 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
MS Access Forum / Forms Programming / December 2005Thoughts on Runtime vs Access
I want to distribute my application commercially with as few hassles (headaches) as possible. The db will be distributed as an MDE. I look to the experts on whether going the runetime route is better or is it less of a headache to simply distribute as an Access file? Many Thanks! > I want to distribute my application commercially with as few hassles > (headaches) as possible. The db will be distributed as an MDE. I look > to the experts on whether going the runetime route is better or is it > less of a headache to simply distribute as an Access file? Many > Thanks! Well if you are going to make having an appropriate version of Access being installed a requirement of your application then certainly just distributing an MDE is easier than creating a runtime installation. How many people do you think are going to have a version of Access that will run your file? That is certainly going to cut down on who can use it.  SignatureI don't check the Email account attached to this message. Send instead to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com Well maybe I'm wrong but here's my thought. The application is for businesses, strictly. I haven't seen a business yet that does not have an Office installation somewhere. Additionally, my app does not need to be shared across a business. Most business users only need one instance of the application. Since Access comes with Office, the majority of potential users in the business world have Access. If for some reason they don't and they really want my app, then they have to buy a version of Access. Do you think I am shutting out too many potential users with this train of thought? > > I want to distribute my application commercially with as few hassles > > (headaches) as possible. The db will be distributed as an MDE. I look [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > How many people do you think are going to have a version of Access that will run > your file? That is certainly going to cut down on who can use it. from Rainbo01 Hong Kong use Setup Package! for each Access Version has different version for setup package OfficeXP---->OfficeXP Developer Edition Office2003----->Microsoft Office Access 2003 Developer Extensions(one part of Visual Studio Tools for Office 2003) "MBoozer" 來函： > Well maybe I'm wrong but here's my thought. The application is for > businesses, strictly. I haven't seen a business yet that does not have an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > How many people do you think are going to have a version of Access that will run > > your file? That is certainly going to cut down on who can use it. You seem to be forgetting that the Standard and Small Business editions of Office do not include Access. Runtime deployment is, unfortunately, often a necessary evil. One question to ask yourself is, if users have to buy a copy of Access to use your application, how much *relative* difference will that make to the cost of your application? If your application sells for 1000 USD per user, then the relative cost is about 10% if they qualify for an upgrade. If your application sells for 100 USD per user, then the relative cost is about 91%. (The above calculations are based on a price of 90.99 USD for an upgrade copy of Access 2003, which was the price advertised at www.amazon.com at the time of writing). SignatureBrendan Reynolds > Well maybe I'm wrong but here's my thought. The application is for > businesses, strictly. I haven't seen a business yet that does not have an [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> will run >> your file? That is certainly going to cut down on who can use it. And one other thing to keep in mind, in conjunction with Brendan's astute observations: Runtime ACCESS does not exist well side by side with full installation of ACCESS. Many conflicts can arise. So if your customer has full ACCESS, you may not want to use runtime for that customer; otherwise, go with runtime. SignatureKen Snell <MS ACCESS MVP> > You seem to be forgetting that the Standard and Small Business editions of > Office do not include Access. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >>> will run >>> your file? That is certainly going to cut down on who can use it. I agree with Ken, it is a zillion times easier to deploy your application without the runtime. If our clients have enough copies of Access we use 'em. When they do not have enough copies we selectively install our app using the runtime. We also develop our applications exclusively in Access 2000 so to make them compatible with all Access Versions from 2000 and higher. We no longer support Access 97 and to date have not seen this to be a problem for our clients. Right now I would estimate the 80 to 90% of our clients (mostly Public Schools) are using the full version of Access with our apps. The biggest complaint we have had with the runtime version was its lack of spell checking. We got around this complaint by Automating Word (using late binding) to do the spell check in the runtime installs. Virtually 100% of our clients have some version of MS Word installed. Frankly, if I were to look at developing our main application today,. as the back end is already in Sql Server, I would not consider Access for the front end. I'd go with some web based technology (Classic ASP or .NET). Though is tougher to develop in these environments (Access is a DREAM for developers), and less rich of an experience for the user (but getting better all the time). It is compatible with many more potential