Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • jkmobil@gmail.com
    #1

    Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

    Been using Access 97 for years. I use a statistics add-on (Total
    Access Statistics) which is kind of expensive and I haven't found
    anything to be gained by upgrading. But I'm now told I probably should
    because of memory issues with Access 97 which are getting increasingly
    fussy.
    I'm told that, at best, Access 2007 isn't really very good, that the
    better memory management came with 2003.
    Any thots? Also, is Vista really that bad?
    Tags: None
    • lyle
      #2
      Re: Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

      On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "jkmo...@gmail. com" <jkmo...@gmail. comwrote:
      Been using Access 97 for years.  I use a statistics add-on (Total
      Access Statistics) which is kind of expensive and I haven't found
      anything to be gained by upgrading. But I'm now told I probably should
      because of memory issues with Access 97 which are getting increasingly
      fussy.
      I'm told that, at best, Access 2007 isn't really very good, that the
      better memory management came with 2003.
      Any thots? Also, is Vista really that bad?
      I like Vista.

      Before we recommend replacement, perhaps you could review the
      diagnosis for us.

      What symptoms does the Access 97 application display?
      Why would memory issues with Access 97 become increasingly fussy?
      Why do you think an updated version of Access will help?


        Comment

        • jkmobil@gmail.com
          #3
          Re: Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

          On Apr 14, 5:16 pm, lyle <lyle.fairfi... @gmail.comwrote :
          On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "jkmo...@gmail. com" <jkmo...@gmail. comwrote:
          >
          Been using Access 97 for years. I use a statistics add-on (Total
          Access Statistics) which is kind of expensive and I haven't found
          anything to be gained by upgrading. But I'm now told I probably should
          because of memory issues with Access 97 which are getting increasingly
          fussy.
          I'm told that, at best, Access 2007 isn't really very good, that the
          better memory management came with 2003.
          Any thots? Also, is Vista really that bad?
          >
          I like Vista.
          >
          Before we recommend replacement, perhaps you could review the
          diagnosis for us.
          >
          What symptoms does the Access 97 application display?
          Why would memory issues with Access 97 become increasingly fussy?
          Why do you think an updated version of Access will help?
          Thanks Lyle
          The temp file constantly maxes out.
          Since Access's max file size hasn't really changed in 12 years (why's
          that, anyway?), I'm warehousing the data in SQL server, and ODBC
          linking to Access 97.
          I'm now having to chop queries into manageable chunks, doing multiple
          statistical runs.
          So you think Vista is OK, eh?
          I appreciate your input!
          JK

            Comment

            • lyle
              #4
              Re: Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

              On Apr 15, 12:27 am, "jkmo...@gmail. com" <jkmo...@gmail. comwrote:
              On Apr 14, 5:16 pm, lyle <lyle.fairfi... @gmail.comwrote :
              >
              >
              >
              On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "jkmo...@gmail. com" <jkmo...@gmail. comwrote:
              >
              Been using Access 97 for years.  I use a statistics add-on (Total
              Access Statistics) which is kind of expensive and I haven't found
              anything to be gained by upgrading. But I'm now told I probably should
              because of memory issues with Access 97 which are getting increasingly
              fussy.
              I'm told that, at best, Access 2007 isn't really very good, that the
              better memory management came with 2003.
              Any thots? Also, is Vista really that bad?
              >
              I like Vista.
              >
              Before we recommend replacement, perhaps you could review the
              diagnosis for us.
              >
              What symptoms does the Access 97 application display?
              Why would memory issues with Access 97 become increasingly fussy?
              Why do you think an updated version of Access will help?
              >
              Thanks Lyle
              The temp file constantly maxes out.
              Since Access's max file size hasn't really changed in 12 years (why's
              that, anyway?), I'm warehousing the data in SQL server, and ODBC
              linking to Access 97.
              I'm now having to chop queries into manageable chunks, doing multiple
              statistical runs.
              So you think Vista is OK, eh?
              I appreciate your input!
              JK
              I'm guessing this temp file is actually a temp table, the child of the
              Statistics Add-In and that you have no control over its location?

