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?

Re: Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

On Apr 14, 6:33=A0pm, "jkmo...@gmail.com" wrote:
> Been using Access 97 for years. =A0I 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?

Re: Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

On Apr 14, 5:16 pm, lyle wrote:
> On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "jkmo...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > 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

Re: Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

On Apr 15, 12:27=A0am, "jkmo...@gmail.com" wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:16 pm, lyle wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "jkmo...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > > Been using Access 97 for years. =A0I 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.

Re: Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

On Apr 15, 3:19 am, lyle wrote:
> On Apr 15, 12:27 am, "jkmo...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 5:16 pm, lyle wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "jkmo...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > > > 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...

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

Re: Access 1997 or 2003 or 2007?

On Apr 15, 9:36 am, "jkmo...@gmail.com" wrote:
> On Apr 15, 3:19 am, lyle wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 12:27 am, "jkmo...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 14, 5:16 pm, lyle wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "jkmo...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > > > > 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