how much computer power needed for run-time access?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

ianalexh - 09 Mar 2005 14:51 GMT

friends,

i am looking into distributing an access database for company-wide use which
i have developed and used personally. we would therefore need to purchase
visual studio tools, but my company's vice-president also wants to know what
the system requirements are for run-time versions of access. i didn't think
it would take too much computer power to use a run-time version of the
database, but i don't know for sure. does the computer need to have the same
specs as what it would take to use the full-blown access, or is it less or
more?

thanks!
-ih

Signature

ianalexh

Reply to this Message

Allen Browne - 09 Mar 2005 15:03 GMT

The runtime is actually the same executable.
You can test it on an old machine by creating a shortcut with the /runtime
switch.

In general the CPU requirements are not great: a 400MHz Celeron can do it.
However, you will need at least 64MB of RAM for Win98, or 128MB for Win
2000/XP, and more if you want to run other software at the same time (e.g.
email client).

Signature

Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

> friends,
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> thanks!
> -ih

Reply to this Message

ianalexh - 09 Mar 2005 15:27 GMT

thank you. since it is the same executable, does that also mean that users
need to have windows 2000+ to use the run-time version from access 2003? or
can they still go on using windows 98? (i don't have access 2003 yet, so i
cannot actually test it)

thanks,
ih

> The runtime is actually the same executable.
> You can test it on an old machine by creating a shortcut with the /runtime
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> > thanks!
> > -ih

Reply to this Message

Allen Browne - 09 Mar 2005 15:54 GMT

Yes: A2003 will run only on Win2000 or later.

Signature

Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

> thank you. since it is the same executable, does that also mean that
> users
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>> > thanks!
>> > -ih

Reply to this Message

ianalexh - 09 Mar 2005 16:37 GMT

in that case, i am wondering what software is needed to develop run-times
from access 2000? we're trying to keep costs down. is it the sql server?
if so, is a special edition of sql server needed? or can you also use visual
studio tools to create run-times for access 200?

thank you so much.

-ih

> Yes: A2003 will run only on Win2000 or later.
>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> >> > thanks!
> >> > -ih

Reply to this Message

George Nicholson - 09 Mar 2005 22:12 GMT

License to distribute Access Runtime files for Access 2000 came with the
Office 2000 Developers Edition. It was also available came with Office 2000
Developers Tools Upgrade (which changed an existing Office 2000
Professional/Premium installation to the ODE version)

License to distribute Access Runtime files for Access 2002 came with the
Office XP Developers Edition. There was no separate Developers Tools
upgrade.

The ODE tools might have come with a MSDN Univer$al subscription. I know the
Access Developers Extensions for Office 2003 do (the rest of VSTO are
available with lower levels of MSDN, but not the ADE). Not sure about 2000
or XP ODE tools, except that they weren't part of MSDN Professional.

You might find Tony Toews' site worth browsing:
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
There is a fair amount of information regarding various Developer's Edition
stuff there (among other things). It's not all in one place, so even if you
think you've seen it all, keep looking :-)

HTH,
George Nicholson

Remove 'Junk' from return address.

> in that case, i am wondering what software is needed to develop run-times
> from access 2000? we're trying to keep costs down. is it the sql server?
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>> >> > thanks!
>> >> > -ih

Reply to this Message