historically ancient software

here's a really tricky question.
I am using office professional for windows 95 with word 2000.
all programs on my computer are working appropriately except in that none of
them are acknowledging each other but word. it recognizes all programs on
the computer.
access will work only until I try to create a database then it notes an
error in the program and shuts down all together.
my computer is a Compaq Presario with windows xp loaded as it's operating
system. how can I get my programs to interact with each other? and more so,
how can I get access to function properly???

Hi.

You likely have some incompatibility problems:

1.) Microsoft Office Pro 95 was designed for Windows 95 (which is MS
DOS-based), not Windows XP (which is NT-based).

2.) Applications in Microsoft Office Pro 95 were not well-integrated with
one another, even though it was marketed as an "integrated office
productivity suite." Microsoft Word was the best integrated application in
the suite, due to better OLE handling than the other applications.

3.) Microsoft recommends not installing more than one version of Office on
the same computer, since there can be conflicts between the different
versions.

Microsoft Access 95 was the buggiest retail version of Access to date.
Because of this, the company I work for converts Access databases for
customers to every version, except Access 95.

My recommendation is to uninstall Microsoft Office 95, then install a later
version of Microsoft Office. While that costs money, one needs to ask,
"Isn't my time spent struggling with software that doesn't work worth more
than the cost of the new Office suite software and it's installation?" Even
Office 97 Pro will give you a great deal more application integration than
Office 95 installed on a Window 95 computer.

HTH.

Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips.

(Please remove ZERO_SPAM from my reply E-mail address, so that a message
will be forwarded to me.)


"MarkAnthony Simmons" wrote in message
...
here's a really tricky question.
I am using office professional for windows 95 with word 2000.
all programs on my computer are working appropriately except in that none
of
them are acknowledging each other but word. it recognizes all programs on
the computer.
access will work only until I try to create a database then it notes an
error in the program and shuts down all together.
my computer is a Compaq Presario with windows xp loaded as it's operating
system. how can I get my programs to interact with each other? and more
so,
how can I get access to function properly???

"'69 Camaro" AM wrote in
message ...
Hi.

You likely have some incompatibility problems:

1.) Microsoft Office Pro 95 was designed for Windows 95 (which is MS
DOS-based), not Windows XP (which is NT-based).

Not relevant. Office 95 runs on an XP computer.

2.) Applications in Microsoft Office Pro 95 were not well-integrated with
one another, even though it was marketed as an "integrated office
productivity suite." Microsoft Word was the best integrated application
in
the suite, due to better OLE handling than the other applications.

Actually, it was Excel that had its act together. Word 95 still used
WordBasic instead of VBA. Access 95 was\is extremely buggy. Access can in no
way talk to a later version of Word, or any other Office application since
they have no way of knowing about anything written later.

3.) Microsoft recommends not installing more than one version of Office
on
the same computer, since there can be conflicts between the different
versions.

I have 3 versions of Office (both 16 and 32 bit) running on the same
machine. Others have more than that. There is even a Knowledge Base article
on some of the issues:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;292491

Microsoft Access 95 was the buggiest retail version of Access to date.
Because of this, the company I work for converts Access databases for
customers to every version, except Access 95.

I'd have to agree with that statement.

My recommendation is to uninstall Microsoft Office 95, then install a
later
version of Microsoft Office. While that costs money, one needs to ask,
"Isn't my time spent struggling with software that doesn't work worth more
than the cost of the new Office suite software and it's installation?"
Even
Office 97 Pro will give you a great deal more application integration than
Office 95 installed on a Window 95 computer.

I also agree with this statement. I only have 1 machine that still has
Office 95 on it. I haven't had a call to use it in almost 3 years.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access downloads:
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

Hi, Arvin.

You likely have some incompatibility problems:

1.) Microsoft Office Pro 95 was designed for Windows 95 (which is MS
DOS-based), not Windows XP (which is NT-based).

Not relevant. Office 95 runs on an XP computer.