customer desktops, and at least a zillion times easier to install and upgrade. One of these days real soon I'm gonna rewrite the whole shebang..... Yea any day now... Real soon. :-) SignatureRon W www.WorksRite.com > And one other thing to keep in mind, in conjunction with Brendan's astute > observations: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >>> will run > >>> your file? That is certainly going to cut down on who can use it. Funnily enough, though, the more time I spend writing ASP.NET code, the more I begin to think that perhaps the Access runtime wasn't quite so bad as I used to think it was! :-( Having spent a whole day wrestling with something that would have taken about five minutes in Access, I have been known to mutter: "Come back Access - all is forgiven!" :-) SignatureBrendan Reynolds >I agree with Ken, it is a zillion times easier to deploy your application > without the runtime. If our clients have enough copies of Access we use [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] >> >>> will run >> >>> your file? That is certainly going to cut down on who can use it. Thanks alot everone! You've given me direction. I think we will offer the mde in 2000 format for all Access installs and offer the runtime (created in 2000, 2002 and 2003) for those who don't have access. (And whoever thought distributing software was easy?). We'll have to leave 97 behind. > Funnily enough, though, the more time I spend writing ASP.NET code, the more > I begin to think that perhaps the Access runtime wasn't quite so bad as I [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > >> >>> will run > >> >>> your file? That is certainly going to cut down on who can use it. > Thanks alot everone! You've given me direction. I think we will offer > the mde in 2000 format for all Access installs and offer the runtime > (created in 2000, 2002 and 2003) for those who don't have access. > (And whoever thought distributing software was easy?). We'll have to > leave 97 behind. Why have more than one runtime version? If they have NO version of Access installed then you can always use a single version. In that case 2000 will work on more PCs then either 2002 or 2003 so why not go with that? SignatureI don't check the Email account attached to this message. Send instead to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com Thanks Rick. I thought you needed the right version runtime for the same operating system. If 2000 runtime will work on xp, etc, then I think I have it. Offer mde in Ac2000 and make a 2000 runtime version that will work on majority of machines. Thanks. > > Thanks alot everone! You've given me direction. I think we will offer > > the mde in 2000 format for all Access installs and offer the runtime [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > installed then you can always use a single version. In that case 2000 will work > on more PCs then either 2002 or 2003 so why not go with that? > Thanks Rick. I thought you needed the right version runtime for the > same operating system. If 2000 runtime will work on xp, etc, then I > think I have it. Offer mde in Ac2000 and make a 2000 runtime version > that will work on majority of machines. Thanks. The Office version has little to do with the OS version except that Office 2002 needs Windows 98 SE or higher and Office 2003 requires Windows 2000 SP3 or higher. Office 97 and 2000 should run on any version from 95 on up. The same rules for Office apply to the Access runtime. SignatureI don't check the Email account attached to this message. Send instead to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com One last point of order. If I distribute a runtime created in Ac2000, it "should" run on all OS including 98, 2000 and xp? > > Thanks Rick. I thought you needed the right version runtime for the > > same operating system. If 2000 runtime will work on xp, etc, then I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The same rules for Office apply to the Access runtime. It is best to create the runtime package on a clean install of the earliest version of Windows you intend to support. A runtime package created on a clean install of Windows 98 should install on Windows 98, 98se, 2000 and XP. But a runtime package created on a later version of Windows may not install on an earlier version. This includes service packs - a runtime package created on Windows XP SP2 will not install on an unpatched installation of Windows XP. Windows ME further complicates the situation. Although Windows ME was released after Windows 98, we found that our runtime package created under Windows 98 did not always install on Windows ME, and we had to create a separate runtime package, created under Windows ME, for users of that version of Windows. If you don't have a half-dozen spare PCs lying around that you can use for creating and testing packages under various flavours of Windows, Virtual PC can be a life-saver ... http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx The SageKey tools also help to avoid many problems ... http://www.sagekey.com/ SignatureBrendan Reynolds > One last point of order. If I distribute a runtime created in Ac2000, it > "should" run on all OS including 98, 2000 and xp? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> The same rules for Office apply to the Access runtime. Although it has been a while and my memory aint what it use to be, but we had MANY problems getting clean installs with the Access 2000 runtime package. We moved to the 2002 runtime, got a good build and have used the same cd ever since. Our software was designed to be self updating, so all we need is to get a runtime installed (even though the Access program that gets installed with it is a few years out of date), and the software updates itself the first time the user attempts to use it. I fear should we ever loose that CD we could be in trouble. :-) The Win 98 second edition limitation is not much a barrier for us, as our software just barely works on a machine with 64mb ram anyway. It ran so slow on a box with 64mb of ram, we have never bothered to test on anything with less memory. We recommend to our potential clients that the desktop have minimum 128mb ram which typically eliminates anything that is not Win 2K or better. We do have a few scattered Win98 and Win ME users out there but the vast majority have Win 2K or better. If I were you I would set my customers expectations right up front. Test your software on down level OS's and low memory configurations before you give the customer a blanket statement that the software will run on anything that is win 98 or better. Because when the customer installs your masterpiece on that 8 year old Dell with a PII 400, 32Mb ram and a 10Bt NIC and starts calling with support problems, you will have to go into "Holy cow how did I get myself into this predicament" mode. I have been there, it aint fun! :-( Good luck with your project. SignatureRon W www.WorksRite.com > It is best to create the runtime package on a clean install of the earliest > version of Windows you intend to support. A runtime package created on a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >> > >> The same rules for Office apply to the Access runtime. Also, the runtime must be patched/upgraded with all ACCESS and OFFICE updates on the client's PCs after it's installed. You cannot patch/upgrade the runtime as part of its preparation. So the client also will need to be told to do those updates after installation. SignatureKen Snell <MS ACCESS MVP> > It is best to create the runtime package on a clean install of the > earliest version of Windows you intend to support. A runtime package [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>> >>> The same rules for Office apply to the Access runtime. > It is best to create the runtime package on a clean install of the > earliest version of Windows you intend to support. A runtime package [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > use for creating and testing packages under various flavours of > Windows, Virtual PC can be a life-saver ... Just curious Brendon...Are these issues you cite with the 2000 runtime (or higher)? My development PC over the last several years has gone from Win95 to NT4 to 2000 Pro to XP Pro and throughout all of those changes I have been creating and distributing 97 runtime packages that run on just about anything. SignatureI don't check the Email account attached to this message. Send instead to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com Access 2000. I'm quite surprised that you haven't encountered similar issues with Access 97 runtimes, but then I haven't deployed any Access 97 runtimes for some years now. From what you tell me, perhaps I should have stayed with it! :-) SignatureBrendan Reynolds >> It is best to create the runtime package on a clean install of the >> earliest version of Windows you intend to support. A runtime package [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > creating and distributing 97 runtime packages that run on just about > anything. Thanks Rick. I understand. > I want to distribute my application commercially with as few hassles > (headaches) as possible. The db will be distributed as an MDE. I look to the > experts on whether going the runetime route is better or is it less of a > headache to simply distribute as an Access file? Many Thanks! Holy Cow! Alright, here's the beef. I have plenty of old pc's lying around. I will take one, reformat the drive and do a clean install of 98 withOUT any service packs. Then I will install office2000 w access 2000. If I can only find that %$# Office2000 Developer CD I once had. At any rate, shoudl I do the office2000 service packs or just go with the original install of office2000? > Thanks Rick. I understand. > > > I want to distribute my application commercially with as few hassles > > (headaches) as possible. The db will be distributed as an MDE. I look to the > > experts on whether going the runetime route is better or is it less of a > > headache to simply distribute as an Access file? Many Thanks! As far as I can remember, I don't think it makes any difference - the patched files don't get included in the runtime package, the user still has to install the service pack separately on the target PC. But only one of our apps ever actually needed SP1 anyway. All but one of our apps will run quite happily with an unpatched version of Access 2000, and none of them ever needed SP2. The reason for creating the runtime on a clean install of the earliest version of Windows you intend to support is to avoid having the package include versions of system files that are newer than the versions already installed on the target PC. If they are not newer, the installer won't attempt to replace them. If it does attempt to replace system files, various problems can arise, as the files may be in use, or the user may not have permission to replace them. So the best policy is probably not to install anything on that PC that you don't have to. SignatureBrendan Reynolds > Holy Cow! Alright, here's the beef. I have plenty of old pc's lying > around. I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> > a >> > headache to simply distribute as an Access file? Many Thanks! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.