 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
MS Access Forum / General 1 / July 2006Loading 2 versions of runtime
I have computers setup with A97 runtime with mde's. Work perfectly. I've written an app in 2003 and purchased the Developer extensions. When I load A2003 runtime with my app on a computer that has A97 runtime, I cannot open the A 97 mde's. I was under the impression that the developer extensionsl allow for having both runtimes on a computer. 1. A97 Runtime loaded first 2. A2003 runtime loaded second. I've tested the a2003 mde in runtime mode on computer without A97 and it works perfectly. Is there anything I can do to have both runtime versions run on one computer with two different mde's? Any advise is greatly appreciated. Regards, Lar 2 versions of Access can not exist on the same O/S, the only way you're going to do that is with a dual-boot computer. The DLLs for the 2 versions of Access are completely different and will not interract with each other. > I have computers setup with A97 runtime with mde's. Work perfectly. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Lar ManningFan a scris: > 2 versions of Access can not exist on the same O/S, the only way you're > going to do that is with a dual-boot computer. The DLLs for the 2 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > Lar False! You can have two versions (or more) of runtime on the same box, on the same OS. Just make sure that the path to msaccess for each shortcut point to the right 'msaccess.exe' and of course you have installed them in different folders. Example: ' "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Art\Office10\msaccess.exe " "c:\MyXP_DB.mde" ' for Access XP .mde or .mdb file and ' "C:\MyProgram\Runtime\Office\msaccess.exe " "c:\My97_DB.mde" ' for Access 97 .mde or .mdb file. The same goes for other versions of runtime (A2k, A2k3) or for other combinations of runtime. Cheers! Sebastian ManningFan a scris: > 2 versions of Access can not exist on the same O/S, the only way you're > going to do that is with a dual-boot computer. The DLLs for the 2 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > Lar False! You can have two versions (or more) of runtime on the same box, on the same OS. Just make sure that the path to msaccess for each shortcut point to the right 'msaccess.exe' and of course you have installed them in different folders. Example: ' "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Art\Office10\msaccess.exe " "c:\MyXP_DB.mde" ' for Access XP .mde or .mdb file and ' "C:\MyProgram\Runtime\Office\msaccess.exe " "c:\My97_DB.mde" ' for Access 97 .mde or .mdb file. The same goes for other versions of runtime (A2k, A2k3) or for other combinations of runtime. Cheers! Sebastian Rubbish, I have in the past had Access2, Access97, Access2k, AccessXp and Access2003 all loaded on the same PC under the same OS at the same time.  SignatureTerry Kreft > 2 versions of Access can not exist on the same O/S, the only way you're > going to do that is with a dual-boot computer. The DLLs for the 2 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > Lar You have to load them in sequence (A97 followed by A2k3) and they have to be installed in different folders. You then have to ensure that each mdb/mde uses the correct version, which you can do by using shortcuts. SignatureTerry Kreft > I have computers setup with A97 runtime with mde's. Work perfectly. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Lar And how do you prevent the OCXs in Windows/System32 from being overwritten with each install? I've worked on networks for several years and have never seen it done, at least not without clusterphuxing your machine. To have 5 versions of Access on the same machine is preposterous, and I apologize for this but I think you're full of crap. > You have to load them in sequence (A97 followed by A2k3) and they have to be > installed in different folders. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > > Lar Ummm... Terry Kreft has forgotten more about Access then you and I know put together. Further, in this particular case, he is 100% correct. I've always had 3 to 4 versions on my machines without any complications. So do all of the Access MVP's that I know. So do most of the Access developers out there. Everyone it seems, except for you, is capable of following the simple instructions that Terry laid out. SignatureStephen Lebans http://www.lebans.com Access Code, Tips and Tricks Please respond only to the newsgroups so everyone can benefit. > And how do you prevent the OCXs in Windows/System32 from being > overwritten with each install? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> > >> > Lar Thank you very much for responding. I will ensure paths are correct and get back. Regards, Lar > Ummm... Terry Kreft has forgotten more about Access then you and I know put > together. Further, in this particular case, he is 100% correct. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >> > > >> > Lar Well, I'm sorry that in your many years of experience you appear to have failed to achieve any level of competence in installing different versions of Access on one machine under one OS. A simple review of this problem in Google would have shown you that not only is it possible, it is achieved by many people (try searching on the phrase "Different versions of access on one machine"). I think I should point out that it is particularly gutless to apologise before abusing someone. Luckily in this case having demonstrated to the world that you are incompetent, gutless, rude and ill-informed I believe that most people will be able to decide the level of confidence they should have in any further posts of yours and will be able to make an informed decision as to whether they need to spend any of their valuable time reading anything you post. SignatureTerry Kreft > And how do you prevent the OCXs in Windows/System32 from being > overwritten with each install? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > > > > > Lar Guess I peed in the wrong person's cheerios... :o/ You're right, I'll go kill myself now because you feel my posts are worthless. > I think I should point out that it is particularly gutless to apologise > before abusing someone. Luckily in this case having demonstrated to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > decision as to whether they need to spend any of their valuable time reading > anything you post. > Guess I peed in the wrong person's cheerios... :o/ > You're right, I'll go kill myself now because you > feel my posts are worthless. I'll observe a moment of silence. Seems I recently had to correct one of your very-confidently-stated responses that was dead wrong, too. I've only got three versions of Access installed on this machine, but like others who've responded, I have had a few more than that on some other machines in the past. Perhaps you can still be confident, but cut back a little on the arrogance, at least to the point where you aren't quite so ready to accuse people who really know what they are talking about of being FOC because their (perfectly correct) answers don't agree with what you think. Larry Larry - I've never seen it done on a Novell Network. If you can point out a primer on doing this across a Novell Network I will eat my words in public, on the White House steps while wearing a purple tutu and makeup. So far as I know, Novell will not allow more than one version of Access to run on the same machine, because it recreates the registry on each load. > I'll observe a moment of silence. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Larry > I've never seen it done on a Novell Network. If you can point > out a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Access to run on the same machine, because it recreates the > registry on each load. What in the *hell* are you talking about? Access is only every installed on a workstation, not on a server, and there's no such thing as a Novell workstation. The only thing you put on a server is the MDB data file, and that is accessed by workstations through the file system, so installation of Jet or Access is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT FOR A NOVELL SERVER. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ On a Novell network the server controls the content of the workstations. This is how you allow some users to use some programs and other users to NOT use those programs, and how you limit users from installing "sanctioned" programs only. Just because you don't understand a Novell network doesn't give you the right to get all uppity about it. Oh wait. Now I sound like you. > What in the *hell* are you talking about? Access is only every > installed on a workstation, not on a server, and there's no such > thing as a Novell workstation. The only thing you put on a server is > the MDB data file, and that is accessed by workstations through the > file system, so installation of Jet or Access is COMPLETELY > IRRELEVANT FOR A NOVELL SERVER. > On a Novell network the server controls the content of the > workstations. This is how you allow some users to use some programs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh wait. Now I sound like you. None of your (out of the blue) Novell network behavior statements alter the fact that your original comment... 2 versions of Access can not exist on the same O/S, the only way you're going to do that is with a dual-boot computer. The DLLs for the 2 versions of Access are completely different and will not interract with each other. ...is a load of rubbish on all but this very specific Novell environment which you only injected as a lame attempt to salvage an incorrect position. SignatureRick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP Email (as appropriate) to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com >> On a Novell network the server controls the content of the >> workstations. This is how you allow some users to use some [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > environment which you only injected as a lame attempt to salvage > an incorrect position. So far as I can tell, it's also wrong on Novell, unless the Novell admin has decided to set it up that way. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ Actually, you're wrong. But you're an "Access MVP" so I forgive you. > None of your (out of the blue) Novell network behavior statements alter the fact > that your original comment... > ...is a load of rubbish on all but this very specific Novell environment which > you only injected as a lame attempt to salvage an incorrect position. >> None of your (out of the blue) Novell network behavior statements >> alter the fact that your original comment... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually, you're wrong. But you're an "Access MVP" so I forgive > you. <PLONK> SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ >> What in the *hell* are you talking about? Access is only every >> installed on a workstation, not on a server, and there's no such [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > because you don't understand a Novell network doesn't give you the > right to get all uppity about it. I've been working with Novell networks for over 10 years. I do understand tham. I think the way CNEs are trained to set them up is as user-hostile as could ever be possible, but, I do understand them. If the Novell sysadmin decided to allow users access to Access runtimes in two different versions, they could have access. There's nothing about Novell that prevents this, except, perhaps, sysadmin intransigence. > Oh wait. Now I sound like you. Your statement as you originally made it was COMPLETELY WRONG. So far as I'm aware, it's also wrong now that you've narrowed it to Novell networks. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ * ManningFan: > Larry - > I've never seen it done on a Novell Network. If you can point out a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> Larry There are a great many people on this NG that have multiple versions of Access installed on their systems without problems. If you prefer not to believe them, perhaps you should give it a try yourself rather than prolonging this pissing contest. SignatureRandy Harris tech at promail dot com I'm pretty sure I know everything that I can remember. > Larry - > I've never seen it done on a Novell Network. I'm not surprised. I've never seen a camel in Blackburn town centre either. I wonder why. That's obviously because you walk around with your eyes shut Keith, I personally have seen two camels, three llamas and a bandicoot in Blackburn town centre, mind you, when I started taking the pills again I couldn't seem to find them, or indeed Blackburn town centre. <g> SignatureTerry Kreft > > Larry - > > I've never seen it done on a Novell Network. > > I'm not surprised. I've never seen a camel in Blackburn town centre either. > I wonder why. > That's obviously because you walk around with your eyes shut Keith, I > personally have seen two camels, three llamas and a bandicoot in Blackburn > town centre, mind you, when I started taking the pills again I couldn't > seem > to find them, or indeed Blackburn town centre. Perhaps you'd fallen into one of those 4000 holes ;-) Keith. LOL! Good link ! SignatureTerry Kreft > > That's obviously because you walk around with your eyes shut Keith, I > > personally have seen two camels, three llamas and a bandicoot in Blackburn [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Keith. > Guess I peed in the wrong person's cheerios... :o/ You're right, I'll > go kill myself now because you feel my posts are worthless. Have you thought of changing your handle to "PC Datasheet"? I have disagreed with lots and lots of people in he NGs, some of those people I respected before the fact, some I later went on to respect (and some were irredeemable idiots <g>). There's nothing wrong with disagreeing (obviously) bur it's best to be reasonably certain of your ground before doing so and to be honest resorting to insults normally makes most people highly suspicious of the strength of your arguments and, even worse, usually diverts the thread into less than helpfull paths. I don't want you to go away, I'd like you to stay here and engage in providing accurate answers to peoples questions and argue/debate points which you disagree with. There's a lot to learn for _everyone_ in here that's the continuing attraction of participating SignatureTerry Kreft > Guess I peed in the wrong person's cheerios... :o/ You're right, I'll > go kill myself now because you feel my posts are worthless. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > decision as to whether they need to spend any of their valuable time reading > > anything you post. > but I think you're full of crap. Ummm, I think we all know who's FOC here. Keith. > And how do you prevent the OCXs in Windows/System32 from being > overwritten with each install? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of Access on the same machine is preposterous, and I apologize for > this but I think you're full of crap. He's not full of crap. For a long time I ran Access97 and 2000 together. Then I added 2003 and had all 3 versions going. It looks like this in Program Files http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/Triple_the_Access_fun.PNG >> You have to load them in sequence (A97 followed by A2k3) and they >> have to be installed in different folders. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>> >>> Lar |
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.