Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Access 2002 /2003 user level security

Discussion in 'Information Technology' started by Cfox4, Jul 28, 2006.

  1. Cfox4

    Cfox4
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I've got an XP2002 db that I secured via user level security. My
    problem is that my XP2003 users cannot open forms. They get the error
    "you do not have open/run priveleges on <form>"

    I've had those same 2003 users log into the db on a 2002 machine and
    they are able to open the forms. Is there a file format issue here?
    Any ideas?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi.

    > I've got an XP2002 db


    Perhaps you mean that you have an Access 2002 database file, along with
    Microsoft Office XP installed on your workstation, or perhaps you don't have
    either Access or Microsoft Office, but merely the Windows XP operating
    system on your workstation.

    > My
    > problem is that my XP2003 users


    Perhaps you mean that your users have Access 2003 installed on their
    workstations, along with the Microsoft Office XP suite, or perhaps they have
    Windows XP or Windows 2003 operating systems. My point is that if you
    express confusion about which versions of Access you have or which operating
    system you have when you post a question, don't be surprised when you
    receive answers that don't pertain to your situation.

    > Is there a file format issue here?


    Of course not. Both Access 2002 and Access 2003 can use the same workgroup
    file in the same database format.

    > Any ideas?


    The most common reason is that one group of users (the group that fails) is
    using the wrong workgroup file, which is almost always the default workgroup
    file. Have all users open the database with a Windows shortcut, and ensure
    that the syntax uses the complete path of the Access executable, the
    database file, and the workgroup file. For example (watch out for word
    wrap, as this should be all one line):

    "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\MSAccess.exe" "C:\Data\MyDB.mdb"
    /wrkgrp "C:\Data\Secure.mdw"

    And if you find out that one of the groups of users really is using the
    wrong workgroup file, but can open the database file anyway, then you have
    sufficient proof that the database is not secured properly. If this is the
    case, then please see the following Web page for instructions on how to
    implement User-level Security correctly:

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/access/content/secfaq.asp

    Study the Security FAQ and practice on a copy of the database several times
    before trying it on the real database, because it's easy to lock yourself
    out.

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:31034E44-7F60-4E5E-A9B1-ED2A71A16B95@microsoft.com...
    > I've got an XP2002 db that I secured via user level security. My
    > problem is that my XP2003 users cannot open forms. They get the error
    > "you do not have open/run priveleges on <form>"
    >
    > I've had those same 2003 users log into the db on a 2002 machine and
    > they are able to open the forms. Is there a file format issue here?
    > Any ideas?
    >
     
  4. Cfox4

    Cfox4
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Perhaps you're just a jerk with too much time on your hands.
    People come here looking for help not to be belittled by some smart-### who
    probably doesn't have a clue what it means to help someone.

    If the problem were as easy as you try to make it then I wouldn't be wasting
    my time posting a question here.

    I humbly request that you do not ever post to one of my questions ever
    again. Thanks but no thanks

    "'69 Camaro" wrote:

    > Hi.
    >
    > > I've got an XP2002 db

    >
    > Perhaps you mean that you have an Access 2002 database file, along with
    > Microsoft Office XP installed on your workstation, or perhaps you don't have
    > either Access or Microsoft Office, but merely the Windows XP operating
    > system on your workstation.
    >
    > > My
    > > problem is that my XP2003 users

    >
    > Perhaps you mean that your users have Access 2003 installed on their
    > workstations, along with the Microsoft Office XP suite, or perhaps they have
    > Windows XP or Windows 2003 operating systems. My point is that if you
    > express confusion about which versions of Access you have or which operating
    > system you have when you post a question, don't be surprised when you
    > receive answers that don't pertain to your situation.
    >
    > > Is there a file format issue here?

    >
    > Of course not. Both Access 2002 and Access 2003 can use the same workgroup
    > file in the same database format.
    >
    > > Any ideas?

    >
    > The most common reason is that one group of users (the group that fails) is
    > using the wrong workgroup file, which is almost always the default workgroup
    > file. Have all users open the database with a Windows shortcut, and ensure
    > that the syntax uses the complete path of the Access executable, the
    > database file, and the workgroup file. For example (watch out for word
    > wrap, as this should be all one line):
    >
    > "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\MSAccess.exe" "C:\Data\MyDB.mdb"
    > /wrkgrp "C:\Data\Secure.mdw"
    >
    > And if you find out that one of the groups of users really is using the
    > wrong workgroup file, but can open the database file anyway, then you have
    > sufficient proof that the database is not secured properly. If this is the
    > case, then please see the following Web page for instructions on how to
    > implement User-level Security correctly:
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/access/content/secfaq.asp
    >
    > Study the Security FAQ and practice on a copy of the database several times
    > before trying it on the real database, because it's easy to lock yourself
    > out.
    >
    > HTH.
    > Gunny
    >
    > See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    > http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    > info.
    >
    >
    > "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:31034E44-7F60-4E5E-A9B1-ED2A71A16B95@microsoft.com...
    > > I've got an XP2002 db that I secured via user level security. My
    > > problem is that my XP2003 users cannot open forms. They get the error
    > > "you do not have open/run priveleges on <form>"
    > >
    > > I've had those same 2003 users log into the db on a 2002 machine and
    > > they are able to open the forms. Is there a file format issue here?
    > > Any ideas?
    > >

    >
    >
    >
     
  5. Douglas J Steele

    Douglas J Steele
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I'd suggest re-reading Gunny's response.

    Yes, perhaps the correction of the errors in your original post was done a
    little abrasively, but your use of expressions like "an XP2002 db" and
    "XP2003 users" really wasn't clear. Is Gunny's interpretation of what you
    meant correct?

    Based on the information you provided, I think the suggestion Gunny made
    that it's related to the workgroup file is a valid one.

    --
    Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
    http://I.Am/DougSteele
    (no e-mails, please!)


    "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:3C094671-670E-4E90-A59C-D86B367C36F1@microsoft.com...
    > Perhaps you're just a jerk with too much time on your hands.
    > People come here looking for help not to be belittled by some smart-###

    who
    > probably doesn't have a clue what it means to help someone.
    >
    > If the problem were as easy as you try to make it then I wouldn't be

    wasting
    > my time posting a question here.
    >
    > I humbly request that you do not ever post to one of my questions ever
    > again. Thanks but no thanks
    >
    > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >
    > > Hi.
    > >
    > > > I've got an XP2002 db

    > >
    > > Perhaps you mean that you have an Access 2002 database file, along with
    > > Microsoft Office XP installed on your workstation, or perhaps you don't

    have
    > > either Access or Microsoft Office, but merely the Windows XP operating
    > > system on your workstation.
    > >
    > > > My
    > > > problem is that my XP2003 users

    > >
    > > Perhaps you mean that your users have Access 2003 installed on their
    > > workstations, along with the Microsoft Office XP suite, or perhaps they

    have
    > > Windows XP or Windows 2003 operating systems. My point is that if you
    > > express confusion about which versions of Access you have or which

    operating
    > > system you have when you post a question, don't be surprised when you
    > > receive answers that don't pertain to your situation.
    > >
    > > > Is there a file format issue here?

    > >
    > > Of course not. Both Access 2002 and Access 2003 can use the same

    workgroup
    > > file in the same database format.
    > >
    > > > Any ideas?

    > >
    > > The most common reason is that one group of users (the group that fails)

    is
    > > using the wrong workgroup file, which is almost always the default

    workgroup
    > > file. Have all users open the database with a Windows shortcut, and

    ensure
    > > that the syntax uses the complete path of the Access executable, the
    > > database file, and the workgroup file. For example (watch out for word
    > > wrap, as this should be all one line):
    > >
    > > "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\MSAccess.exe"

    "C:\Data\MyDB.mdb"
    > > /wrkgrp "C:\Data\Secure.mdw"
    > >
    > > And if you find out that one of the groups of users really is using the
    > > wrong workgroup file, but can open the database file anyway, then you

    have
    > > sufficient proof that the database is not secured properly. If this is

    the
    > > case, then please see the following Web page for instructions on how to
    > > implement User-level Security correctly:
    > >
    > >

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/access/content/secfaq.asp
    > >
    > > Study the Security FAQ and practice on a copy of the database several

    times
    > > before trying it on the real database, because it's easy to lock

    yourself
    > > out.
    > >
    > > HTH.
    > > Gunny
    > >
    > > See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > > See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and

    tutorials.
    > > http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    > > info.
    > >
    > >
    > > "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > > news:31034E44-7F60-4E5E-A9B1-ED2A71A16B95@microsoft.com...
    > > > I've got an XP2002 db that I secured via user level security. My
    > > > problem is that my XP2003 users cannot open forms. They get the error
    > > > "you do not have open/run priveleges on <form>"
    > > >
    > > > I've had those same 2003 users log into the db on a 2002 machine and
    > > > they are able to open the forms. Is there a file format issue here?
    > > > Any ideas?
    > > >

    > >
    > >
    > >
     
  6. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    > Perhaps you're just a jerk with too much time on your hands.

    1.) Ma'am, you do yourself a disservice when you provide incorrect
    information in your post and expect people to guess at what you really mean,
    because you may not get the responses you need to help you fix your problem
    or help you accomplish your goal in a timely manner.

    2.) Ma'am, you do yourself a disservice when you are rude to responders,
    because others read your replies and may avoid helping you in the future
    because they want to avoid getting the same treatment from you.

