Access 97 to 2000; convert; DAO

[sathandle]

I am programming a database in Access 97 and know it will be used by a lot of users running Access 2000 who will have "no clue" how to modify their add-ins to use the DAO 3.6 add-in unless it is automated in the program. Is there a way to do this in my Access 97 code if I read the Access version from the registry?

i.e.
If Access 97 - do nothing
If Access 2000 - run procedure to make sure database has DAO 3.6 add-in installed; install/activate if necessary

Reasoning: I don't want to re-write /don't have time to re-write/ the entire program at this point. Any suggestions for further code I develop in the 97 version as it pertains to DAO? Should I start using ADO/convert?

Opinions, answers, suggestions, etc.

One-week (or should that be weak...) to deadline.

Thanks,
SAThandle
definition of 'less behind': "not fully caught up, digging out slowly, one-week delay to "The IT hit the fan."

 

[thornmastr]

If you have an A97 db distributed to A2K users, A2K will ask the user if they want to run as is or convert to A2K. How are you going to handle this question?

Are your users programmers or application users? If your users are programmers they need to know about assigning references. If they are application users, my suggesrtion would be for you or your company to purchase the developers edition of A2K and convert your application yourself. You could then make the decision yourself as to DAO/ADO.

You could then distribute the A97 version to those users using A97, and the A2K version to the appropriate users. Although a bit more work for you now, it will save you a great deal of work later on, this seems to be becoming the method of choice simply because A97 is very much a strong robust version of Access which will be around for years to the benefit of both developers and users. A2k and A2K2 both have their advantages and disadvantages when compared to A97; but as a developer, you do not have the luxury of insisting on a choice for your user. You cater to them both as best you can.

While this is not a direct answer to your question, it describes a situation you do have to deal with, and therefore I hope it is of some help to you.

Good luck.
Robert Berman
Data Base consultant
Vulcan Software Services
thornmastr@yahoo.com

 

[sathandle]

Thanks, excellent idea. I will continue to design in 97, convert to 2000 and distribute two versions. Now as long as the users are able to figure out what version they are running. -- I guess this answers your question about the technical aptitude of the users.

Have a great week!

SAThandle definition of 'less behind': "not fully caught up, digging out slowly, one-week delay to "The IT hit the fan."

 

[thornmastr]

I have a client who exhibits the same behavioral quirks as you appear to be dealing with. Over half of his employees use Access XP. About 25% have A97 and the remainder have both A97 and Access XP and they are insistent that their users see applications simply as applications and the version of Access is of no concern to anyone not delegated as a Techie. This company pays a premium for a standard that should be applied across the board, but, as we all know, it’s not. But just in case you are up against this situation or need to deal with it, or simply want to deal with it, here is one method to do so.

Get rid of the mdb extension. Assuming your application is called myapp.mdb. now, it will be named as follows:

Myapp.A97 for Access 97
MyApp.AXP for Access XP

The extension A97 is equated to the A97 libraries,
The extension AXP is equated to the XP libraries.

It takes a little time to set up, but once done, it works remarkably well.

Robert Berman
Data Base consultant
Vulcan Software Services
thornmastr@yahoo.com

 

[sathandle]

Other than the naming difference in the file, how will this determine the version of Access? What prevents a user with 97 trying to access the XP version?

Is this a "standard" within Access that I don't know about?
Is the developer's kit required?

Thanks,
SAThandle definition of 'less behind': "not fully caught up, digging out slowly, one-week delay to "The IT hit the fan."

 

[thornmastr]

No standards involved and nothing really related to Access directly. Let me give you a specific example, take any one of your A97 databases and rename the extension from mdb to A97. Now, double click on the name. you get a dialog box that tells you your computer does not know what program to use to open that file type, do you want to look on the web or through a list to find the correct program. Pick list, find Access 97 and click that. Now, every file having an extension of A97 will start with Access 97.

Do the same thing with AXP.

Now, whenever, a file name has an extention of A97 Access 97 will run it. Whenever a file has an extension of AXP, Access XP will try to run it. If the correct version of Access is not on the system, nothing will run because it can’t.
Robert Berman
Data Base consultant
Vulcan Software Services
thornmastr@yahoo.com

 

[sathandle]

How will this work when the file is distributed to another computer without the associations established?

Thanks,
SAThandle
definition of 'less behind': "not fully caught up, digging out slowly, one-week delay to "The IT hit the fan."

 

[thornmastr]

Until the association is established it won't work. Robert Berman
Data Base consultant
Vulcan Software Services
thornmastr@yahoo.com