DB effected by the operating system??

[AC5FF]

Quick question - because I'm out of ideas.

I have a shared out DB that is used by multiple users. This DB has been working fine for years. I have never had a real problem with it.

However, this past two weeks it seems like every other day a new issue pops up. This or that function stops working, or the DB won't even open.

Now, since it has run so well for years, with changes of personnel, etc etc, the only thing I can think is to look at what else has changed. About the same time that these troubles started the computer that holds our DB changed. I went from storing it on a Dell, to an HP. The Dell had an Intel chip and ran XP. This new HP has a AMD chip and runs Vista.

Could this cause a problem with running an Access DB?

 

[KenHigg]

Maybe you can document the issues over several days and see if there is a pattern. And some more spefic details about each issue would help as well.

 

[DCrake]

The key word that jumped out to me was Vista. I'll bet this is the root cause of your problems.

 

[KenHigg]

I missed that - sounds like a good starting point -

 

[AC5FF]

Lemme ask this...

You say the one thing that jumps out at you is "Vista". Is there a reason for that?
I mean, I've heard about a lot of problems with people running Vista, but I've been using it since it came out on my personal computer without any problems... But I'm not 'networking' it. Is there specific "Network" issues with Vista?

Also, if I change the PC that our DB is stored on from the Vista machine (assuming Vista is causing the problem) back to a XP machine, would users that have a Vista machine just accessinig the DB, cause the same issues?

I'm already in the process of 'testing' moving the DB back to a XP, but if Vista users still access it....

 

[Alisa]

Lemme ask this...

You say the one thing that jumps out at you is "Vista". Is there a reason for that?
I mean, I've heard about a lot of problems with people running Vista, but I've been using it since it came out on my personal computer without any problems... But I'm not 'networking' it. Is there specific "Network" issues with Vista?

Also, if I change the PC that our DB is stored on from the Vista machine (assuming Vista is causing the problem) back to a XP machine, would users that have a Vista machine just accessinig the DB, cause the same issues?

I'm already in the process of 'testing' moving the DB back to a XP, but if Vista users still access it....

I deploy a 2003 runtime application in XP and Vista environments. I have easily 200% MORE problems with the Vista deployments. One thing you can do that may fix some of the issues is to turn user account control OFF. That really messes everything up. Good luck to you.

 

[AC5FF]

I'm not sure what you mean by user account control settings to OFF.
After two more 'crashes' today I'm moving my DB back to a XP machine. I realized that we've had a few people accessing the DB via a Vista machine and never had a crash - not until the DB was put onto the VISTA machine...

 

[Alisa]

I'm not sure what you mean by user account control settings to OFF.
After two more 'crashes' today I'm moving my DB back to a XP machine. I realized that we've had a few people accessing the DB via a Vista machine and never had a crash - not until the DB was put onto the VISTA machine...

Thats what I would do if I were you. Since you are going back to XP, it probably doesn't matter, but on Vista you can turn user account control on or off in the control panel.

 

[AC5FF]

Okay.. I was thinking about user account control as part of Access. I am with you now. But, even then, these users are not 'logging' into this machine, they are just accessing a shared folder over the network.

Oh well... It is Friday. I'm just not even going to think about all of this until Monday. I really ought to just go home for the day.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The key to understand is in the history of Vista. Its original purpose was because the US Government was dangerously close to declaring Windows unusable (or at least threating to do so) if they didn't fix security issues. This includes adding more teeth to things that used to be toothless. So Vista blocks things that earlier versions didn't even know existed. That security rewrite had the side effect of making some things just flat out not work any more because their interfaces changed behavior.

Vista is FAR more capable of being a box for multiple users to do what they do, but the price to pay is that anything that used to take advantage of a looser security structure will now be caught by Vista's tighter structure.

 

[KenHigg]

This includes adding more teeth to things that used to be toothless.

So instead of 'Vista' they should have called it 'Alabama'

 

[Banana]

The_Doc_Man-

Not to be a contarian but I should point out that the "security" Vista was supposed to provide fall woefully short of what was already tried and true mechanisms available in UNIX.

UAC, for example, is just a low-quality ripoff of sudo and does not actually address the concept of privilege separation as sudo does.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Banana, we all know that Vista fell short of its mark.

If Vista had been able to follow the OpenVMS model more closely, it would have done better. (UNIX would also do better to follow that model.) But in fact, Vista is its own creature with its own agenda and its own mistakes.

In theory, though, it WAS supposed to be more secure. The problem was, as you correctly point out, the gap between intent and action. I stand on my explanation of why Vista blocks lots of programs. It was supposed to be more secure. It just wasn't well done enough to make it practical to fight the good fight. Which is why when I bought wifey a laptop a few months ago, I got here something from a liquidation sale, still in the original box and still under full vendor warranty - but old enough to have been pre-loaded with WinXP. Ain't NO way I'm gonna subject wifey to Vista.

 

[Banana]

If I may hijack the thread a bit, can I ask you what do you like about OpenVMS that you think both Windows & UNIX are missing?

UNIX, at least the Mac OS X's implementation, has been sufficiently effective for me that there has been no need to run any kind of 'fearware'. I don't have any anti-virus or anti-spyware programs installed and consuming my precious cycles and bytes.