    3.) You do yourself a disservice when you multipost a question to multiple
    newsgroups, because when people find out that the question has already been
    answered elsewhere, they will want to avoid having you squander their time
    needlessly and will be inclined to place your name in their kill file so
    that they never see your posts again -- and therefore won't be available to
    help you next time you ask. Please note that multiposting multiple
    questions to several newsgroups is not the same as cross-posting one
    question to several newsgroups, where everyone can read others' responses to
    the question, even if the responses were made in the other cross-posted
    newsgroups. For more information, please see the section, "Asking questions
    the right way," on the following Web page:

    http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm

    > People come here looking for help not to be belittled by some smart-###
    > who
    > probably doesn't have a clue what it means to help someone.


    Ma'am, you weren't belittled, but your made-up names were specifically
    pointed out so that you don't repeat them next time. Pointing out that such
    made-up names only succeed in blurring what you are trying to describe as
    your problem is far more effective than ignoring what you write and guessing
    what you really mean, as will become frustratingly clear to you if you don't
    take steps to avoid such confusion.

    And when you gain more experience in Access, you'll realize that the
    explanations you were given, the example syntax, and the link to
    instructions on how to properly secure your Access database were helpful,
    because they pointed you in the right direction. And when you gain more
    experience in posting to newsgroups, you'll realize that people who need
    help but offer insults in return for that help don't get the same kind of
    help in the future that polite posters get, nor do they get it as quickly.

    > If the problem were as easy as you try to make it then I wouldn't be
    > wasting
    > my time posting a question here.


    Your self-esteem is at stake, so you aren't going to publicly admit this,
    but you are about to find out what everyone else who is experienced in
    User-level Security already knows. Your problem really is as easy as I've
    made it out to be, and it really is as simple to fix as I've suggested, once
    you've had some practice at it. And you're not wasting your time posting
    questions here on how to solve problems, whether they're easy or hard, as
    long as you post clear and concise questions, and you aren't intentionally
    rude. Your problem has stumped you and you need the help of those who have
    more experience in this area so that you can quickly fix the problem and
    look like a genius within your organization. You can ignore my advice and
    the advice of others who give you similar advice, but you will do so at the
    risk of either taking too long to solve the problem yourself or possibly not
    solving the problem at all, neither of which will serve to make your boss
    proud that he hired you.

    > I humbly request that you do not ever post to one of my questions ever
    > again.


    Ah. An invitation to pester you since I have all this time on my hands. I
    accept.

    Since you know where to find the best answers with the least effort and with
    a name like "Cfox4," I expect you to come under the category of "crazy like
    a fox," so I have high hopes that we can make you look like an Access genius
    in your organization, despite your having stepped off on the wrong foot.

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:3C094671-670E-4E90-A59C-D86B367C36F1@microsoft.com...
    > Perhaps you're just a jerk with too much time on your hands.
    > People come here looking for help not to be belittled by some smart-###
    > who
    > probably doesn't have a clue what it means to help someone.
    >
    > If the problem were as easy as you try to make it then I wouldn't be
    > wasting
    > my time posting a question here.
    >
    > I humbly request that you do not ever post to one of my questions ever
    > again. Thanks but no thanks
    >
    > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >
    >> Hi.
    >>
    >> > I've got an XP2002 db

    >>
    >> Perhaps you mean that you have an Access 2002 database file, along with
    >> Microsoft Office XP installed on your workstation, or perhaps you don't
    >> have
    >> either Access or Microsoft Office, but merely the Windows XP operating
    >> system on your workstation.
    >>
    >> > My
    >> > problem is that my XP2003 users

    >>
    >> Perhaps you mean that your users have Access 2003 installed on their
    >> workstations, along with the Microsoft Office XP suite, or perhaps they
    >> have
    >> Windows XP or Windows 2003 operating systems. My point is that if you
    >> express confusion about which versions of Access you have or which
    >> operating
    >> system you have when you post a question, don't be surprised when you
    >> receive answers that don't pertain to your situation.
    >>
    >> > Is there a file format issue here?

    >>
    >> Of course not. Both Access 2002 and Access 2003 can use the same
    >> workgroup
    >> file in the same database format.
    >>
    >> > Any ideas?

    >>
    >> The most common reason is that one group of users (the group that fails)
    >> is
    >> using the wrong workgroup file, which is almost always the default
    >> workgroup
    >> file. Have all users open the database with a Windows shortcut, and
    >> ensure
    >> that the syntax uses the complete path of the Access executable, the
    >> database file, and the workgroup file. For example (watch out for word
    >> wrap, as this should be all one line):
    >>
    >> "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\MSAccess.exe"
    >> "C:\Data\MyDB.mdb"
    >> /wrkgrp "C:\Data\Secure.mdw"
    >>
    >> And if you find out that one of the groups of users really is using the
    >> wrong workgroup file, but can open the database file anyway, then you
    >> have
    >> sufficient proof that the database is not secured properly. If this is
    >> the
    >> case, then please see the following Web page for instructions on how to
    >> implement User-level Security correctly:
    >>
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/access/content/secfaq.asp
    >>
    >> Study the Security FAQ and practice on a copy of the database several
    >> times
    >> before trying it on the real database, because it's easy to lock yourself
    >> out.
    >>
    >> HTH.
    >> Gunny
    >>
    >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    >> info.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> news:31034E44-7F60-4E5E-A9B1-ED2A71A16B95@microsoft.com...
    >> > I've got an XP2002 db that I secured via user level security. My
    >> > problem is that my XP2003 users cannot open forms. They get the error
    >> > "you do not have open/run priveleges on <form>"
    >> >
    >> > I've had those same 2003 users log into the db on a 2002 machine and
    >> > they are able to open the forms. Is there a file format issue here?
    >> > Any ideas?
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
  7. Joan Wild

    Joan Wild
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

  8. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi, Joan.

    Thanks for that. The link was working when I posted it last night and again
    this morning when I checked, but it's certainly not working now.

    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "Joan Wild" <jwild@nospamtyenet.com> wrote in message
    news:%23B9kmVgoGHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    > '69 Camaro wrote:
    >>
    >> And when you gain more experience in Access, you'll realize that the
    >> explanations you were given, the example syntax, and the link to
    >> instructions on how to properly secure your Access database were
    >> helpful, because they pointed you in the right direction.
    >>>>

    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/access/content/secfaq.aspJust a
    > FYI, that link isn't valid anymore, but
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?id=207793 is--Joan WildMicrosoft Access MVP
    >
     
  9. Cfox4

    Cfox4
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Gunny,

    I am typically not one to indulge in disputing over the internet but you
    sir/madam are completely out of line. While it is true that I did use some
    interesting terminology to describe my situation, I did so with the idea that
    I would receive feedback from PROFESSIONALS who would understand what I meant.

    Let's take a look at this situation. I posted a question under the category
    of Access, titled my question "Access 2002/2003 user level security".
    Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within my
    question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me and
    I'm not a genius nor do I have enough Access experience to know what I'm
    talking about according to you.

    My problem with you started with you're arrogant response to my question.
    If the wording of my question left you with doubts as to what exactly I meant
    then why wouldn't you simply ask me to clarify the points of your contention?
    Wouldn't that be the professional thing to do? Instead you chose to
    belittle me with your "perhaps you don't have this or perhaps that". FYI -
    It is not professional to handle my question the way you did nor is it polite.

    This entire dispute could have been avoided had you have used the smallest
    amount of courtesy or professionalism when you first responded to my question.

    Your personal attacks on me, my surname and my abilities are intolerable.
    You should not be allowed to treat people the same as you have me. You are
    not what I would consider a professional. You are, in my humble opinion, one
    of these "know it all" arrogant individuals who doesn't give anyone a chance
    because they probably don't know as much as you. This you are certain of.
    Just like you are certain that I am not experienced at Access, posting
    questions and being male! That's right, idiot I am a male. But you wouldn't
    know that because you aren't the kind to stop and smell the roses. You are
    the kind to offend first and never look back.

    Good-bye



    "'69 Camaro" wrote:

    > > Perhaps you're just a jerk with too much time on your hands.

    >
    > 1.) Ma'am, you do yourself a disservice when you provide incorrect
    > information in your post and expect people to guess at what you really mean,
    > because you may not get the responses you need to help you fix your problem
    > or help you accomplish your goal in a timely manner.
    >
    > 2.) Ma'am, you do yourself a disservice when you are rude to responders,
    > because others read your replies and may avoid helping you in the future
    > because they want to avoid getting the same treatment from you.
    >
    > 3.) You do yourself a disservice when you multipost a question to multiple
    > newsgroups, because when people find out that the question has already been
    > answered elsewhere, they will want to avoid having you squander their time
    > needlessly and will be inclined to place your name in their kill file so
    > that they never see your posts again -- and therefore won't be available to
    > help you next time you ask. Please note that multiposting multiple
    > questions to several newsgroups is not the same as cross-posting one
    > question to several newsgroups, where everyone can read others' responses to
    > the question, even if the responses were made in the other cross-posted
    > newsgroups. For more information, please see the section, "Asking questions
    > the right way," on the following Web page:
    >
    > http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm
    >
    > > People come here looking for help not to be belittled by some smart-###
    > > who
    > > probably doesn't have a clue what it means to help someone.

    >
    > Ma'am, you weren't belittled, but your made-up names were specifically
    > pointed out so that you don't repeat them next time. Pointing out that such
    > made-up names only succeed in blurring what you are trying to describe as
    > your problem is far more effective than ignoring what you write and guessing
    > what you really mean, as will become frustratingly clear to you if you don't
    > take steps to avoid such confusion.
    >
    > And when you gain more experience in Access, you'll realize that the
    > explanations you were given, the example syntax, and the link to
    > instructions on how to properly secure your Access database were helpful,
    > because they pointed you in the right direction. And when you gain more
    > experience in posting to newsgroups, you'll realize that people who need
    > help but offer insults in return for that help don't get the same kind of
    > help in the future that polite posters get, nor do they get it as quickly.
    >
    > > If the problem were as easy as you try to make it then I wouldn't be
    > > wasting
    > > my time posting a question here.

