Acc97 installation on working Acc03/Acc07 machines

[Dick Watson]

I'm about to inherit maintenance of an Acc97 database app. All of my
machines today are exclusively Acc03 or Acc07 and I've long since moved past
Acc97. What happens if I try to install Acc97 on one of these machines? The
obvious answer is "update the database and I'd love to do that, but the
client REALLY DOESN'T want to change. (Better is the arch-enemy of good
enough.)

 

[Rick Brandt]

I'm about to inherit maintenance of an Acc97 database app. All of my
machines today are exclusively Acc03 or Acc07 and I've long since
moved past Acc97. What happens if I try to install Acc97 on one of
these machines? The obvious answer is "update the database and I'd
love to do that, but the client REALLY DOESN'T want to change.
(Better is the arch-enemy of good enough.)

The conventional wisdom was that it was better to install multiple versions in
order (oldest first), but a few posters in these groups have reported installing
them in any old order with no problems.

 

[Dick Watson]

Which one ends up owning file associations, et al.? Last installed?

 

[Rick Brandt]

Which one ends up owning file associations, et al.? Last installed?

Last run actually. With multiple copies you pretty much have to abandon the
idea of opening Access files by double-clicking them. Open the desired version
of Access first and then open the file from within.

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

When you install Access 97 it will silently use the last run, as Rick
explained. Later versions are verbose, meaning that you will see a dialog
(which can be cancelled) while they reset all the associations. I do several
things for Access 97 installs to keep them from messing with later versions.

First, find the file msaccess.srg which will be in the same folder as
msaccess.exe. Rename it to: msaccess.srg.old (or anything else that you will
later remember should you need to name it back). Now open Notepad and create
an empty text file and name it msaccess.srg. Now we have fooled Access 97
into thinking it's not necessary to change associations.

Second, Find the SendTo folder (mine's at: C:\WINDOWS\SendTo) and create
shortcuts to each version. Now all you need to do is to right-click on a
file, choose SendTo, and send it to the version you wish)

 

[DL]

Ensure you custom install to a version specific folder (03 & 07 do by
default)

 

[David W. Fenton]

I'm about to inherit maintenance of an Acc97 database app. All of
my machines today are exclusively Acc03 or Acc07 and I've long
since moved past Acc97. What happens if I try to install Acc97 on
one of these machines? The obvious answer is "update the database
and I'd love to do that, but the client REALLY DOESN'T want to
change. (Better is the arch-enemy of good enough.)

I wouldn't say that A2K3 or A2K3 is better than A97.

 

[David W. Fenton]

Second, Find the SendTo folder (mine's at: C:\WINDOWS\SendTo) and
create shortcuts to each version. Now all you need to do is to
right-click on a file, choose SendTo, and send it to the version
you wish)

Er, what version of Windows are you using? The SendTo folder
*should* be specific to each user profile, i.e., in C:\Documents and
Settings\Profilename (or C:\Users in Vista). If you want all user
logons to have the same SendTo shortcuts, then you'd put them in the
All Users profile's SendTo folder.

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

On this machine (Windows 2000) it is in the Windows folder. I just looked at
my XP machine and it has a SendTo folder as well. I don't have Access 97 on
my Vista machine. I'll email you a screen shot if you wish.

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

The conventional wisdom was that it was better to install multiple versions in
order (oldest first), but a few posters in these groups have reported installing
them in any old order with no problems.

Almost but not quite. You will get the no license error.
Bugs: License problems
http://www.mvps.org/access/bugs/bugs0013.htm
ACC97: AcLicn97.exe Available in Download Center
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=191224
ACC: "There Is No License" Error Message Starting Microsoft Access
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=141373

And I've been one of those too deliberately install in a randomish out
of sequence order these last four or six times.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

With multiple copies you pretty much have to abandon the
idea of opening Access files by double-clicking them. Open the desired version
of Access first and then open the file from within.