Oh, it runs. It was the crashes that we found annoying. We had a problem
with Office 95 applications freezing or crashing an average of 5 times per
day (mostly Access). Fortunately, the Windows XP operating system is much
more stable, so it doesn't need to be rebooted when Office 95 applications
die, like Windows 95 does. It provides memory protection, a wider range of
memory addressing, and many, many other capabilities that weren't available
in Windows 95.

And since the operating system isn't relevant, have you got any helpful
hints on how to get Office 95 to work with Windows XP's:

-- NTFS permissions that prevent a Windows user account which lacks
Administrator or Power User security permissions from using some of the
Office 95 files that are automatically installed in the protected Windows
System directories
-- API functions that use call-backs
-- .Net 1.1 Framework
-- settings for automatic Office updates
-- built-in firewall
-- missing Jet 3.0 components from MDAC
-- security settings for the Windows Registry Keys
-- and any other NIMBY's?

Just kidding. ;-) I know the answers are "fuhgeddaboudit" and
"nevuhgunnahappen"!

2.) Applications in Microsoft Office Pro 95 were not well-integrated
with
one another, even though it was marketed as an "integrated office
productivity suite." Microsoft Word was the best integrated application
in
the suite, due to better OLE handling than the other applications.

Actually, it was Excel that had its act together.

We had a lot more success with Borland's C++ compiler using OLE with
Microsoft Word documents than with Microsoft Excel spreadsheets when we were
programming during Office 95's heyday. We never used WordBasic, because we
were C and C++ programmers, so we may have been more successful if we'd used
the right tool for the job. IIRC using the OLE model to copy/paste into
Word 95 documents was more flexible on different types of objects from other
Windows applications than was Excel 95.

3.) Microsoft recommends not installing more than one version of Office
on
the same computer, since there can be conflicts between the different
versions.

I have 3 versions of Office (both 16 and 32 bit) running on the same
machine. Others have more than that.

I quoted Microsoft's recommendation on not installing more than one version
of Office on the same computer
(http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=290576), but my company is
just as guilty as most, because there just aren't enough computers available
for each developer in our office to place only a single version of Office on
each computer.

There is even a Knowledge Base article
on some of the issues:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;292491

Good info. Thanks!

HTH.

Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips.

(Please remove ZERO_SPAM from my reply E-mail address, so that a message
will be forwarded to me.)


"Arvin Meyer" wrote in message
...
"'69 Camaro" AM wrote
in
message ...
Hi.

You likely have some incompatibility problems:

1.) Microsoft Office Pro 95 was designed for Windows 95 (which is MS
DOS-based), not Windows XP (which is NT-based).

Not relevant. Office 95 runs on an XP computer.

2.) Applications in Microsoft Office Pro 95 were not well-integrated
with
one another, even though it was marketed as an "integrated office
productivity suite." Microsoft Word was the best integrated application
in
the suite, due to better OLE handling than the other applications.

Actually, it was Excel that had its act together. Word 95 still used
WordBasic instead of VBA. Access 95 was\is extremely buggy. Access can in
no
way talk to a later version of Word, or any other Office application since
they have no way of knowing about anything written later.

3.) Microsoft recommends not installing more than one version of Office
on
the same computer, since there can be conflicts between the different
versions.

I have 3 versions of Office (both 16 and 32 bit) running on the same
machine. Others have more than that. There is even a Knowledge Base
article
on some of the issues:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;292491

Microsoft Access 95 was the buggiest retail version of Access to date.
Because of this, the company I work for converts Access databases for
customers to every version, except Access 95.

I'd have to agree with that statement.

My recommendation is to uninstall Microsoft Office 95, then install a
later
version of Microsoft Office. While that costs money, one needs to ask,
"Isn't my time spent struggling with software that doesn't work worth
more
than the cost of the new Office suite software and its installation?"
Even
Office 97 Pro will give you a great deal more application integration
than
Office 95 installed on a Windows 95 computer.

I also agree with this statement. I only have 1 machine that still has
Office 95 on it. I haven't had a call to use it in almost 3 years.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access downloads:
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

You seem to have had more luck than me with WordBasic OLE objects.