    >
    > Your self-esteem is at stake, so you aren't going to publicly admit this,
    > but you are about to find out what everyone else who is experienced in
    > User-level Security already knows. Your problem really is as easy as I've
    > made it out to be, and it really is as simple to fix as I've suggested, once
    > you've had some practice at it. And you're not wasting your time posting
    > questions here on how to solve problems, whether they're easy or hard, as
    > long as you post clear and concise questions, and you aren't intentionally
    > rude. Your problem has stumped you and you need the help of those who have
    > more experience in this area so that you can quickly fix the problem and
    > look like a genius within your organization. You can ignore my advice and
    > the advice of others who give you similar advice, but you will do so at the
    > risk of either taking too long to solve the problem yourself or possibly not
    > solving the problem at all, neither of which will serve to make your boss
    > proud that he hired you.
    >
    > > I humbly request that you do not ever post to one of my questions ever
    > > again.

    >
    > Ah. An invitation to pester you since I have all this time on my hands. I
    > accept.
    >
    > Since you know where to find the best answers with the least effort and with
    > a name like "Cfox4," I expect you to come under the category of "crazy like
    > a fox," so I have high hopes that we can make you look like an Access genius
    > in your organization, despite your having stepped off on the wrong foot.
    >
    > HTH.
    > Gunny
    >
    > See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    > http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    > info.
    >
    >
    > "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:3C094671-670E-4E90-A59C-D86B367C36F1@microsoft.com...
    > > Perhaps you're just a jerk with too much time on your hands.
    > > People come here looking for help not to be belittled by some smart-###
    > > who
    > > probably doesn't have a clue what it means to help someone.
    > >
    > > If the problem were as easy as you try to make it then I wouldn't be
    > > wasting
    > > my time posting a question here.
    > >
    > > I humbly request that you do not ever post to one of my questions ever
    > > again. Thanks but no thanks
    > >
    > > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Hi.
    > >>
    > >> > I've got an XP2002 db
    > >>
    > >> Perhaps you mean that you have an Access 2002 database file, along with
    > >> Microsoft Office XP installed on your workstation, or perhaps you don't
    > >> have
    > >> either Access or Microsoft Office, but merely the Windows XP operating
    > >> system on your workstation.
    > >>
    > >> > My
    > >> > problem is that my XP2003 users
    > >>
    > >> Perhaps you mean that your users have Access 2003 installed on their
    > >> workstations, along with the Microsoft Office XP suite, or perhaps they
    > >> have
    > >> Windows XP or Windows 2003 operating systems. My point is that if you
    > >> express confusion about which versions of Access you have or which
    > >> operating
    > >> system you have when you post a question, don't be surprised when you
    > >> receive answers that don't pertain to your situation.
    > >>
    > >> > Is there a file format issue here?
    > >>
    > >> Of course not. Both Access 2002 and Access 2003 can use the same
    > >> workgroup
    > >> file in the same database format.
    > >>
    > >> > Any ideas?
    > >>
    > >> The most common reason is that one group of users (the group that fails)
    > >> is
    > >> using the wrong workgroup file, which is almost always the default
    > >> workgroup
    > >> file. Have all users open the database with a Windows shortcut, and
    > >> ensure
    > >> that the syntax uses the complete path of the Access executable, the
    > >> database file, and the workgroup file. For example (watch out for word
    > >> wrap, as this should be all one line):
    > >>
    > >> "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\MSAccess.exe"
    > >> "C:\Data\MyDB.mdb"
    > >> /wrkgrp "C:\Data\Secure.mdw"
    > >>
    > >> And if you find out that one of the groups of users really is using the
    > >> wrong workgroup file, but can open the database file anyway, then you
    > >> have
    > >> sufficient proof that the database is not secured properly. If this is
    > >> the
    > >> case, then please see the following Web page for instructions on how to
    > >> implement User-level Security correctly:
    > >>
    > >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/access/content/secfaq.asp
    > >>
    > >> Study the Security FAQ and practice on a copy of the database several
    > >> times
    > >> before trying it on the real database, because it's easy to lock yourself
    > >> out.
    > >>
    > >> HTH.
    > >> Gunny
    > >>
    > >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    > >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    > >> info.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > >> news:31034E44-7F60-4E5E-A9B1-ED2A71A16B95@microsoft.com...
    > >> > I've got an XP2002 db that I secured via user level security. My
    > >> > problem is that my XP2003 users cannot open forms. They get the error
    > >> > "you do not have open/run priveleges on <form>"
    > >> >
    > >> > I've had those same 2003 users log into the db on a 2002 machine and
    > >> > they are able to open the forms. Is there a file format issue here?
    > >> > Any ideas?
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    >
    >
     
  10. Joan Wild

    Joan Wild
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Odd, I thought it went missing a couple of weeks to a month ago.

    --
    Joan Wild
    Microsoft Access MVP

    '69 Camaro wrote:
    > Hi, Joan.
    >
    > Thanks for that. The link was working when I posted it last night
    > and again this morning when I checked, but it's certainly not working
    > now.
    > Gunny
    >
    > See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and
    > tutorials.
    > http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for
    > contact info.
    >
    > "Joan Wild" <jwild@nospamtyenet.com> wrote in message
    > news:%23B9kmVgoGHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >> '69 Camaro wrote:
    >>>
    >>> And when you gain more experience in Access, you'll realize that the
    >>> explanations you were given, the example syntax, and the link to
    >>> instructions on how to properly secure your Access database were
    >>> helpful, because they pointed you in the right direction.
    >>>>>

    >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/access/content/secfaq.aspJust
    >> a FYI, that link isn't valid anymore, but
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=207793 is--Joan WildMicrosoft
    >> Access MVP
     
  11. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi, Joan.

    Microsoft changes their Web page URL's so often that I recheck URL's before
    I post them. I don't know why that one appears to come and go. This
    slightly altered URL appears to work, at least for now:

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?id=/support/access/content/secfaq.asp

    But I think I'll use yours from now on because it appears to be stable.
    Thanks for the heads up.

    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "Joan Wild" <jwild@nospamtyenet.com> wrote in message
    news:eS8b89poGHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    > Odd, I thought it went missing a couple of weeks to a month ago.
    >
    > --
    > Joan Wild
    > Microsoft Access MVP
    >
    > '69 Camaro wrote:
    >> Hi, Joan.
    >>
    >> Thanks for that. The link was working when I posted it last night
    >> and again this morning when I checked, but it's certainly not working
    >> now.
    >> Gunny
    >>
    >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and
    >> tutorials.
    >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for
    >> contact info.
    >>
    >> "Joan Wild" <jwild@nospamtyenet.com> wrote in message
    >> news:%23B9kmVgoGHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >>> '69 Camaro wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> And when you gain more experience in Access, you'll realize that the
    >>>> explanations you were given, the example syntax, and the link to
    >>>> instructions on how to properly secure your Access database were
    >>>> helpful, because they pointed you in the right direction.
    >>>>>>
    >>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/access/content/secfaq.aspJust
    >>> a FYI, that link isn't valid anymore, but
    >>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=207793 is--Joan WildMicrosoft
    >>> Access MVP

    >
    >
     
  12. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Ma'am,

    You're taking offense where none is intended. Have you never heard the
    legend of El Zorro, the fox, considered a hero and a very crafty character
    in California folklore? The term "crazy like a fox" means a very clever,
    shrewd individual, one that others might not see how clever he is until he
    runs away from the chicken coop with every chicken while the other animals
    are still puzzling over how to get into the chicken coop and grab even one
    chicken. When you post a question in the Access newsgroups and get quick
    answers from the experts, you get to be the genius in your organization,
    because you quickly solved the problem that no one else knew how to solve
    and, had your co-workers been in your shoes, they know that they would have
    still been struggling over it long after you figured it out and went on to
    the next problem.

    > Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within my
    > question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me


    It may be crystal clear to you, but the terms XP2002 and XP2003 don't
    clearly define what you think they do. If you read as many posts from new
    posters as we do, you'd find that way too often the subject line doesn't
    match the content of the post. XP means Windows XP to most people, not
    Office XP. People occasionally refer to Access 2003 as part of Office XP,
    which is obvious to us that it's incorrect, but not to those people. 2003
    generally means Windows 2003 Server, since far more people are connected to
    Windows 2003 Server on their networks than are using Access 2003.

    > I'm not a genius nor do I have enough Access experience to know what I'm
    > talking about according to you.


    You knew exactly where to come to get instant answers without having to pore
    over thick books, or do days or weeks of trial and error to make discoveries
    about how Access really works -- and you think I'd put you in the "not a
    genius" category? Hardly. I wish I'd known about this resource when I was
    struggling as an Access developer. You found the newsgroups precisely when
    you could benefit from them. I certainly didn't. I think people who know
    how to use the newsgroups to make themselves more productive at their jobs
    and make themselves look like geniuses are brilliant.

    As for not having enough Access experience to know what you're talking
    about, you already realize that you didn't articulate yourself very well in
    your first post but, as with most things, we get better with practice, and
    you'll do a better job next time.

    > Just like you are certain that I am not experienced at Access,


    You may have experience with Access but, like most people, you need help
    straightening out User-level Security. When you solve your problem, you'll
    realize that you received good advice, but at this point in time, it's hard
    for you to see how the current path is going to get you to your destination.
    That's what I was referring to when I mentioned, "And when you gain more
    experience in Access, you'll realize that the explanations you were given, .
    .. . were helpful," even though you dismissed the advice on first sight.

