97 to 2003 (Repost)

[Katherine]

I have several Access 97 databases located on a shared
drive. I haven't split the databases into FE and BE yet,
but when I do both will be located on the server (rather
than placing the FE on each users desktop). We are all
currently using Access 97 but are being upgraded to Access
2003. As our regional offices are located throughout my
state, this will be a long process. My office is scheduled
for mid July. Other offices are scheduled as early as May
and as late as October. I understand I'll need two FE's -
a 97 version and a 2003 version, both linked to a 97 BE.
Am I correct in understanding that I will need to
be set up with TWO computers - one running Access 97 and
another running Access 2003 - during this process? Won't I
need 2003 running to convert the 97 version and 97 running
to maintain the 97 BE until every office gets upgraded?
Would I be wise to make a plea to my department's
management team to provide me with two computers? Thank
you for any advice you can offer. I am in a panic over
this.

 

[Joan Wild]

I have several Access 97 databases located on a shared
drive. I haven't split the databases into FE and BE yet,
but when I do both will be located on the server (rather
than placing the FE on each users desktop).

Why? You should put a copy of the FE on each user's desktop.

We are all
currently using Access 97 but are being upgraded to Access
2003. As our regional offices are located throughout my
state, this will be a long process. My office is scheduled
for mid July. Other offices are scheduled as early as May
and as late as October. I understand I'll need two FE's -
a 97 version and a 2003 version, both linked to a 97 BE.

Sounds good. You can give the 97 users the 97 FE on their workstations, and
the 2003 users the 2003 FE.

Am I correct in understanding that I will need to
be set up with TWO computers - one running Access 97 and
another running Access 2003 - during this process?

Not necessary to have two computers. You can install both versions on one
computer. You are best to install them in order (i.e. 97 first). When you
install 2003, be sure to choose a different folder to install it to, and pay
attention to the dialogs during install - you want to be sure you uncheck
the 'overwrite previous version' option.

Would I be wise to make a plea to my department's
management team to provide me with two computers?

You'll have to come up with some other excuse, I'm afraid <g>

 

[Guest]

Thank you Joan.

I had planned to leave the FE's on the server because our
users are spread out over the state and I thought it may
be an easier arrangement for me. I've read Access MVP Tony
Toews article on an Auto FE Updater on his website
(http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/autofe.htm), but I don't
fully understand it - my skills are very limited. I
suppose I could instruct the users to copy the FE from the
server to their desktops. But it is my understanding that
as part of our upgrade to Access 2003 we will no longer
have access to a floppy drive, hard drive, CD ROM drive,
etc. (I don't know if that includes the desktop - -
excuse my ignorance... I'm still struggling here,
although this newsgroup has been a huge help!) If each
user were to place a copy of the FE from the centrally
located SHARED drive to their folder on their local office
server, would that be a better option than to have just
one FE on the shared drive?

 

[Joan Wild]

Thank you Joan.

I had planned to leave the FE's on the server because our
users are spread out over the state and I thought it may
be an easier arrangement for me.

Well you don't want to run an Access mdb over a WAN like this. It will be
horribly slow, and guaranteed you'll have corruption problems.

You should look at some other method. Perhaps using Terminal Server
instead. Albert Kallal has some good information you can review.

www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn/msaccess/msaccess.html

 

[david epsom dot com dot au]

server to their desktops. But it is my understanding that

as part of our upgrade to Access 2003 we will no longer
have access to a floppy drive, hard drive, CD ROM drive,

If your IT people are planning to lock down the workstations,
so that no user can install applications, and so that all
applications are read-only, you will have to have further
discussions with them.

(david)

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

I had planned to leave the FE's on the server because our
users are spread out over the state and I thought it may
be an easier arrangement for me. I've read Access MVP Tony
Toews article on an Auto FE Updater on his website
(http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/autofe.htm), but I don't
fully understand it - my skills are very limited. I
suppose I could instruct the users to copy the FE from the
server to their desktops.

No..it is WAY too dangerous to have to have your users poke around as to
what file, and where to find it. You need to provide a nice short cut on the
users desktop..or at least some folder to browse to on EACH computer. It is
very important to do this step if any of the appcltions are going to be
multi-user. You can NOT allow multiple users into those front ends.
Remember, now YOU ARE becoming the software developer. You always have
installed Word on each pc. You have always installed Excel on each pc. So,
the rule that your company has had for the last ten years has ALWAYS to
install the software that users run on each pc. Just because that other
software was purchased and the software YOU are creating was created by
you...why then all of a sudden stop installing the software on each pc?

You can certainly share some data like Excel spreadsheets and some documents
like Word on the server. However, you ALWAYS install the actual software
that uses these documents on each pc. So, you need to do the same with YOUR
software. Remember, ms-access is a tool that lets you create software..so
you must like those guys who created Word, or created Excel install this
software on each pc. It does NOT take well to having multiple users running
the front end (software part). So, just like every other windows application
you have...you ALWAYS install it on each pc. So, keep in mind the difference
between a document, or some data and that of your front end which is now a
application (that front end does NOT have the data).

But it is my understanding that
as part of our upgrade to Access 2003 we will no longer
have access to a floppy drive, hard drive, CD ROM drive,
etc.

The above is ok. However, you do need then to get something like Tony's auto
front end updater working, and installed.

If each
user were to place a copy of the FE from the centrally
located SHARED drive to their folder on their local office
server, would that be a better option than to have just
one FE on the shared drive?

No, like I said..you cannot allow multiple people to run your software
application. You never had multiple people run word off of the server (they
can grab documents...but not run the applications off of the server). You
need to understand the difference between a document and a application. You
will suffer reduced reliability if you allow multiple users in the front
end. This is just a question of competency and using the proper setup.

By the way..you mention you are using a WAN (wide area network). If you are
planning to share the back end data across the type of network..you need to
read the following artcile on how to use ms-access on a wan. (you are likely
you are asking for trouble with your setup again on this issue):

http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn/Wan/Wans.html

 

[david epsom dot com dot au]

Remember, now YOU ARE becoming the software developer. You always have

installed Word on each pc. You have always installed Excel on each pc.
the rule that your company has had for the last ten years has ALWAYS

Well, always after Office 2000: Office 2000 does not support
run-from-network (what used to be called a network install).
And generally after Office 97: network install was not recommended
for Office 97. And mostly after Office 95: only corporates
(mostly on Novell Netware) had network installations of Office
95. So let's say 'for the last 7 years'..... :~)

(david)