I used WordBasic. I liked WordBasic. But my opinion was that
GetObject, CreateObject, Quit and Nothing didn't really work
they way they should for WordBasic -- not the way I thought the
documentation for Get and Create suggested, not the way other
objects worked. And I rewrote all the Get/Create/Quit code when
I moved to using Word Application objects.

BTW, one of the features XP provides is a Win95 compatibility
layer. Is that of any value? Also I note that (1) A97 on Win2K
shares many of the same problems you list regarding XP security
settings, and (2) 'designed for Win95' is a bit of a stretch.
Considering how obviously even A97 retained links with Win3.1
and Office 6, 'Recompiled for Win32' might have been closer
to the truth...

(david)


"'69 Camaro" AM wrote in
message ...
Hi, Arvin.

You likely have some incompatibility problems:

1.) Microsoft Office Pro 95 was designed for Windows 95 (which is MS
DOS-based), not Windows XP (which is NT-based).

Not relevant. Office 95 runs on an XP computer.

Oh, it runs. It was the crashes that we found annoying. We had a problem
with Office 95 applications freezing or crashing an average of 5 times per
day (mostly Access). Fortunately, the Windows XP operating system is much
more stable, so it doesn't need to be rebooted when Office 95 applications
die, like Windows 95 does. It provides memory protection, a wider range
of
memory addressing, and many, many other capabilities that weren't
available
in Windows 95.

And since the operating system isn't relevant, have you got any helpful
hints on how to get Office 95 to work with Windows XP's:

-- NTFS permissions that prevent a Windows user account which lacks
Administrator or Power User security permissions from using some of the
Office 95 files that are automatically installed in the protected Windows
System directories
-- API functions that use call-backs
-- .Net 1.1 Framework
-- settings for automatic Office updates
-- built-in firewall
-- missing Jet 3.0 components from MDAC
-- security settings for the Windows Registry Keys
-- and any other NIMBY's?

Just kidding. ;-) I know the answers are "fuhgeddaboudit" and
"nevuhgunnahappen"!

2.) Applications in Microsoft Office Pro 95 were not well-integrated
with
one another, even though it was marketed as an "integrated office
productivity suite." Microsoft Word was the best integrated
application
in
the suite, due to better OLE handling than the other applications.

Actually, it was Excel that had its act together.

We had a lot more success with Borland's C++ compiler using OLE with
Microsoft Word documents than with Microsoft Excel spreadsheets when we
were
programming during Office 95's heyday. We never used WordBasic, because
we
were C and C++ programmers, so we may have been more successful if we'd
used
the right tool for the job. IIRC using the OLE model to copy/paste into
Word 95 documents was more flexible on different types of objects from
other
Windows applications than was Excel 95.

3.) Microsoft recommends not installing more than one version of
Office
on
the same computer, since there can be conflicts between the different
versions.

I have 3 versions of Office (both 16 and 32 bit) running on the same
machine. Others have more than that.

I quoted Microsoft's recommendation on not installing more than one
version
of Office on the same computer
(http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=290576), but my company is
just as guilty as most, because there just aren't enough computers
available
for each developer in our office to place only a single version of Office
on
each computer.

There is even a Knowledge Base article
on some of the issues:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;292491

Good info. Thanks!

HTH.

Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips.

(Please remove ZERO_SPAM from my reply E-mail address, so that a message
will be forwarded to me.)


"Arvin Meyer" wrote in message
...
"'69 Camaro" AM wrote
in
message ...
Hi.

You likely have some incompatibility problems:

1.) Microsoft Office Pro 95 was designed for Windows 95 (which is MS
DOS-based), not Windows XP (which is NT-based).

Not relevant. Office 95 runs on an XP computer.

2.) Applications in Microsoft Office Pro 95 were not well-integrated
with
one another, even though it was marketed as an "integrated office
productivity suite." Microsoft Word was the best integrated
application
in
the suite, due to better OLE handling than the other applications.

Actually, it was Excel that had its act together. Word 95 still used
WordBasic instead of VBA. Access 95 was\is extremely buggy. Access can
in
no
way talk to a later version of Word, or any other Office application
since
they have no way of knowing about anything written later.