    > posting
    > questions


    You haven't posted many questions in the Access newsgroups, so no, you're
    not an experienced poster yet. Experienced posters know how to post
    well-written questions, know why they shouldn't multipost, and know why they
    shouldn't be rude. Most questioners get quick, accurate, helpful responses
    and have a pleasant experience in the newsgroups. If you aren't getting
    that same type of experience, then please see
    http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm for some helpful hints.

    > and being male! That's right, idiot I am a male.


    Perhaps you think that a self-respecting man behaves illogically, makes a
    mountain out of a molehill, complains of being a victim ad nauseam,
    redirects blame, jumps to conclusions, assumes others can read his mind,
    nitpicks and nags on and on, and analyzes every detail of an encounter
    trying to draw some kind of meaning by reading between every line -- and
    doesn't even notice that he's doing any of these things. Your claim just
    isn't believable because of your efforts thus far:

    1.) "While it is true that I did use some interesting terminology to
    describe my situation, I did so with the idea that I would receive feedback
    from PROFESSIONALS who would understand what I meant."

    Translation: "You didn't satisfy me, but you should have because you knew
    what I meant!"

    Interpretation: Notice the artful redirection of blame, the careful
    avoidance of admission of "I may have made a mistake in my description," the
    expectation that the intended audience has mind reading capabilities, the
    subtle jab that the intended audience is unprofessional, and the indicator
    where an inflection of the voice would emphasize the jab so that there can
    be no doubt: it's a jab.

    Conclusion: Woman.


    2.) "Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within my
    question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me . . .
    "

    Translation: "I'm going to point out the part that I didn't obfuscate so
    that I can pretend that I was unreasonably attacked, and this was the issue
    that I was attacked for."

    Interpretation: Notice the avoidance of the terms XP2002 and XP2003 in this
    explanation by the author, the only terms that were pointed out as confused
    expressions.

    Conclusion: Convenient amnesia.


    3.) "My problem with you started . . . "

    Translation: Nag.

    Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
    speaker doesn't notice.

    Conclusion: Woman.


    4.) "Instead you chose to belittle me with your 'perhaps you don't have
    this or perhaps that.'"

    Translation: "You're victimizing me."

    Interpretation: Notice the taking out of context the guesses for the
    definitions of the author's made-up names ("XP2002" -> "perhaps you don't
    have either Access or Microsoft Office. . . ") in order to pretend that the
    author is being ridiculed with some other term, such as, "perhaps you don't
    have money . . . ," or "perhaps you have VD. . . ," et cetera, so that
    people will take pity on this undeserving "victim" when they, too, jump to
    the author's conclusions.

    Conclusion: Stretching the truth to extract pity from others by jumping to
    illogical conclusions.


    5.) "This entire dispute . . ."

    Translation: "I have to escalate these posts to a level where people will
    notice me and my complaints."

    Interpretation: Making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Conclusion: Woman.


    6.) "Your personal attacks on me, my surname and my abilities are
    intolerable."

    Translation: "Don't confuse me with the facts. I refuse to believe that
    your compliments are intended as anything but offensive."

    Interpretation: Notice the only attacks in this thread are the name
    calling, which only come from the author who wants to claim to be the
    "victim."

    Conclusion: Convenient amnesia.


    7.) "You should not be allowed to treat people the same as you have me.
    You are not what I would consider a professional."

    Translation: "Off with his head!"

    Interpretation: Notice the unmentioned future opportunities to practice on
    the author until the author eventually becomes a satisfied customer.

    Conclusion: I feel very fortunate that I have you to practice on to improve
    my people skills. Don't be surprised if the other regular responders allow
    me to be the sole responder to all of your posts, so that I get as much
    practice as possible.


    8.) "You are, in my humble opinion, . . ."

    Translation: More nagging.

    Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
    speaker doesn't notice.

    Conclusion: Woman.


    9.) "But you wouldn't know that because you aren't the kind . . . "

    Translation: Still nagging.

    Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
    speaker doesn't notice. And when you're done nagging, you can add that I
    squeeze the toothpaste from the middle of the tube to my long list of
    shortcomings.

    Conclusion: Woman.


    10.) "Perhaps you're just a jerk . . . "

    Translation: "You're a jerk."

    Interpretation: Notice the word choice. Men have a far more colorful
    vocabulary when speaking to the people who tick them off. Guys in Southern
    California don't tell others that they're jerks, but the women do.

    Conclusion: Woman.


    11.) "People come here looking for help not to be belittled . . ." and ". .
    .. Instead you chose to belittle me"

    Translation: "You made me feel inferior."

    Interpretation: Notice the word choice of "belittle." Notice the complaint
    of "feelings" instead of a physical or verbal reaction to an imagined
    slight. Notice the lack of avoidance of the label, "crybaby," which would
    be considered a weakness in a man, because the author has no fear of
    receiving such a label.

    Conclusion: Woman.


    12.) "That's right, idiot I am a male."

    Translation: "You should know I'm not going to give in one inch and admit
    that you're right about anything, not even my gender!"

    Interpretation: Again, notice the word choice. Notice the failure to claim
    identity, "I'm a man." Women may not realize that there's a very important
    distinction, but men from Southern California aren't going to miss this.

    Conclusion: Woman.


    13.) "I am typically not one to indulge in disputing over the internet . .
    .. "

    Translation: "I want to present my case in the court of public opinion
    because I've been wronged!"

    Interpretation: Notice the bizarre overreaction in both of the author's
    responses in this thread. Classic sign of PMS.

    Conclusion: Woman.


    And I could go on, but as we can see, there's no evidence that you've
    reacted or behaved like we would expect a man to react or behave. My
    advice, ma'am, is to eat some chocolate. It won't fix anything, but it'll
    make you feel better.

    But if you want to fix the problem, have a user with Access 2003 installed
    on his workstation, and who can't open the forms, sign into the secured
    Access database application, and press <CTRL><G> to open the Immediate
    Window. Paste the following into it, then press <ENTER>:

    ?syscmd(acSysCmdGetWorkgroupFile)

    .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:

    ?currentdb().Name

    .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:

    ?currentuser()

    Record all three values and then have the same user sign into a workstation
    that has Access 2002 installed and where the user can open the forms
    successfully. After opening the secure database application, have the user
    press <CTRL><G> to open the Immediate Window. Paste the following into it,
    then press <ENTER>:

    ?syscmd(acSysCmdGetWorkgroupFile)

    .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:

    ?currentdb().Name

    .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:

    ?currentuser()

    Again, record all three values. Now compare these values with the ones
    recorded from the Access 2003 workstation. If they match, then compare the
    mapped drives used in the paths on both workstations to ensure that they
    point to exactly the same networked server and directory.

    You'll find that the Access 2003 users who can't open the forms in Access
    2003 -- but can in Access 2002 -- don't have the same permissions granted on
    these forms because they 1.) aren't using the same workgroup file, or 2.)
    they aren't opening the same database file, or 3.) they aren't signing in
    as the same user. So yes, it really is that easy to find and fix the
    problem and make yourself look like an Access genius in your organization,
    since everyone else is still stumped.

    And if you research the newsgroup archives, you'll find lots more tips and
    tricks that make you look like an Access genius every time you use them.
    And if you take the time to research these tips and tricks and save the best
    ones for later, that would be "crazy like a fox." And if you think this is
    another personal attack, eat some more chocolate.

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:5555963C-E5BD-494A-B5EA-8F509CA7CC81@microsoft.com...
    > Gunny,
    >
    > I am typically not one to indulge in disputing over the internet but you
    > sir/madam are completely out of line. While it is true that I did use
    > some
    > interesting terminology to describe my situation, I did so with the idea
    > that
    > I would receive feedback from PROFESSIONALS who would understand what I
    > meant.
    >
    > Let's take a look at this situation. I posted a question under the
    > category
    > of Access, titled my question "Access 2002/2003 user level security".
    > Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within my
    > question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me and
    > I'm not a genius nor do I have enough Access experience to know what I'm
    > talking about according to you.
    >
    > My problem with you started with you're arrogant response to my question.
    > If the wording of my question left you with doubts as to what exactly I
    > meant
    > then why wouldn't you simply ask me to clarify the points of your
    > contention?
    > Wouldn't that be the professional thing to do? Instead you chose to
    > belittle me with your "perhaps you don't have this or perhaps that".
    > FYI -
    > It is not professional to handle my question the way you did nor is it
    > polite.
    >
    > This entire dispute could have been avoided had you have used the smallest
    > amount of courtesy or professionalism when you first responded to my
    > question.
    >
    > Your personal attacks on me, my surname and my abilities are intolerable.
    > You should not be allowed to treat people the same as you have me. You
    > are
    > not what I would consider a professional. You are, in my humble opinion,
    > one
    > of these "know it all" arrogant individuals who doesn't give anyone a
    > chance
    > because they probably don't know as much as you. This you are certain of.
    > Just like you are certain that I am not experienced at Access, posting
    > questions and being male! That's right, idiot I am a male. But you
    > wouldn't
    > know that because you aren't the kind to stop and smell the roses. You
    > are
    > the kind to offend first and never look back.
    >
    > Good-bye
    >
    >
    >
    > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >
    >> > Perhaps you're just a jerk with too much time on your hands.

