Prev: Sun IDM resources | Multiple Locations
Next: Any mde restrictions for queries?
From: Tony Toews on 26 Jun 2010 17:22
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:16:10 -0700, Salad <salad(a)oilandvinegar.com>
wrote:

>> I'm running A97, A2000, A2003 and A2007 on this WinXP box.
>>
>I was under the impression if one installed
> 97->2000->2002->2003->2007... that was fine but installing an earlier
>version after installing a later version posed problems.

This is a myth that has been passed on by many folks including MVPs in
the past. MVPs have now stopped saying this due to my expereince and
my postings. <smile>

I have deliberately installed in random non chronological sequence 3,
4 or 5 versions of MS Access on my various systems over the past
decade. And other than the known A97 Hatten font problem I've
never had any problems.

Tony
From: David W. Fenton on 26 Jun 2010 17:45
Salad <salad(a)oilandvinegar.com> wrote in
news:K-CdnWpC-KEgpbjRnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)earthlink.com:

> David W. Fenton wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko <genew(a)ocis.net> wrote in
>> news:ei7826p457os9uoe44uhc9f129mgn29p0t(a)4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>Does anyone know what I have to do to be able to run Access 97
>>>under XP?
>>
>>
>> I'm running A97, A2000, A2003 and A2007 on this WinXP box.
>
> I was under the impression if one installed
> 97->2000->2002->2003->2007... that was fine but installing an
> earlier
> version after installing a later version posed problems.

This machine had A2003 (well, Office) installed first, and I added
the others later. I think the order was A2003, A97, A2000, A2007.

I've never had any issues except for the registration annoyance.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: David W. Fenton on 26 Jun 2010 17:47
Tony Toews <ttoews(a)telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:enrc269djn5246hki3qbr7ctqphpha229v(a)4ax.com:

> And other than the known A97 Hatten font problem I've
> never had any problems.

Aiee! There is no such thing as a Hatten font problem. There was
nothing wrong with that font, and the font didn't cause the issue.
But if the install process found the Hatten font missing, it would
trigger a reinstall that would properly register everything.

In other words, renaming the font was just a simple way to trigger
the fix. It wasn't the fix itself, because there was nothing wrong
with the font in the first place.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: David W. Fenton on 26 Jun 2010 17:49
"Douglas J. Steele" <NOSPAM_djsteele(a)NOSPAM_gmail.com> wrote in
news:i05222$9e4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:

> "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9DA2C1CA2AE96f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.94...
>> "Douglas J. Steele" <NOSPAM_djsteele(a)NOSPAM_gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:i02ocj$hmg$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> "Tony Toews" <ttoews(a)telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ion926p7tuvhm54ia4nf2t3lm5f915ajls(a)4ax.com...
>>
>>>> However regular users can't update any files
>>>> in the Windows System folder.
>>>
>>> Don't believe that's generally the case. Definitely I can write
>>> to that folder (and given how locked down our machines are, I
>>> can't imagine that we would have relaxed built-in security rules
>>> anywhere! And given that a System.ldb file is opened whenever
>>> you're using the System.mdw file, it really wouldn't make sense
>>> that the file would be written to a write-protected folder.
>>
>> That's odd, as the default permissions on the Windows folder have
>> been read-only for users starting with Win2000. Power Users have
>> modify permission. Are you sure you're not running as a member of
>> the Power Users group?
>
> Positive.
>
> It's possible that they perverted the default permissions, but I'd
> be extremely surprised, since generally we tighten up security,
> not loosen it, in our environment. When I get back to the office
> on Monday, I'll try and remember to check the permissions on the
> folder.

I'm pretty sure that running in a domain environment you're running
as a user and just because you're in a domain you don't get more
permissions than you'd get running as an individual. The same
read-only limitations apply to the root of C: and to the programs
folder, BTW, and this has been so since the introduction of Windows
2000, which was the first version of Windows to move the user
profiles out of the Windows folder in order that the Windows folder
could be properly locked down without having special permissions on
the profiles folder.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: Access Developer on 27 Jun 2010 01:54
"David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote

> This machine had A2003 (well, Office) installed
> first, and I added the others later. I think the order
> was A2003, A97, A2000, A2007.

I, too, installed A97 on an XP machine that had Access 2003 installed first,
then Access 2002 so I could try out the latest Speed Ferret, and finally I
installed Office 97 so I could debug a problem for someone who was still
running A97. All are working just fine, though having done my Speed Ferret
tryout, I rarely open A2002 any more, and don't have much call for A97 these
days.

Larry Linson, Microsoft Office Access MVP


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Sun IDM resources | Multiple Locations
Next: Any mde restrictions for queries?