              If you did have control, you could create the temp table in a separate
              JET MDB file.
              But you would still be limited to a nominal one gigabyte file size.

              My experience is that when one is not enough, it's quite possible that
              two won't be enough for very long.

              You already have used SQL-Server. Descriptions of the last two
              versions of Total Access Statistics say that it can use an ADP (ADPs
              are OLEDB linked to SQL Server, not ODBC linked; SQL-Server's
              strengths are exposed in this way). So you could use any Access ADP-
              Compliant version, 2000, 2002 or 2003 with X.7, or the newest 2007
              version with Access 2007; in my opinion SQL-Server is much more likely
              to accommodate your storage needs than any version of JET or ACE.

              If you're going to an Access/JET/ACE only solution, you may have check
              the implications of unicode. My hazy recollection of JET storage is
              that it was Ansi only, then a choice of Ansi or Unicode, then Unicode.
              A two gigabyte Unicode file might not hold exactly twice as much data
              (as we see the data) as a one gigabyte Ansi file. Of course, your data
              may be largely floats, in which case Unicode or not Unicode might not
              be of much consequence.

                Comment

                • jkmobil@gmail.com
                  #5
                  Re: Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

                  On Apr 15, 3:19 am, lyle <lyle.fairfi... @gmail.comwrote :
                  On Apr 15, 12:27 am, "jkmo...@gmail. com" <jkmo...@gmail. comwrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  On Apr 14, 5:16 pm, lyle <lyle.fairfi... @gmail.comwrote :
                  >
                  On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "jkmo...@gmail. com" <jkmo...@gmail. comwrote:
                  >
                  Been using Access 97 for years. I use a statistics add-on (Total
                  Access Statistics) which is kind of expensive and I haven't found
                  anything to be gained by upgrading. But I'm now told I probably should
                  because of memory issues with Access 97 which are getting increasingly
                  fussy.
                  I'm told that, at best, Access 2007 isn't really very good, that the
                  better memory management came with 2003.
                  Any thots? Also, is Vista really that bad?
                  >
                  I like Vista.
                  >
                  Before we recommend replacement, perhaps you could review the
                  diagnosis for us.
                  >
                  What symptoms does the Access 97 application display?
                  Why would memory issues with Access 97 become increasingly fussy?
                  Why do you think an updated version of Access will help?
                  >
                  Thanks Lyle
                  The temp file constantly maxes out.
                  Since Access's max file size hasn't really changed in 12 years (why's
                  that, anyway?), I'm warehousing the data in SQL server, and ODBC
                  linking to Access 97.
                  I'm now having to chop queries into manageable chunks, doing multiple
                  statistical runs.
                  So you think Vista is OK, eh?
                  I appreciate your input!
                  JK
                  >
                  I'm guessing this temp file is actually a temp table, the child of the
                  Statistics Add-In and that you have no control over its location?
                  >
                  If you did have control, you could create the temp table in a separate
                  JET MDB file.
                  But you would still be limited to a nominal one gigabyte file size.
                  >
                  My experience is that when one is not enough, it's quite possible that
                  two won't be enough for very long.
                  >
                  You already have used SQL-Server. Descriptions of the last two
                  versions of Total Access Statistics say that it can use an ADP (ADPs
                  are OLEDB linked to SQL Server, not ODBC linked; SQL-Server's
                  strengths are exposed in this way). So you could use any Access ADP-
                  Compliant version, 2000, 2002 or 2003 with X.7, or the newest 2007
                  version with Access 2007; in my opinion SQL-Server is much more likely
                  to accommodate your storage needs than any version of JET or ACE.
                  >
                  If you're going to an Access/JET/ACE only solution, you may have check
                  the implications of unicode. My hazy recollection of JET storage is
                  that it was Ansi only, then a choice of Ansi or Unicode, then Unicode.
                  A two gigabyte Unicode file might not hold exactly twice as much data
                  (as we see the data) as a one gigabyte Ansi file. Of course, your data
                  may be largely floats, in which case Unicode or not Unicode might not
                  be of much consequence.
                  I do get the Total Access Statistics generated error message, but I
                  also get it straight out of Access 97.
                  In the old dBase days I could set temp in the environment. I can't
                  seem to do that anymore...