    >>
    >> 1.) Ma'am, you do yourself a disservice when you provide incorrect
    >> information in your post and expect people to guess at what you really
    >> mean,
    >> because you may not get the responses you need to help you fix your
    >> problem
    >> or help you accomplish your goal in a timely manner.
    >>
    >> 2.) Ma'am, you do yourself a disservice when you are rude to responders,
    >> because others read your replies and may avoid helping you in the future
    >> because they want to avoid getting the same treatment from you.
    >>
    >> 3.) You do yourself a disservice when you multipost a question to
    >> multiple
    >> newsgroups, because when people find out that the question has already
    >> been
    >> answered elsewhere, they will want to avoid having you squander their
    >> time
    >> needlessly and will be inclined to place your name in their kill file so
    >> that they never see your posts again -- and therefore won't be available
    >> to
    >> help you next time you ask. Please note that multiposting multiple
    >> questions to several newsgroups is not the same as cross-posting one
    >> question to several newsgroups, where everyone can read others' responses
    >> to
    >> the question, even if the responses were made in the other cross-posted
    >> newsgroups. For more information, please see the section, "Asking
    >> questions
    >> the right way," on the following Web page:
    >>
    >> http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm
    >>
    >> > People come here looking for help not to be belittled by some smart-###
    >> > who
    >> > probably doesn't have a clue what it means to help someone.

    >>
    >> Ma'am, you weren't belittled, but your made-up names were specifically
    >> pointed out so that you don't repeat them next time. Pointing out that
    >> such
    >> made-up names only succeed in blurring what you are trying to describe as
    >> your problem is far more effective than ignoring what you write and
    >> guessing
    >> what you really mean, as will become frustratingly clear to you if you
    >> don't
    >> take steps to avoid such confusion.
    >>
    >> And when you gain more experience in Access, you'll realize that the
    >> explanations you were given, the example syntax, and the link to
    >> instructions on how to properly secure your Access database were helpful,
    >> because they pointed you in the right direction. And when you gain more
    >> experience in posting to newsgroups, you'll realize that people who need
    >> help but offer insults in return for that help don't get the same kind of
    >> help in the future that polite posters get, nor do they get it as
    >> quickly.
    >>
    >> > If the problem were as easy as you try to make it then I wouldn't be
    >> > wasting
    >> > my time posting a question here.

    >>
    >> Your self-esteem is at stake, so you aren't going to publicly admit this,
    >> but you are about to find out what everyone else who is experienced in
    >> User-level Security already knows. Your problem really is as easy as
    >> I've
    >> made it out to be, and it really is as simple to fix as I've suggested,
    >> once
    >> you've had some practice at it. And you're not wasting your time posting
    >> questions here on how to solve problems, whether they're easy or hard, as
    >> long as you post clear and concise questions, and you aren't
    >> intentionally
    >> rude. Your problem has stumped you and you need the help of those who
    >> have
    >> more experience in this area so that you can quickly fix the problem and
    >> look like a genius within your organization. You can ignore my advice
    >> and
    >> the advice of others who give you similar advice, but you will do so at
    >> the
    >> risk of either taking too long to solve the problem yourself or possibly
    >> not
    >> solving the problem at all, neither of which will serve to make your boss
    >> proud that he hired you.
    >>
    >> > I humbly request that you do not ever post to one of my questions ever
    >> > again.

    >>
    >> Ah. An invitation to pester you since I have all this time on my hands.
    >> I
    >> accept.
    >>
    >> Since you know where to find the best answers with the least effort and
    >> with
    >> a name like "Cfox4," I expect you to come under the category of "crazy
    >> like
    >> a fox," so I have high hopes that we can make you look like an Access
    >> genius
    >> in your organization, despite your having stepped off on the wrong foot.
    >>
    >> HTH.
    >> Gunny
    >>
    >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    >> info.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> news:3C094671-670E-4E90-A59C-D86B367C36F1@microsoft.com...
    >> > Perhaps you're just a jerk with too much time on your hands.
    >> > People come here looking for help not to be belittled by some smart-###
    >> > who
    >> > probably doesn't have a clue what it means to help someone.
    >> >
    >> > If the problem were as easy as you try to make it then I wouldn't be
    >> > wasting
    >> > my time posting a question here.
    >> >
    >> > I humbly request that you do not ever post to one of my questions ever
    >> > again. Thanks but no thanks
    >> >
    >> > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Hi.
    >> >>
    >> >> > I've got an XP2002 db
    >> >>
    >> >> Perhaps you mean that you have an Access 2002 database file, along
    >> >> with
    >> >> Microsoft Office XP installed on your workstation, or perhaps you
    >> >> don't
    >> >> have
    >> >> either Access or Microsoft Office, but merely the Windows XP operating
    >> >> system on your workstation.
    >> >>
    >> >> > My
    >> >> > problem is that my XP2003 users
    >> >>
    >> >> Perhaps you mean that your users have Access 2003 installed on their
    >> >> workstations, along with the Microsoft Office XP suite, or perhaps
    >> >> they
    >> >> have
    >> >> Windows XP or Windows 2003 operating systems. My point is that if you
    >> >> express confusion about which versions of Access you have or which
    >> >> operating
    >> >> system you have when you post a question, don't be surprised when you
    >> >> receive answers that don't pertain to your situation.
    >> >>
    >> >> > Is there a file format issue here?
    >> >>
    >> >> Of course not. Both Access 2002 and Access 2003 can use the same
    >> >> workgroup
    >> >> file in the same database format.
    >> >>
    >> >> > Any ideas?
    >> >>
    >> >> The most common reason is that one group of users (the group that
    >> >> fails)
    >> >> is
    >> >> using the wrong workgroup file, which is almost always the default
    >> >> workgroup
    >> >> file. Have all users open the database with a Windows shortcut, and
    >> >> ensure
    >> >> that the syntax uses the complete path of the Access executable, the
    >> >> database file, and the workgroup file. For example (watch out for
    >> >> word
    >> >> wrap, as this should be all one line):
    >> >>
    >> >> "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\MSAccess.exe"
    >> >> "C:\Data\MyDB.mdb"
    >> >> /wrkgrp "C:\Data\Secure.mdw"
    >> >>
    >> >> And if you find out that one of the groups of users really is using
    >> >> the
    >> >> wrong workgroup file, but can open the database file anyway, then you
    >> >> have
    >> >> sufficient proof that the database is not secured properly. If this
    >> >> is
    >> >> the
    >> >> case, then please see the following Web page for instructions on how
    >> >> to
    >> >> implement User-level Security correctly:
    >> >>
    >> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/access/content/secfaq.asp
    >> >>
    >> >> Study the Security FAQ and practice on a copy of the database several
    >> >> times
    >> >> before trying it on the real database, because it's easy to lock
    >> >> yourself
    >> >> out.
    >> >>
    >> >> HTH.
    >> >> Gunny
    >> >>
    >> >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    >> >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and
    >> >> tutorials.
    >> >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for
    >> >> contact
    >> >> info.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> >> news:31034E44-7F60-4E5E-A9B1-ED2A71A16B95@microsoft.com...
    >> >> > I've got an XP2002 db that I secured via user level security. My
    >> >> > problem is that my XP2003 users cannot open forms. They get the
    >> >> > error
    >> >> > "you do not have open/run priveleges on <form>"
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I've had those same 2003 users log into the db on a 2002 machine and
    >> >> > they are able to open the forms. Is there a file format issue here?
    >> >> > Any ideas?
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
  13. Cfox4

    Cfox4
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Gunny,

    My name is Chris Fox. I live in Irvine, California. You've made reference
    to southern California as if you live in the area. I hope so. I would like
    to meet you. No, that is not a threat. It's an invitation. Two reasons 1.
    To prove that I am a man. 2. Anybody who can put together a response as
    comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!

    At first I was pissed when you responded to my posting. I felt you were
    trying to make me look stupid. Suffice it to say that I believe you should
    have handled it differently. I think you should try harder at giving someone
    the benefit of the doubt before you start in on them. I can promise you
    this, if you would have given that courtesy to me, none of this nonsense
    would have happened. A little respect goes a long way in this world.
    Wouldn't you agree?

    I am not in the business of making enemies. So for any disrespect I've
    shown you, I apologize. And that's the last of it for me. I am far too busy
    to keep up with jarring back and forth over stupid stuff.

    I have already tried what you are suggesting in your response. Since you
    have once again attempted to give advice, I will bounce this off you.

    I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the workgroup
    file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup form
    opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person who
    before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed and
    login without issue.

    Also I should mention this is a split db. Both the FE and BE are 2000 file
    format. The mdw is also 2000 format.

    Now what do you think?


    ..






    "'69 Camaro" wrote:

    > Ma'am,
    >
    > You're taking offense where none is intended. Have you never heard the
    > legend of El Zorro, the fox, considered a hero and a very crafty character
    > in California folklore? The term "crazy like a fox" means a very clever,
    > shrewd individual, one that others might not see how clever he is until he
    > runs away from the chicken coop with every chicken while the other animals
    > are still puzzling over how to get into the chicken coop and grab even one
    > chicken. When you post a question in the Access newsgroups and get quick
    > answers from the experts, you get to be the genius in your organization,
    > because you quickly solved the problem that no one else knew how to solve
    > and, had your co-workers been in your shoes, they know that they would have
    > still been struggling over it long after you figured it out and went on to
    > the next problem.
    >
    > > Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within my
    > > question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me

    >
    > It may be crystal clear to you, but the terms XP2002 and XP2003 don't
    > clearly define what you think they do. If you read as many posts from new
    > posters as we do, you'd find that way too often the subject line doesn't
    > match the content of the post. XP means Windows XP to most people, not
    > Office XP. People occasionally refer to Access 2003 as part of Office XP,
    > which is obvious to us that it's incorrect, but not to those people. 2003
    > generally means Windows 2003 Server, since far more people are connected to
    > Windows 2003 Server on their networks than are using Access 2003.
    >
    > > I'm not a genius nor do I have enough Access experience to know what I'm
    > > talking about according to you.

