Dao version 3.6 download

Scottgem MVP. Hi John, I'm an independent adviser and will try to help. That module is obsolete. This article explains more. In reply to Daniel Pineault's post on March 12, Many thanks Daniel to you and Scottgem for your advice.

Your answers solved the problem and the code is running fine. Regards, John. Any time. Scott and I are always happy to help. A subscription to make the most of your time. It would be pretty amazing and silly to mess with the data formats; else any 32 bit or 64 bit client, or any 32bit or 64 bit versions of SQL server would rapidly turn the whole computer industry into a tower of Babylon. The same goes for access when using the 64 bit edition, or the 32 bit edition, the format of DATA saved does not change.

Many programming languages when they made the jump from 16 to 32, didn't necessarily mess with the existing variable and word size they added new ones as to allow existing code to work. So the change from 32 to 64 bits does not mean nor imply that the database file format is going to change in any way shape or matter.

In other words the database file formats, and the programming language and word size are two different matters. Now I will accept that one should make the assumption that the programming language as a general rule should be able to accept and manipulate the data and word size that comes out of the database system, but the reverse is not always the true either. In fact, it not true either way. So for access 64 bit version, the long variable type is still only 32 bits.

Int variable type is still only 16 bits. You have LongLong and this is a true 64 bit wide word size. However you do not have a change or equivalent of LongLong in the actual table designer, nor does the data format change nor has been a 64 bit word size added to the data file format. So just like the 32 bit or 64 bit eddition of SQL server, the data file formats and word sizes for data saved does not change in Access data files either.

On the other hand the 64 bit edition a SQL server can address vast amounts of more memory directly in the computer, and the same would apply to access 64 bit version. Also keep in mind if you're using the 64 bit version of access, then you can only automate "in process" other 64 bit programs.

And to save some posters coming back here to clarify this issue. You cannot mix and match 32 and 64 bit parts of office for the SAME version. So for office if you use 64 bit version of outlook, you'll have to use the 64 bit version of word. The reason for this is office is made of shared components, and if you install word on a machine, than any other part of office installed including Access will not even give you a choice as to what directory it's going to install into.

The shared parts are many ranging from spell checking, graphics filters, VBA editor and a whole slew of components are shared to all of office. And, this means that Access 32 cannot automatate Outlook 64 bit either. Now back to access 64 bit; You also have a new pointer variable type again that is 64 bits wide and this allows you to use the windows API as once again with true 64 bit computing, you need a larger value than 32 bits to address memory and use the windows API.

That new variable type is called longPtr note that this variable is also available in the 32 bit version of access, and when you use the 32 bit version of access it is 32 bits long. However the same cannot be said for the new variable type called LongLong, it is ALWAYS 64 bits and in fact is not available in the 32 bit version of access.

And there are about new functions to convert the 64 bit variable size into strings or integers or whatever — just like we had in the past - clng, cdbl etc. So the 64 bit of version of access is a true 64 bit in process version of access, and just like SQL server 32 or 64, this fact is not reflected in the data file formats used nor the CPU processor data word size used with data that you save into those data files and formats.

I would agree if Access bit support DAO 3. That's the way at the moment at my work place, I'm suggesting Access bit with Windows 7 bit instead of fully bit in my company. So there's no need to convert anything especially like the APIs. The only problem I encounter is the VBA date format.

Was running Access with Win 7 bit. It is showing a US date format instead of UK. Win xp works fine but not in Win 7. I really hate to convert anything, wish MS make it more simple where you can just run your old bit mdb without any conversion. You haven't taught me anything new in your essay, except to clarify a few things I'd already found out in practice about installation restrictions on different versions - a useful clarification for me.

I was writing about that on my blog eight months ago. Most of what you have written is accurate although simultaneously irrelevant to the OP, excessively verbose and insufficiently detailed on a technical level regarding the subjects you are now discussing , although a few of your suggestions just leave me scratching my head.

Check out the data type according to MS Access table design view. No, it's not. It's a bit numeric type, that MS Access bit doesn't understand. Won't happen, at least not on the version. As for the rest, check out the signature on my MSDN posts, and you'll see that for me, most of that extra detail is totally unnecessary.

If your post was shorter , I might vote it "helpful", but with posts of this length, you really have to dig to find what you're looking for Just a helpful suggestion to shorten your posts a little?

I think your more valuable contributions would get a lot more exposure. For what reason would you assume that the file size is going to change because we moved to 64 bits for the data engine? My whole simple point is that just because you change the bits size of the data engine, that is not necessarily going to affect the file and data type size limits that you're allowed to work with.

If you look at SQL server 32 bit, or 64 bit edition, the max data size file allowed is terabytes. I suspect this has something to do with the windows file limits, and not the database engine itself, but my point still remains intact. And what new data types did we get with 64 bit sql server? The list of NON changes for 32 vs 64 bit sql server is very long. A lot of these limits in particular thus did not change when moving from 32 to 64 for SQL server. So, if this is the case for SQL server, then why point out that somehow Access would be different in this regards?

You seem to be suggesting in some way that because we gone to a 64 bit edition of Access, then somehow the file size will necessarily increase it did not for SQL server. You're also suggesting that for some reason because we are now on Access 64 bits, all of a sudden the ODBC driver will return something different for bigInts as number and not a string as it did before.

Again such behaviors never changed with SQL server when it went from 32 to 64, so why then expect it to change with Access?

Maybe if you quoted some good examples of what limits and how the drivers changed and WHAT they return when we went from 32 to 64 bit SQL server I might be able to better grasp your point as to why you suggest something different should occur when access went to 64 bits as opposed to SQL server? There's really nothing material or logically I can see as to why access would necessarily change these limits any more so then SQL server did. If you're concluding that some of these limits are arbitrary limits and set the way they are, then I fully accept that.

Talking Tom Cat. Clash of Clans. Subway Surfers. TubeMate 3. Google Play. The Best Black Friday deals. Bill Gates' favorite books of Biden OKs release of oil from strategic reserves. Resident Evil review. What your name means in Urban Dictionary. Windows Windows. Most Popular.

New Releases. Desktop Enhancements. Networking Software. Trending from CNET.