not written by me!) where the data and program are
intertwined. So first I have to modify an off-line copy and test it. Then I
have to arrange with them to send me their live database at 5pm (after work)
and I'll have it back next morning before work (having made HOPEFULLY the same
changes). Which scheme would you prefer? (Under Pressure or At Your Leisure).
Not to mention the size of emailing their program+data.

"Julie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> Chris:
> I've just begun learning the process of user-level security. I haven't made
> any changes so far to the "program." Just trying to figures things out. I
> will be reading more about the procedures for "splitting" the database. It
> seems that is the thing to do. Tables on the server, and the rest
> distributed to local computers, right?
>
> (I have back-ups)
> --
> Julie
>
>
> "Chris Mills" wrote:
>
> > > I have trying to avoid splitting the database. Is that necessary with
the
> > > database being on a network server?
> > >
> > So, how then do you make off-line changes to your application (program)
and
> > then implement it? All program changes need writing, testing, and then
> > implementing!
> >
> > Please don't tell me you make program changes live with "live data".
Splitting
> > off the "program" allows you to write and test it, then easily implement
it
> > without overwriting live data.
> >
> > Security has little to do with your issues of other people having it open
> > whilst you're modifying it. You should not be in that situation in the
first
> > place.
> >
> > Where also, are your backups?
> >
> > (shudder)
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >

Chris:
I appreciate your input. I am learning one thing... Access user-level
security is much more complicated than it appears on the surface! I will
continue my studying along with reading the discussion board. I am sure I
will continue to post as I run into more problems or unanswered questions.

Thanks... (This discussion board is terrific!)
--
Julie


"Chris Mills" wrote:

> Julie,
> Please don't think any of my post was rude or "superior", to you or anyone. I
> just immediately thought of the hard questions (and occasionally answers) I
> have come across.
>
> User-Level Security is in some ways simple (ignoring the thousands of
> settings), but then I've been using it since 1995 (and probably still get some
> things wrong, prefer the likes of Joan for the security details)
>
> I just saw that "splitting a database" was an entirely different reason from
> implementing User-Level Security. Both are necessary (from any reasonable
> point of view).
>
> It absolutely horrifies me, that some posters want/expect to modify a database
> whilst live and on-line. What happened to the testing? Where is the backup if
> they stuff-up live? How do you separate program testing from live data? (You
> do it by splitting the database, which may not have been mentioned outside
> security context)
>
> > will be reading more about the procedures for "splitting" the database. It
> > seems that is the thing to do. Tables on the server, and the rest
> > distributed to local computers, right?
>
> Right.
> It's not just me. You will find 100% concurrence that that's the best way to
> implement a multi-user Access database. Quite apart from User-Level Security,
> which is a separate though equal subject.
>
> Keep your posts up. There are many who will assist you, and I'm sure many who
> have the same questions.
> Chris
>
> P.S.
> Just last week, I visited a site and they wanted some program change. I could
> do it live in 5 mins but I couldn't test it in 5 mins. Besides I needed time
> to think, and also I hold the "master program copies" not the site. The real
> time was an hour, not 5 minutes, to think and test the changed program
> (actually several changes). I could then e-mail them the changed program. I
> couldn't do that (e-mail them a new program) if their live data was in the
> same mdb.
>
> PPS
> I have a legacy customer (not written by me!) where the data and program are
> intertwined. So first I have to modify an off-line copy and test it. Then I
> have to arrange with them to send me their live database at 5pm (after work)
> and I'll have it back next morning before work (having made HOPEFULLY the same
> changes). Which scheme would you prefer? (Under Pressure or At Your Leisure).
> Not to mention the size of emailing their program+data.
>
> "Julie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > Chris:
> > I've just begun learning the process of user-level security. I haven't made
> > any changes so far to the "program." Just trying to figures things out. I
> > will be reading more about the procedures for "splitting" the database. It
> > seems that is the thing to do. Tables on the server, and the rest
> > distributed to local computers, right?
> >
> > (I have back-ups)
> > --
> > Julie
> >
> >
> > "Chris Mills" wrote:
> >
> > > > I have trying to avoid splitting the database. Is that necessary with
> the
> > > > database being on a network server?
> > > >
> > > So, how then do you make off-line changes to your application (program)
> and
> > > then implement it? All program changes need writing, testing, and then
> > > implementing!
> > >
> > > Please don't tell me you make program changes live with "live data".
> Splitting
> > > off the "program" allows you to write and test it, then easily implement
> it
> > > without overwriting live data.
> > >
> > > Security has little to do with your issues of other people having it open
> > > whilst you're modifying it. You should not be in that situation in the
> first
> > > place.
> > >
> > > Where also, are your backups?
> > >
> > > (shudder)
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>