    >
    > You knew exactly where to come to get instant answers without having to pore
    > over thick books, or do days or weeks of trial and error to make discoveries
    > about how Access really works -- and you think I'd put you in the "not a
    > genius" category? Hardly. I wish I'd known about this resource when I was
    > struggling as an Access developer. You found the newsgroups precisely when
    > you could benefit from them. I certainly didn't. I think people who know
    > how to use the newsgroups to make themselves more productive at their jobs
    > and make themselves look like geniuses are brilliant.
    >
    > As for not having enough Access experience to know what you're talking
    > about, you already realize that you didn't articulate yourself very well in
    > your first post but, as with most things, we get better with practice, and
    > you'll do a better job next time.
    >
    > > Just like you are certain that I am not experienced at Access,

    >
    > You may have experience with Access but, like most people, you need help
    > straightening out User-level Security. When you solve your problem, you'll
    > realize that you received good advice, but at this point in time, it's hard
    > for you to see how the current path is going to get you to your destination.
    > That's what I was referring to when I mentioned, "And when you gain more
    > experience in Access, you'll realize that the explanations you were given, .
    > .. . were helpful," even though you dismissed the advice on first sight.
    >
    > > posting
    > > questions

    >
    > You haven't posted many questions in the Access newsgroups, so no, you're
    > not an experienced poster yet. Experienced posters know how to post
    > well-written questions, know why they shouldn't multipost, and know why they
    > shouldn't be rude. Most questioners get quick, accurate, helpful responses
    > and have a pleasant experience in the newsgroups. If you aren't getting
    > that same type of experience, then please see
    > http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm for some helpful hints.
    >
    > > and being male! That's right, idiot I am a male.

    >
    > Perhaps you think that a self-respecting man behaves illogically, makes a
    > mountain out of a molehill, complains of being a victim ad nauseam,
    > redirects blame, jumps to conclusions, assumes others can read his mind,
    > nitpicks and nags on and on, and analyzes every detail of an encounter
    > trying to draw some kind of meaning by reading between every line -- and
    > doesn't even notice that he's doing any of these things. Your claim just
    > isn't believable because of your efforts thus far:
    >
    > 1.) "While it is true that I did use some interesting terminology to
    > describe my situation, I did so with the idea that I would receive feedback
    > from PROFESSIONALS who would understand what I meant."
    >
    > Translation: "You didn't satisfy me, but you should have because you knew
    > what I meant!"
    >
    > Interpretation: Notice the artful redirection of blame, the careful
    > avoidance of admission of "I may have made a mistake in my description," the
    > expectation that the intended audience has mind reading capabilities, the
    > subtle jab that the intended audience is unprofessional, and the indicator
    > where an inflection of the voice would emphasize the jab so that there can
    > be no doubt: it's a jab.
    >
    > Conclusion: Woman.
    >
    >
    > 2.) "Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within my
    > question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me . . .
    > "
    >
    > Translation: "I'm going to point out the part that I didn't obfuscate so
    > that I can pretend that I was unreasonably attacked, and this was the issue
    > that I was attacked for."
    >
    > Interpretation: Notice the avoidance of the terms XP2002 and XP2003 in this
    > explanation by the author, the only terms that were pointed out as confused
    > expressions.
    >
    > Conclusion: Convenient amnesia.
    >
    >
    > 3.) "My problem with you started . . . "
    >
    > Translation: Nag.
    >
    > Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
    > speaker doesn't notice.
    >
    > Conclusion: Woman.
    >
    >
    > 4.) "Instead you chose to belittle me with your 'perhaps you don't have
    > this or perhaps that.'"
    >
    > Translation: "You're victimizing me."
    >
    > Interpretation: Notice the taking out of context the guesses for the
    > definitions of the author's made-up names ("XP2002" -> "perhaps you don't
    > have either Access or Microsoft Office. . . ") in order to pretend that the
    > author is being ridiculed with some other term, such as, "perhaps you don't
    > have money . . . ," or "perhaps you have VD. . . ," et cetera, so that
    > people will take pity on this undeserving "victim" when they, too, jump to
    > the author's conclusions.
    >
    > Conclusion: Stretching the truth to extract pity from others by jumping to
    > illogical conclusions.
    >
    >
    > 5.) "This entire dispute . . ."
    >
    > Translation: "I have to escalate these posts to a level where people will
    > notice me and my complaints."
    >
    > Interpretation: Making a mountain out of a molehill.
    >
    > Conclusion: Woman.
    >
    >
    > 6.) "Your personal attacks on me, my surname and my abilities are
    > intolerable."
    >
    > Translation: "Don't confuse me with the facts. I refuse to believe that
    > your compliments are intended as anything but offensive."
    >
    > Interpretation: Notice the only attacks in this thread are the name
    > calling, which only come from the author who wants to claim to be the
    > "victim."
    >
    > Conclusion: Convenient amnesia.
    >
    >
    > 7.) "You should not be allowed to treat people the same as you have me.
    > You are not what I would consider a professional."
    >
    > Translation: "Off with his head!"
    >
    > Interpretation: Notice the unmentioned future opportunities to practice on
    > the author until the author eventually becomes a satisfied customer.
    >
    > Conclusion: I feel very fortunate that I have you to practice on to improve
    > my people skills. Don't be surprised if the other regular responders allow
    > me to be the sole responder to all of your posts, so that I get as much
    > practice as possible.
    >
    >
    > 8.) "You are, in my humble opinion, . . ."
    >
    > Translation: More nagging.
    >
    > Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
    > speaker doesn't notice.
    >
    > Conclusion: Woman.
    >
    >
    > 9.) "But you wouldn't know that because you aren't the kind . . . "
    >
    > Translation: Still nagging.
    >
    > Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
    > speaker doesn't notice. And when you're done nagging, you can add that I
    > squeeze the toothpaste from the middle of the tube to my long list of
    > shortcomings.
    >
    > Conclusion: Woman.
    >
    >
    > 10.) "Perhaps you're just a jerk . . . "
    >
    > Translation: "You're a jerk."
    >
    > Interpretation: Notice the word choice. Men have a far more colorful
    > vocabulary when speaking to the people who tick them off. Guys in Southern
    > California don't tell others that they're jerks, but the women do.
    >
    > Conclusion: Woman.
    >
    >
    > 11.) "People come here looking for help not to be belittled . . ." and ". .
    > .. Instead you chose to belittle me"
    >
    > Translation: "You made me feel inferior."
    >
    > Interpretation: Notice the word choice of "belittle." Notice the complaint
    > of "feelings" instead of a physical or verbal reaction to an imagined
    > slight. Notice the lack of avoidance of the label, "crybaby," which would
    > be considered a weakness in a man, because the author has no fear of
    > receiving such a label.
    >
    > Conclusion: Woman.
    >
    >
    > 12.) "That's right, idiot I am a male."
    >
    > Translation: "You should know I'm not going to give in one inch and admit
    > that you're right about anything, not even my gender!"
    >
    > Interpretation: Again, notice the word choice. Notice the failure to claim
    > identity, "I'm a man." Women may not realize that there's a very important
    > distinction, but men from Southern California aren't going to miss this.
    >
    > Conclusion: Woman.
    >
    >
    > 13.) "I am typically not one to indulge in disputing over the internet . .
    > .. "
    >
    > Translation: "I want to present my case in the court of public opinion
    > because I've been wronged!"
    >
    > Interpretation: Notice the bizarre overreaction in both of the author's
    > responses in this thread. Classic sign of PMS.
    >
    > Conclusion: Woman.
    >
    >
    > And I could go on, but as we can see, there's no evidence that you've
    > reacted or behaved like we would expect a man to react or behave. My
    > advice, ma'am, is to eat some chocolate. It won't fix anything, but it'll
    > make you feel better.
    >
    > But if you want to fix the problem, have a user with Access 2003 installed
    > on his workstation, and who can't open the forms, sign into the secured
    > Access database application, and press <CTRL><G> to open the Immediate
    > Window. Paste the following into it, then press <ENTER>:
    >
    > ?syscmd(acSysCmdGetWorkgroupFile)
    >
    > .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
    >
    > ?currentdb().Name
    >
    > .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
    >
    > ?currentuser()
    >
    > Record all three values and then have the same user sign into a workstation
    > that has Access 2002 installed and where the user can open the forms
    > successfully. After opening the secure database application, have the user
    > press <CTRL><G> to open the Immediate Window. Paste the following into it,
    > then press <ENTER>:
    >
    > ?syscmd(acSysCmdGetWorkgroupFile)
    >
    > .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
    >
    > ?currentdb().Name
    >
    > .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
    >
    > ?currentuser()
    >
    > Again, record all three values. Now compare these values with the ones
    > recorded from the Access 2003 workstation. If they match, then compare the
    > mapped drives used in the paths on both workstations to ensure that they
    > point to exactly the same networked server and directory.
    >
    > You'll find that the Access 2003 users who can't open the forms in Access
    > 2003 -- but can in Access 2002 -- don't have the same permissions granted on
    > these forms because they 1.) aren't using the same workgroup file, or 2.)
    > they aren't opening the same database file, or 3.) they aren't signing in
    > as the same user. So yes, it really is that easy to find and fix the
    > problem and make yourself look like an Access genius in your organization,
    > since everyone else is still stumped.
    >
    > And if you research the newsgroup archives, you'll find lots more tips and
    > tricks that make you look like an Access genius every time you use them.
    > And if you take the time to research these tips and tricks and save the best
    > ones for later, that would be "crazy like a fox." And if you think this is
    > another personal attack, eat some more chocolate.
    >
    > HTH.
    > Gunny
    >
     
  14. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi, Chris.

    > You've made reference
    > to southern California as if you live in the area.


    I'm one of your former neighbors. I used to live the other side of I-5, off
    Trabuco, so I'm well aware of whose lips the words "You're such a jerk!"
    fall off of when hanging around with Jarheads.

    > I would like
    > to meet you.


    No need. I can live with your believing I'm an arrogant jerk, so I don't
    need to make a long distance trip to meet you and attempt to disprove your
    low opinion of me.