3.) Microsoft recommends not installing more than one version of
Office
on
the same computer, since there can be conflicts between the different
versions.

I have 3 versions of Office (both 16 and 32 bit) running on the same
machine. Others have more than that. There is even a Knowledge Base
article
on some of the issues:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;292491

Microsoft Access 95 was the buggiest retail version of Access to date.
Because of this, the company I work for converts Access databases for
customers to every version, except Access 95.

I'd have to agree with that statement.

My recommendation is to uninstall Microsoft Office 95, then install a
later
version of Microsoft Office. While that costs money, one needs to
ask,
"Isn't my time spent struggling with software that doesn't work worth
more
than the cost of the new Office suite software and its installation?"
Even
Office 97 Pro will give you a great deal more application integration
than
Office 95 installed on a Windows 95 computer.

I also agree with this statement. I only have 1 machine that still has
Office 95 on it. I haven't had a call to use it in almost 3 years.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access downloads:
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

Hi, David.

BTW, one of the features XP provides is a Win95 compatibility
layer. Is that of any value?

I would certainly think so. But the customer had standardization rules that
wouldn't allow us to make changes to their standard computer configurations,
not even to make them work better with our applications, so we didn't get to
test this.

(2) 'designed for Win95' is a bit of a stretch.

LOL! I am not making this up. This is verbatim from the company. The CD
case reads: "Microsoft(R) Office Professional & Bookshelf(R) Designed for
Windows(R) 95." The top left corner has the Windows 95 logo with the
"Designed for Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 95" message on it, too, just in case
we missed the larger lettering on the front. Nowhere on the case or the on
CD's does it say "Microsoft Office 95," just "Office Professional version
7.0/Bookshelf 1995 edition" in tiny lettering on the back of the case and
nearly identical wording on the CD's to indicate which version it is. In
all other references to the product, it's "Designed for Windows(R) 95."

'Recompiled for Win32' might have been closer
to the truth...

True. Thankfully, it's evolved into an a suite of applications that are far
more stable and much more integrated (even if more bloated), than the '95
version.

Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips.

(Please remove ZERO_SPAM from my reply E-mail address, so that a message
will be forwarded to me.)


"david epsom dot com dot au" david@epsomdotcomdotau wrote in message
...
You seem to have had more luck than me with WordBasic OLE objects.

I used WordBasic. I liked WordBasic. But my opinion was that
GetObject, CreateObject, Quit and Nothing didn't really work
they way they should for WordBasic -- not the way I thought the
documentation for Get and Create suggested, not the way other
objects worked. And I rewrote all the Get/Create/Quit code when
I moved to using Word Application objects.

BTW, one of the features XP provides is a Win95 compatibility
layer. Is that of any value? Also I note that (1) A97 on Win2K
shares many of the same problems you list regarding XP security
settings, and (2) 'designed for Win95' is a bit of a stretch.
Considering how obviously even A97 retained links with Win3.1
and Office 6, 'Recompiled for Win32' might have been closer
to the truth...

(david)


"'69 Camaro" AM wrote
in
message ...
Hi, Arvin.

You likely have some incompatibility problems:

1.) Microsoft Office Pro 95 was designed for Windows 95 (which is
MS
DOS-based), not Windows XP (which is NT-based).

Not relevant. Office 95 runs on an XP computer.

Oh, it runs. It was the crashes that we found annoying. We had a
problem
with Office 95 applications freezing or crashing an average of 5 times
per
day (mostly Access). Fortunately, the Windows XP operating system is
much
more stable, so it doesn't need to be rebooted when Office 95
applications
die, like Windows 95 does. It provides memory protection, a wider range
of
memory addressing, and many, many other capabilities that weren't
available
in Windows 95.

And since the operating system isn't relevant, have you got any helpful
hints on how to get Office 95 to work with Windows XP's:

-- NTFS permissions that prevent a Windows user account which lacks
Administrator or Power User security permissions from using some of the
Office 95 files that are automatically installed in the protected
Windows
System directories
-- API functions that use call-backs
-- .Net 1.1 Framework
-- settings for automatic Office updates
-- built-in firewall
-- missing Jet 3.0 components from MDAC
-- security settings for the Windows Registry Keys
-- and any other NIMBY's?

