Access 2003

  • Thread starter Thread starter RK
  • Start date Start date
R

RK

Can an application developed in Access 2003 be down sized
to 2000 so that it can be installed on Windows 98?
Office XP can be installed and ran on Windows 98, but it
looks like Access 2003 can't. (Why am I surprised)

RK
 
Access 2003 uses either the Access 2000 file format (default) or the Access
2002 file format. Either way, it should run without a problem on Office XP.
 
Well them I am confused (maybe)
Access 2003 will only install on 2000, XP.
So, does that mean that the developer edition for 2003
will only create installations for 2000 and XP?
I want to protect my time invested in the program I wrote
and don't want to take a chance of using Access 2003 if I
can't install the runtime on Win98 machines.

Thanks for your reply
RK
 
The Developer edition for A2003 is called
Visual Studio Tools for Office 2003
Details at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/understanding/vsto/default.aspx

I am not using that product because of its requirements. To talk to those
who are, try the newsgroup:
microsoft.public.access.developers.toolkitode

I did run into problems with compiling an MDE under A2003, and then creating
a runtime installation with the A2002 developer edition. It created the
package, and completed the installation, but the application would not run.
The error message indicated that the VBA was corrupt, which A2002's way of
saying that it could not run the code complied under A2003.
 
Thank you for your input.

RK
-----Original Message-----
The Developer edition for A2003 is called
Visual Studio Tools for Office 2003
Details at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/understanding/vsto/defaul
t.aspx

I am not using that product because of its requirements. To talk to those
who are, try the newsgroup:
microsoft.public.access.developers.toolkitode

I did run into problems with compiling an MDE under A2003, and then creating
a runtime installation with the A2002 developer edition. It created the
package, and completed the installation, but the application would not run.
The error message indicated that the VBA was corrupt, which A2002's way of
saying that it could not run the code complied under A2003.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.

Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.




.
Click to expand...
 
RK said:
Well them I am confused (maybe)
Access 2003 will only install on 2000, XP.
So, does that mean that the developer edition for 2003
will only create installations for 2000 and XP?
Click to expand...

Correct. To be more specific Win 2000 SP3.
I want to protect my time invested in the program I wrote
and don't want to take a chance of using Access 2003 if I
can't install the runtime on Win98 machines.
Click to expand...

Then you need to be creating your runtimes using A2000 or A2002.

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
 
RK said:
Office XP can be installed and ran on Windows 98, but it
looks like Access 2003 can't. (Why am I surprised)
Click to expand...

I vaguely recall the reason was that MS wants to ensure A2003 is a
more secure product and that various secure OS components can only be
found on Win 2000 SP3, Win XP and newer. And not on Win NT 4.0 or Win
95, 98 or ME.

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
 
You can still use Access 2003 for development. I've been using it since the
Beta, but all my runtimes are Access 2000 runtimes (still have a few Windows
95 users out there, believe it or not).

I do the development in Access 2003, avoiding any new features that were not
supported in Access 2000. Then I do final testing, create the MDE, and
create the runtime package in Access 2000. I need to use an earlier version
of Windows to create the runtime anyway, so it's no great hardship to use an
earlier version of Access as well.

In fact, I use two earlier versions of Windows. In my experience, an Access
2000 runtime created under the original release of Windows 98 - not Second
Edition - will work with all later versions of Wndows except ME. The only
way I can get a runtime to install under ME is to create it in ME. So I use
Virtual PC to maintain virtual Windows 98 and Windows ME PCs, each with
Access 2000 installed.

Hopefully, this should be the last year I have to use Access 2000 for
runtimes. Next year I hope to be able to move to Access 2002. But I haven't
even begun to consider deploying Access 2003 runtimes yet.

Life is much simpler when you don't have to deploy the runtime. Just use the
Access 2000 file format, avoid features that were not supported in Access
2000, avoid exotic references and OCXs, and most of the time the MDB will
run happily under retail Access 2000, 2002, or 2003.

--
Brendan Reynolds (MVP)
http://brenreyn.blogspot.com

The spammers and script-kiddies have succeeded in making it impossible for
me to use a real e-mail address in public newsgroups. E-mail replies to
this post will be deleted without being read. Any e-mail claiming to be
from brenreyn at indigo dot ie that is not digitally signed by me with a
GlobalSign digital certificate is a forgery and should be deleted without
being read. Follow-up questions should in general be posted to the
newsgroup, but if you have a good reason to send me e-mail, you'll find
a useable e-mail address at the URL above.
 
Does it mean, if previously i using Access 2000 to develop my database;
and i still can install/upgrade to Access 2003 with not issue to continue
my development ?
 
Yes, that will be fine.

You will have to work around the nonsensical security "features" in A2003
and make sure it does not turn on "sandbox" mode, and then your A2000 will
work.
 
Brenda

Thank you for your reply

RK
-----Original Message-----
You can still use Access 2003 for development. I've been using it since the
Beta, but all my runtimes are Access 2000 runtimes (still have a few Windows
95 users out there, believe it or not).

I do the development in Access 2003, avoiding any new features that were not
supported in Access 2000. Then I do final testing, create the MDE, and
create the runtime package in Access 2000. I need to use an earlier version
of Windows to create the runtime anyway, so it's no great hardship to use an
earlier version of Access as well.

In fact, I use two earlier versions of Windows. In my experience, an Access
2000 runtime created under the original release of Windows 98 - not Second
Edition - will work with all later versions of Wndows except ME. The only
way I can get a runtime to install under ME is to create it in ME. So I use
Virtual PC to maintain virtual Windows 98 and Windows ME PCs, each with
Access 2000 installed.

Hopefully, this should be the last year I have to use Access 2000 for
runtimes. Next year I hope to be able to move to Access 2002. But I haven't
even begun to consider deploying Access 2003 runtimes yet.

Life is much simpler when you don't have to deploy the runtime. Just use the
Access 2000 file format, avoid features that were not supported in Access
2000, avoid exotic references and OCXs, and most of the time the MDB will
run happily under retail Access 2000, 2002, or 2003.

--
Brendan Reynolds (MVP)
http://brenreyn.blogspot.com

The spammers and script-kiddies have succeeded in making it impossible for
me to use a real e-mail address in public newsgroups. E- mail replies to
this post will be deleted without being read. Any e-mail claiming to be
from brenreyn at indigo dot ie that is not digitally signed by me with a
GlobalSign digital certificate is a forgery and should be deleted without
being read. Follow-up questions should in general be posted to the
newsgroup, but if you have a good reason to send me e- mail, you'll find
a useable e-mail address at the URL above.





.
Click to expand...
 
Allen, thanks for your information.

Allen Browne said:
Yes, that will be fine.

You will have to work around the nonsensical security "features" in A2003
and make sure it does not turn on "sandbox" mode, and then your A2000 will
work.
Click to expand...
 
Who's this Brenda person, and how come she keeps getting credit for my
posts! :-)

(And how come she never gets the blame for my mistakes, huh? :-)

--
Brendan Reynolds (MVP)
http://brenreyn.blogspot.com

The spammers and script-kiddies have succeeded in making it impossible for
me to use a real e-mail address in public newsgroups. E-mail replies to
this post will be deleted without being read. Any e-mail claiming to be
from brenreyn at indigo dot ie that is not digitally signed by me with a
GlobalSign digital certificate is a forgery and should be deleted without
being read. Follow-up questions should in general be posted to the
newsgroup, but if you have a good reason to send me e-mail, you'll find
a useable e-mail address at the URL above.
 
Back
Top