    > Anybody who can put together a response as
    > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!


    Glad to see that you have a sense of humor. :)

    > I felt you were
    > trying to make me look stupid.


    I gathered that, which is why I tried to clarify my earlier message. As
    Doug mentioned, I should have worded it differently, but the offer of
    assistance is genuine. We're here to help those who ask for it. We get a
    lot of E-mails and messages from posters thanking us for making them look
    like geniuses in front of their managers, so I mentioned it to you so you
    wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the advice you were given:

    http://groups.google.com/group/micr...0772/3237d5a34e801c17?&hl=en#3237d5a34e801c17

    > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the workgroup
    > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup form
    > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person who
    > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed and
    > login without issue.


    Everything seems to be in order, so let's throw a monkey wrench into it. Go
    to one of the Access 2002 computers and log into the secure database as a
    member of the Admins Group and create a new user. Use a name where there
    can be no doubt as to the correct spelling, such as Papercut. Assign this
    user to the same group the Access 2003 users are having trouble with. At a
    minimum, this group should have permissions to open/run the database and to
    open/run the forms. This group should not be the Admins Group or the Users
    Group if your database is secured properly.

    Log out as the member of the Admins Group, then log in as this new member to
    ensure that this new user can open the database and the forms. If
    successful, assign a password. Log out. Log in again to ensure that the
    new password works. Log out.

    Go to an Access 2003 computer where the user can't open the forms in the
    secure database, and then log into the secure database as the new user. Can
    you open the database, or do you get a permissions error message when you
    either try to open the database or when you attempt to open the form?

    If you can't open the database, log in as one of the Access 2003 users.
    Select the Tools -> Security -> Users and Group Accounts... menu. Look at
    the list of users on the "Users" tab. Is your new user listed?

    > Both the FE and BE are 2000 file
    > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.


    That's okay. User-level Security is virtually unchanged in all three
    versions, Access 2000, 2002, and 2003. The Access 2000 workgroup
    information file contains all the information you need to use with a secure
    database, regardless of whether you are using Access 2002 or 2003 to open
    it.

    The only problems that you might encounter with the Access 2000 database
    format are when 1.) the database file is secured with the Access 2000
    Security Wizard, because there's a bug in it that leaves your database
    unsecured, or 2.) the workgroup information file is corrupted. You'll know
    that the workgroup information file is corrupted because you'll get really,
    really bizarre error messages when you use it to open and run a secure
    database. Your form permissions problem doesn't look like it fits into this
    category, because one group of users (Access 2002) is having no problems
    with it. Presumably they are multiple, concurrent users -- or are they
    accessing the workgroup file one user at a time? (The latter might not
    display bizarre error messages as often or as readily as when many people
    are using the file at the same time.)

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:983AEA09-C64F-4AAA-BC28-1240A271627A@microsoft.com...
    > Gunny,
    >
    > My name is Chris Fox. I live in Irvine, California. You've made
    > reference
    > to southern California as if you live in the area. I hope so. I would
    > like
    > to meet you. No, that is not a threat. It's an invitation. Two reasons
    > 1.
    > To prove that I am a man. 2. Anybody who can put together a response as
    > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    >
    > At first I was pissed when you responded to my posting. I felt you were
    > trying to make me look stupid. Suffice it to say that I believe you
    > should
    > have handled it differently. I think you should try harder at giving
    > someone
    > the benefit of the doubt before you start in on them. I can promise you
    > this, if you would have given that courtesy to me, none of this nonsense
    > would have happened. A little respect goes a long way in this world.
    > Wouldn't you agree?
    >
    > I am not in the business of making enemies. So for any disrespect I've
    > shown you, I apologize. And that's the last of it for me. I am far too
    > busy
    > to keep up with jarring back and forth over stupid stuff.
    >
    > I have already tried what you are suggesting in your response. Since you
    > have once again attempted to give advice, I will bounce this off you.
    >
    > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the workgroup
    > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup form
    > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person who
    > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed and
    > login without issue.
    >
    > Also I should mention this is a split db. Both the FE and BE are 2000
    > file
    > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    >
    > Now what do you think?
    >
    >
    > .
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >
    >> Ma'am,
    >>
    >> You're taking offense where none is intended. Have you never heard the
    >> legend of El Zorro, the fox, considered a hero and a very crafty
    >> character
    >> in California folklore? The term "crazy like a fox" means a very clever,
    >> shrewd individual, one that others might not see how clever he is until
    >> he
    >> runs away from the chicken coop with every chicken while the other
    >> animals
    >> are still puzzling over how to get into the chicken coop and grab even
    >> one
    >> chicken. When you post a question in the Access newsgroups and get quick
    >> answers from the experts, you get to be the genius in your organization,
    >> because you quickly solved the problem that no one else knew how to solve
    >> and, had your co-workers been in your shoes, they know that they would
    >> have
    >> still been struggling over it long after you figured it out and went on
    >> to
    >> the next problem.
    >>
    >> > Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within my
    >> > question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me

    >>
    >> It may be crystal clear to you, but the terms XP2002 and XP2003 don't
    >> clearly define what you think they do. If you read as many posts from
    >> new
    >> posters as we do, you'd find that way too often the subject line doesn't
    >> match the content of the post. XP means Windows XP to most people, not
    >> Office XP. People occasionally refer to Access 2003 as part of Office
    >> XP,
    >> which is obvious to us that it's incorrect, but not to those people.
    >> 2003
    >> generally means Windows 2003 Server, since far more people are connected
    >> to
    >> Windows 2003 Server on their networks than are using Access 2003.
    >>
    >> > I'm not a genius nor do I have enough Access experience to know what
    >> > I'm
    >> > talking about according to you.

    >>
    >> You knew exactly where to come to get instant answers without having to
    >> pore
    >> over thick books, or do days or weeks of trial and error to make
    >> discoveries
    >> about how Access really works -- and you think I'd put you in the "not a
    >> genius" category? Hardly. I wish I'd known about this resource when I
    >> was
    >> struggling as an Access developer. You found the newsgroups precisely
    >> when
    >> you could benefit from them. I certainly didn't. I think people who
    >> know
    >> how to use the newsgroups to make themselves more productive at their
    >> jobs
    >> and make themselves look like geniuses are brilliant.
    >>
    >> As for not having enough Access experience to know what you're talking
    >> about, you already realize that you didn't articulate yourself very well
    >> in
    >> your first post but, as with most things, we get better with practice,
    >> and
    >> you'll do a better job next time.
    >>
    >> > Just like you are certain that I am not experienced at Access,

    >>
    >> You may have experience with Access but, like most people, you need help
    >> straightening out User-level Security. When you solve your problem,
    >> you'll
    >> realize that you received good advice, but at this point in time, it's
    >> hard
    >> for you to see how the current path is going to get you to your
    >> destination.
    >> That's what I was referring to when I mentioned, "And when you gain more
    >> experience in Access, you'll realize that the explanations you were
    >> given, .
    >> .. . were helpful," even though you dismissed the advice on first sight.
    >>
    >> > posting
    >> > questions

    >>
    >> You haven't posted many questions in the Access newsgroups, so no, you're
    >> not an experienced poster yet. Experienced posters know how to post
    >> well-written questions, know why they shouldn't multipost, and know why
    >> they
    >> shouldn't be rude. Most questioners get quick, accurate, helpful
    >> responses
    >> and have a pleasant experience in the newsgroups. If you aren't getting
    >> that same type of experience, then please see
    >> http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm for some helpful hints.
    >>
    >> > and being male! That's right, idiot I am a male.

