Runtime installation questions

[google3luo359]

There's a good likelihood that an Access db I developed will be
deployed on approx. 50 pcs.

What I'd like to find out is the time that will be required to complete
the installation. (2002 DevKit)

Approx. 20 pc's will be networked in one room another 20 pc's networked
in another room and approx. 10-15 notebooks are probably standalone.

Can/do you install a runtime on the server for the networked pc's or
must it be installed on each pc?
How much time are we talking approx. for the various scenarios above,
to complete all installs?


Also, I read the following in a Googled thread from 2000.

"You can get a cut down version of Access called Run-time (free from MS) which presents > the user with a restricted Access interface but some form of Access must be installed. "

When did MS stop distributing runtimes for free?

Thanks!
Ric

 

[Rick Brandt]

There's a good likelihood that an Access db I developed will be
deployed on approx. 50 pcs.

What I'd like to find out is the time that will be required to
complete the installation. (2002 DevKit)

Approx. 20 pc's will be networked in one room another 20 pc's
networked in another room and approx. 10-15 notebooks are probably
standalone.

Can/do you install a runtime on the server for the networked pc's or
must it be installed on each pc?

Each PC. Just like if you were installing Word or Excel.

How much time are we talking approx. for the various scenarios above,
to complete all installs?

Couple minutes?

Also, I read the following in a Googled thread from 2000.


When did MS stop distributing runtimes for free?

The license to distribute the runtime was never free for the developer. It is
free for the user of the PC where you install it.

 

[google3luo359]

Couple minutes?

So you figure just a couple of minutes for each PC to install from a
CD?
I suppose it would be smart to make 10 or so copies of the CD to speed
things up.

Do you just choose 'install Runtime' from a menu or something like
that?

TIA Ric

 

[John Vinson]

So you figure just a couple of minutes for each PC to install from a
CD?
I suppose it would be smart to make 10 or so copies of the CD to speed
things up.

Nope. Network install, from a shared drive.

John W. Vinson[MVP]

 

[google3luo359]

So you figure just a couple of minutes for each PC to install from a

Nope. Network install, from a shared drive.

John W. Vinson[MVP]

Thanks John,

This makes a lot more sense. And it will save a heck of a lot of time
too.
I wonder what Rick was thinking of when he replied?

Ric

 

[John Vinson]

I wonder what Rick was thinking of when he replied?

I'm not privy to Rick's internal cogitations, but I'd guess...

Network install, from a shared drive. <g>

John W. Vinson[MVP]

 

[aaron.kempf]

using MDB for a 2 users isn't possible.

use Access Data Projects; these things rock!!!
especially for that many users.

you can get a copy of the SQL Server Developers' edition for only $49;
and then you don't have to deal with

a) compact / repair
b) designing indexes
c) troubleshooting queries
d) distributing queries
e) copying 50mb front ends to each pc


adp are better for end users; if you can't write a couple views and
sprocs; go get some commercial help

 

[Rick Brandt]

I'm not privy to Rick's internal cogitations, but I'd guess...

Network install, from a shared drive. <g>

John W. Vinson[MVP]

Hey, great minds think alike!

Actually I have no experience with the newer versions of the runtime installers,
but my Access 97 runtime installations will run over a network in maybe 30
seconds.

 

[Larry Linson]

He's at it again. <SIGH>

The post by <[email protected]> is such a fount of misinformation that I
can only suggest you disregard it. A not-necessarily-complete list of the
misinformation follows:

(1) You can, indeed, implement multiuser with MDB. In fact, MDB is now the
recommended method for Access as a client to Microsoft SQL Server, and MDB
is what is generated by the Access 2007 Upsizing Wizard. And, in fact, there
is a Microsoft-sponsored newsgroup on the subject:
microsoft.public.access.multiuser.

(2) The Developer Edition of Microsoft SQL Server is licensed only for
development use, not for production. so using it in the manner suggested
would be a violation of your license agreement.

(3) A front-end (user interface) is required for user access to any version
of SQL Server; SQL Server does not have a UI part like Access; it has
excellent "administrative tools" but they are not an interface for users --
they are for designers and adminstrators.

(4) You must still design your tables, including indexes, if you use SQL
Server -- no version has been endowed with psychic powers.

Server databases are appropriate for many situations, but not for every
database application. Most server databases require the full- or part-time
attention of a qualified database administrator (DBA).

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

 

[aaron.kempf]

Larry

**** YOU buddy.

1) mdb multi-user isn't RELIABLE ENOUGH. it doesn't work over a WAN.
It doesn't work over a LAN. It just flat-out doesn't ****ing work well
enough.

2) you can use Developers' edition to develop databases and then copy
them to MSDE or SQL Express. What exactly are you implying, Larry?

3) SQL Server 2005 Express has a GUI that is 10,000 times better than
MDB. It has query by design it has everything you need.

4) you don't have to do jack shit with indexes. Fire and forget with
SQL Server; using the 'Database Tuning Advisor' or 'SQL Server Index
Tuning Wizard'. It does 10,000 times better than is concievable with
obsolete MDB tools.

Larry you can pretty much **** yourself.

Attacking me doesn't mean that MDB is less obsolete.

I dont need to

a) compact and repair
b) kick out users to compact and repair
c) use windows scheduler or access automation
d) write indexes. never once.
e) rewrite queries when they crap out
f) copy little tables to the frontends
g) copy queries to the front ends
h) kick people out of the database so that i can take a backup
i) write obnoxiously complex applications just in order to create an
audit log.

SQL Server is superior to MDB in every possible concievable way.
it is a travesty for ANYONE to be using MDB for anything in the year
2006.

SQL Server 7 made MDB obsolete what almost 10 years ago??


RE:

Server databases are appropriate for many situations, but not for every
database application. Most server databases require the full- or part-time
attention of a qualified database administrator (DBA).

LARRY IS FULL OF SHIT.

DROP MDB AND LEARN SQL SERVER; KID-- IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE TO GET
OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE, OUT OF THE BOX WITH SQL SERVER, MSDE, ETC.

Maybe if you weren't such a baby, Larry you woudln't have this
misconception.
the DBA of the world have been obsolete for many years; because Sql
RDBMS is extremely powerful and easy to use.

-Aaron
Sr Olap DBA
Access Data Project Nationalist

 

[aaron.kempf]

Larry

I really would like to know who the **** you think that you are.

I am write.

MDB is too obsolete; and the Access Data Projects have taken over the
Microsoft.Public.Access newsgroup.

ADP is the rightful heir to the Access crown... MDB is obsolete and
anyone using it for anything anywhere should be fired immmediately.

**** yourself if you disagree.

-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

sorry i meant I am right; not I am write

but at least im not stupid enough to use a worthless database format.


****ing idiots; grow up and smell the 90s dipshits.


-Aaron

 

[Tony Toews]

using MDB for a 2 users isn't possible.

Rubbish.

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

 

[aaron.kempf]

Tony;

it isn't rubbish; it is the truth.

grow some balls and use a db engine with a future.

-Aaron