                    Comment

                    • The Frog
                      #6
                      Re: Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

                      Just a passing thought, but have you had a look at using Postgres and
                      implementing the R statistical package with it (PL/R)? Both are very
                      capable products, and both are open source. I am not entirely sure of
                      your needs here, but it might be worth a look.

                      Just my two cents

                      Cheers

                      The Frog

                        Comment

                        • Bruce
                          #7
                          Re: Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

                          On Apr 15, 9:36 am, "jkmo...@gmail. com" <jkmo...@gmail. comwrote:
                          On Apr 15, 3:19 am, lyle <lyle.fairfi... @gmail.comwrote :
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          On Apr 15, 12:27 am, "jkmo...@gmail. com" <jkmo...@gmail. comwrote:
                          >
                          On Apr 14, 5:16 pm, lyle <lyle.fairfi... @gmail.comwrote :
                          >
                          On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "jkmo...@gmail. com" <jkmo...@gmail. comwrote:
                          >
                          Been using Access 97 for years. I use a statistics add-on (Total
                          Access Statistics) which is kind of expensive and I haven't found
                          anything to be gained by upgrading. But I'm now told I probably should
                          because of memory issues with Access 97 which are getting increasingly
                          fussy.
                          I'm told that, at best, Access 2007 isn't really very good, that the
                          better memory management came with 2003.
                          Any thots? Also, is Vista really that bad?
                          >
                          I like Vista.
                          >
                          Before we recommend replacement, perhaps you could review the
                          diagnosis for us.
                          >
                          What symptoms does the Access 97 application display?
                          Why would memory issues with Access 97 become increasingly fussy?
                          Why do you think an updated version of Access will help?
                          >
                          Thanks Lyle
                          The temp file constantly maxes out.
                          Since Access's max file size hasn't really changed in 12 years (why's
                          that, anyway?), I'm warehousing the data in SQL server, and ODBC
                          linking to Access 97.
                          I'm now having to chop queries into manageable chunks, doing multiple
                          statistical runs.
                          So you think Vista is OK, eh?
                          I appreciate your input!
                          JK
                          >
                          I'm guessing this temp file is actually a temp table, the child of the
                          Statistics Add-In and that you have no control over its location?
                          >
                          If you did have control, you could create the temp table in a separate
                          JET MDB file.
                          But you would still be limited to a nominal one gigabyte file size.
                          >
                          My experience is that when one is not enough, it's quite possible that
                          two won't be enough for very long.
                          >
                          You already have used SQL-Server. Descriptions of the last two
                          versions of Total Access Statistics say that it can use an ADP (ADPs
                          are OLEDB linked to SQL Server, not ODBC linked; SQL-Server's
                          strengths are exposed in this way). So you could use any Access ADP-
                          Compliant version, 2000, 2002 or 2003 with X.7, or the newest 2007
                          version with Access 2007; in my opinion SQL-Server is much more likely
                          to accommodate your storage needs than any version of JET or ACE.
                          >
                          If you're going to an Access/JET/ACE only solution, you may have check
                          the implications of unicode. My hazy recollection of JET storage is
                          that it was Ansi only, then a choice of Ansi or Unicode, then Unicode.
                          A two gigabyte Unicode file might not hold exactly twice as much data
                          (as we see the data) as a one gigabyte Ansi file. Of course, your data
                          may be largely floats, in which case Unicode or not Unicode might not
                          be of much consequence.
                          >
                          I do get the Total Access Statistics generated error message, but I
                          also get it straight out of Access 97.
                          In the old dBase days I could set temp in the environment. I can't
                          seem to do that anymore...
                          What exactly is the error message you are getting?

                          Bruce

                            Comment

                            Previous template Next
                            Working...