Just kidding. ;-) I know the answers are "fuhgeddaboudit" and
"nevuhgunnahappen"!

2.) Applications in Microsoft Office Pro 95 were not
well-integrated
with
one another, even though it was marketed as an "integrated office
productivity suite." Microsoft Word was the best integrated
application
in
the suite, due to better OLE handling than the other applications.

Actually, it was Excel that had its act together.

We had a lot more success with Borland's C++ compiler using OLE with
Microsoft Word documents than with Microsoft Excel spreadsheets when we
were
programming during Office 95's heyday. We never used WordBasic, because
we
were C and C++ programmers, so we may have been more successful if we'd
used
the right tool for the job. IIRC using the OLE model to copy/paste into
Word 95 documents was more flexible on different types of objects from
other
Windows applications than was Excel 95.

3.) Microsoft recommends not installing more than one version of
Office
on
the same computer, since there can be conflicts between the
different
versions.

I have 3 versions of Office (both 16 and 32 bit) running on the same
machine. Others have more than that.

I quoted Microsoft's recommendation on not installing more than one
version
of Office on the same computer
(http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=290576), but my company
is
just as guilty as most, because there just aren't enough computers
available
for each developer in our office to place only a single version of
Office
on
each computer.

There is even a Knowledge Base article
on some of the issues:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;292491

Good info. Thanks!

HTH.

Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips.

(Please remove ZERO_SPAM from my reply E-mail address, so that a message
will be forwarded to me.)


"Arvin Meyer" wrote in message
...
"'69 Camaro" AM
wrote
in
message ...
Hi.

You likely have some incompatibility problems:

1.) Microsoft Office Pro 95 was designed for Windows 95 (which is
MS
DOS-based), not Windows XP (which is NT-based).

Not relevant. Office 95 runs on an XP computer.

2.) Applications in Microsoft Office Pro 95 were not
well-integrated
with
one another, even though it was marketed as an "integrated office
productivity suite." Microsoft Word was the best integrated
application
in
the suite, due to better OLE handling than the other applications.

Actually, it was Excel that had its act together. Word 95 still used
WordBasic instead of VBA. Access 95 was\is extremely buggy. Access can
in
no
way talk to a later version of Word, or any other Office application
since
they have no way of knowing about anything written later.

3.) Microsoft recommends not installing more than one version of
Office
on
the same computer, since there can be conflicts between the
different
versions.

I have 3 versions of Office (both 16 and 32 bit) running on the same
machine. Others have more than that. There is even a Knowledge Base
article
on some of the issues:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;292491

Microsoft Access 95 was the buggiest retail version of Access to
date.
Because of this, the company I work for converts Access databases
for
customers to every version, except Access 95.

I'd have to agree with that statement.

My recommendation is to uninstall Microsoft Office 95, then install
a
later
version of Microsoft Office. While that costs money, one needs to
ask,
"Isn't my time spent struggling with software that doesn't work
worth
more
than the cost of the new Office suite software and its
installation?"
Even
Office 97 Pro will give you a great deal more application
integration
than
Office 95 installed on a Windows 95 computer.

I also agree with this statement. I only have 1 machine that still has
Office 95 on it. I haven't had a call to use it in almost 3 years.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
Microsoft Access
Free Access downloads:
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:26:00 -0700, "'69 Camaro"
AM wrote:

Not relevant. Office 95 runs on an XP computer.

Oh, it runs. It was the crashes that we found annoying. We had a problem
with Office 95 applications freezing or crashing an average of 5 times per
day (mostly Access).

Just to note... this probably isn't operating system dependent.
Access7.0 aka Access95 was notoriously the WORST version of Access
ever released; it was well known for frequent crashes, BSOD's and
corruption, to the extent that I refused to install it on my machine
at all, and insisted that one customer upgrade to A97 (probably the
best version released) before I'd work on their databases.

John W. Vinson[MVP]
(no longer chatting for now)