Access Version Checker which allows me to click on an MDB and it
opens up the appropriate version of Access for that MDB automatically.
Definitely a recommended product. http://www.aylott.com.au/accver.htm

Unfortunately he hasn't yet updated it for A2007.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

 

[Dick Watson]

I don't disagree, but must ask: what are you doing new work in?

 

[Rick Brandt]

I don't disagree, but must ask: what are you doing new work in?

Can't speak for David, but I have never developed in anything but 97. I have
every other version installed for testing and I distribute all my apps in both
97 and 2000 versions since that is all I need to be able to accomodate a user
with anything from 97 up to 2007 installed on their PC.

To me it is mostly a matter of being able to support the largest number of users
over the widest range of operating systems. I see no reason to develop an app
that immediately forces any of my users to upgrade their systems. Beyond that I
have simply seen nothing about *developing* in the newer versions that appeals
to me in the slightest. My internal company apps could all be developed in 2003
since that is what all users have, but I am just not interested in doing so
"just because".

With every new version since 97 I have been looking for some *compelling* new
features that I don't have to pay for with a myriad of irritations in other
areas. I'm still looking.

 

[Rick Brandt]

Access Version Checker which allows me to click on an MDB and it
opens up the appropriate version of Access for that MDB automatically.
Definitely a recommended product. http://www.aylott.com.au/accver.htm

Unfortunately he hasn't yet updated it for A2007.

Tony

I have heard of such utilities obviously, but I just have no need for them.
Since I only develop in Access 97 and convert up to support newer versions I
have virtually no cases where I want to open an Access file in anything other
than Access 97 and 99% of the time that will have been the last version I opened
so double-clicking produces the desired result.

 

[Paul Shapiro]

I've used Virtual PC to install older software versions in a virtual
machine, or for testing current applications on older OS versions. While
it's a bit more hassle to startup the program, it avoids potentially
"contaminating" your working machine.

 

[David W. Fenton]

On this machine (Windows 2000) it is in the Windows folder. I just
looked at my XP machine and it has a SendTo folder as well. I
don't have Access 97 on my Vista machine. I'll email you a screen
shot if you wish.

My WinXP and Win2K machines lack any SendTo folder in the Windows
folder. The Win2K machine was upgraded from NT4, but I later
installed a fresh copy of Win2K, so the legacy Winnt folder is long
gone.

The only machines I recall that have SendTo in the Windows folder
are Win9x-based machines.

Weird.

 

[David W. Fenton]

I only develop in Access 97 and convert up to support newer
versions

Wow -- I did that for many years after A2K was released, but 2 or 3
years ago, after running into bug after bug with things that worked
right in A97 and broke in A2K or higher, I switched to developing in
the deployment version. I still do about half my development in A97
because that's what many of my clients are using.

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

To me it is mostly a matter of being able to support the largest number of users
over the widest range of operating systems. I see no reason to develop an app
that immediately forces any of my users to upgrade their systems. Beyond that I
have simply seen nothing about *developing* in the newer versions that appeals
to me in the slightest. My internal company apps could all be developed in 2003
since that is what all users have, but I am just not interested in doing so
"just because".

My biggest concern is security and the security patches which MS is no
longer supplying to Office 97. Yes, the chances of an exploit
utilizing an MDB/MDE is very low but that's not zero.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

 

[Rick Brandt]

My biggest concern is security and the security patches which MS is no
longer supplying to Office 97. Yes, the chances of an exploit
utilizing an MDB/MDE is very low but that's not zero.

Tony

My apps fall into two categories. Ones that use server back ends and ones
where security is not an issue. I just don't use Jet where security is an
issue.

 

[David W. Fenton]

My apps fall into two categories. Ones that use server back ends
and ones where security is not an issue. I just don't use Jet
where security is an issue.

But there are other kinds of security issues, such as exploits of
buffer overruns. I don't know if MS would patch such a security hole
in software as old as A97, but they still provide security patches
for some kinds of NT4 security issues.

As we move towards 64-bit computing and real in-memory code
execution protection, I think A97 will then become something of a
risk, just as PostgreSQL on Windows was once a risk because it
didn't secure its own memory space (as it did on UNIXen).