    >>
    >> Perhaps you think that a self-respecting man behaves illogically, makes a
    >> mountain out of a molehill, complains of being a victim ad nauseam,
    >> redirects blame, jumps to conclusions, assumes others can read his mind,
    >> nitpicks and nags on and on, and analyzes every detail of an encounter
    >> trying to draw some kind of meaning by reading between every line -- and
    >> doesn't even notice that he's doing any of these things. Your claim just
    >> isn't believable because of your efforts thus far:
    >>
    >> 1.) "While it is true that I did use some interesting terminology to
    >> describe my situation, I did so with the idea that I would receive
    >> feedback
    >> from PROFESSIONALS who would understand what I meant."
    >>
    >> Translation: "You didn't satisfy me, but you should have because you
    >> knew
    >> what I meant!"
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Notice the artful redirection of blame, the careful
    >> avoidance of admission of "I may have made a mistake in my description,"
    >> the
    >> expectation that the intended audience has mind reading capabilities, the
    >> subtle jab that the intended audience is unprofessional, and the
    >> indicator
    >> where an inflection of the voice would emphasize the jab so that there
    >> can
    >> be no doubt: it's a jab.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Woman.
    >>
    >>
    >> 2.) "Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within
    >> my
    >> question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me .
    >> . .
    >> "
    >>
    >> Translation: "I'm going to point out the part that I didn't obfuscate so
    >> that I can pretend that I was unreasonably attacked, and this was the
    >> issue
    >> that I was attacked for."
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Notice the avoidance of the terms XP2002 and XP2003 in
    >> this
    >> explanation by the author, the only terms that were pointed out as
    >> confused
    >> expressions.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Convenient amnesia.
    >>
    >>
    >> 3.) "My problem with you started . . . "
    >>
    >> Translation: Nag.
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
    >> speaker doesn't notice.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Woman.
    >>
    >>
    >> 4.) "Instead you chose to belittle me with your 'perhaps you don't have
    >> this or perhaps that.'"
    >>
    >> Translation: "You're victimizing me."
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Notice the taking out of context the guesses for the
    >> definitions of the author's made-up names ("XP2002" -> "perhaps you don't
    >> have either Access or Microsoft Office. . . ") in order to pretend that
    >> the
    >> author is being ridiculed with some other term, such as, "perhaps you
    >> don't
    >> have money . . . ," or "perhaps you have VD. . . ," et cetera, so that
    >> people will take pity on this undeserving "victim" when they, too, jump
    >> to
    >> the author's conclusions.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Stretching the truth to extract pity from others by jumping
    >> to
    >> illogical conclusions.
    >>
    >>
    >> 5.) "This entire dispute . . ."
    >>
    >> Translation: "I have to escalate these posts to a level where people
    >> will
    >> notice me and my complaints."
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Making a mountain out of a molehill.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Woman.
    >>
    >>
    >> 6.) "Your personal attacks on me, my surname and my abilities are
    >> intolerable."
    >>
    >> Translation: "Don't confuse me with the facts. I refuse to believe that
    >> your compliments are intended as anything but offensive."
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Notice the only attacks in this thread are the name
    >> calling, which only come from the author who wants to claim to be the
    >> "victim."
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Convenient amnesia.
    >>
    >>
    >> 7.) "You should not be allowed to treat people the same as you have me.
    >> You are not what I would consider a professional."
    >>
    >> Translation: "Off with his head!"
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Notice the unmentioned future opportunities to practice
    >> on
    >> the author until the author eventually becomes a satisfied customer.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: I feel very fortunate that I have you to practice on to
    >> improve
    >> my people skills. Don't be surprised if the other regular responders
    >> allow
    >> me to be the sole responder to all of your posts, so that I get as much
    >> practice as possible.
    >>
    >>
    >> 8.) "You are, in my humble opinion, . . ."
    >>
    >> Translation: More nagging.
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
    >> speaker doesn't notice.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Woman.
    >>
    >>
    >> 9.) "But you wouldn't know that because you aren't the kind . . . "
    >>
    >> Translation: Still nagging.
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
    >> speaker doesn't notice. And when you're done nagging, you can add that I
    >> squeeze the toothpaste from the middle of the tube to my long list of
    >> shortcomings.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Woman.
    >>
    >>
    >> 10.) "Perhaps you're just a jerk . . . "
    >>
    >> Translation: "You're a jerk."
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Notice the word choice. Men have a far more colorful
    >> vocabulary when speaking to the people who tick them off. Guys in
    >> Southern
    >> California don't tell others that they're jerks, but the women do.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Woman.
    >>
    >>
    >> 11.) "People come here looking for help not to be belittled . . ." and
    >> ". .
    >> .. Instead you chose to belittle me"
    >>
    >> Translation: "You made me feel inferior."
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Notice the word choice of "belittle." Notice the
    >> complaint
    >> of "feelings" instead of a physical or verbal reaction to an imagined
    >> slight. Notice the lack of avoidance of the label, "crybaby," which
    >> would
    >> be considered a weakness in a man, because the author has no fear of
    >> receiving such a label.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Woman.
    >>
    >>
    >> 12.) "That's right, idiot I am a male."
    >>
    >> Translation: "You should know I'm not going to give in one inch and
    >> admit
    >> that you're right about anything, not even my gender!"
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Again, notice the word choice. Notice the failure to
    >> claim
    >> identity, "I'm a man." Women may not realize that there's a very
    >> important
    >> distinction, but men from Southern California aren't going to miss this.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Woman.
    >>
    >>
    >> 13.) "I am typically not one to indulge in disputing over the internet .
    >> .
    >> .. "
    >>
    >> Translation: "I want to present my case in the court of public opinion
    >> because I've been wronged!"
    >>
    >> Interpretation: Notice the bizarre overreaction in both of the author's
    >> responses in this thread. Classic sign of PMS.
    >>
    >> Conclusion: Woman.
    >>
    >>
    >> And I could go on, but as we can see, there's no evidence that you've
    >> reacted or behaved like we would expect a man to react or behave. My
    >> advice, ma'am, is to eat some chocolate. It won't fix anything, but
    >> it'll
    >> make you feel better.
    >>
    >> But if you want to fix the problem, have a user with Access 2003
    >> installed
    >> on his workstation, and who can't open the forms, sign into the secured
    >> Access database application, and press <CTRL><G> to open the Immediate
    >> Window. Paste the following into it, then press <ENTER>:
    >>
    >> ?syscmd(acSysCmdGetWorkgroupFile)
    >>
    >> .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
    >>
    >> ?currentdb().Name
    >>
    >> .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
    >>
    >> ?currentuser()
    >>
    >> Record all three values and then have the same user sign into a
    >> workstation
    >> that has Access 2002 installed and where the user can open the forms
    >> successfully. After opening the secure database application, have the
    >> user
    >> press <CTRL><G> to open the Immediate Window. Paste the following into
    >> it,
    >> then press <ENTER>:
    >>
    >> ?syscmd(acSysCmdGetWorkgroupFile)
    >>
    >> .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
    >>
    >> ?currentdb().Name
    >>
    >> .. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
    >>
    >> ?currentuser()
    >>
    >> Again, record all three values. Now compare these values with the ones
    >> recorded from the Access 2003 workstation. If they match, then compare
    >> the
    >> mapped drives used in the paths on both workstations to ensure that they
    >> point to exactly the same networked server and directory.
    >>
    >> You'll find that the Access 2003 users who can't open the forms in Access
    >> 2003 -- but can in Access 2002 -- don't have the same permissions granted
    >> on
    >> these forms because they 1.) aren't using the same workgroup file, or 2.)
    >> they aren't opening the same database file, or 3.) they aren't signing
    >> in
    >> as the same user. So yes, it really is that easy to find and fix the
    >> problem and make yourself look like an Access genius in your
    >> organization,
    >> since everyone else is still stumped.
    >>
    >> And if you research the newsgroup archives, you'll find lots more tips
    >> and
    >> tricks that make you look like an Access genius every time you use them.
    >> And if you take the time to research these tips and tricks and save the
    >> best
    >> ones for later, that would be "crazy like a fox." And if you think this
    >> is
    >> another personal attack, eat some more chocolate.
    >>
    >> HTH.
    >> Gunny
    >>
     
  15. Cfox4

    Cfox4
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Gunny,

    Done with the test. Here's the results:

    I created a user - papercut. Made them part of the full data users group.
    The same group as the 2003 users. The group has open/run, read design,
    modify design rights on my start up form called MenuStartUp.

    Papercut on a 2003 machine) gets the message "You don't have permission to
    run 'MenuStartUp'.

    Papercut on a 2002 machine) the database opens normally. No messages at all.

    This form was not designed by me. It has a tab strip, some sub forms, and a
    quite a few unbound controls we use for searching different fields.

    Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms? Can a user with the
    above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control? To save
    space, the guy before me practiced using one subform control and changed it's
    source object depending on what search criteria was entered.

    This db was not designed with security in mind obviously. But I still don't
    get the different reaction between 2002 and 2003. If I get a message in
    2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?




    "'69 Camaro" wrote:

    > Hi, Chris.
    >
    > > You've made reference
    > > to southern California as if you live in the area.

    >
    > I'm one of your former neighbors. I used to live the other side of I-5, off
    > Trabuco, so I'm well aware of whose lips the words "You're such a jerk!"
    > fall off of when hanging around with Jarheads.
    >
    > > I would like
    > > to meet you.

    >
    > No need. I can live with your believing I'm an arrogant jerk, so I don't
    > need to make a long distance trip to meet you and attempt to disprove your
    > low opinion of me.
    >
    > > Anybody who can put together a response as
    > > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!

    >
    > Glad to see that you have a sense of humor. :)
    >
    > > I felt you were
    > > trying to make me look stupid.

    >
    > I gathered that, which is why I tried to clarify my earlier message. As
    > Doug mentioned, I should have worded it differently, but the offer of
    > assistance is genuine. We're here to help those who ask for it. We get a
    > lot of E-mails and messages from posters thanking us for making them look
    > like geniuses in front of their managers, so I mentioned it to you so you
    > wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the advice you were given:
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/micr...0772/3237d5a34e801c17?&hl=en#3237d5a34e801c17
    >
    > > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the workgroup
    > > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup form
    > > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person who
    > > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    > > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed and
    > > login without issue.

    >
    > Everything seems to be in order, so let's throw a monkey wrench into it. Go
    > to one of the Access 2002 computers and log into the secure database as a
    > member of the Admins Group and create a new user. Use a name where there
    > can be no doubt as to the correct spelling, such as Papercut. Assign this
    > user to the same group the Access 2003 users are having trouble with. At a
    > minimum, this group should have permissions to open/run the database and to
    > open/run the forms. This group should not be the Admins Group or the Users
    > Group if your database is secured properly.
    >
    > Log out as the member of the Admins Group, then log in as this new member to
    > ensure that this new user can open the database and the forms. If
    > successful, assign a password. Log out. Log in again to ensure that the
    > new password works. Log out.
    >
    > Go to an Access 2003 computer where the user can't open the forms in the
    > secure database, and then log into the secure database as the new user. Can
    > you open the database, or do you get a permissions error message when you
    > either try to open the database or when you attempt to open the form?
    >
    > If you can't open the database, log in as one of the Access 2003 users.
    > Select the Tools -> Security -> Users and Group Accounts... menu. Look at
    > the list of users on the "Users" tab. Is your new user listed?
    >
    > > Both the FE and BE are 2000 file
    > > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.

    >
    > That's okay. User-level Security is virtually unchanged in all three
    > versions, Access 2000, 2002, and 2003. The Access 2000 workgroup
    > information file contains all the information you need to use with a secure
    > database, regardless of whether you are using Access 2002 or 2003 to open
    > it.
    >
    > The only problems that you might encounter with the Access 2000 database
    > format are when 1.) the database file is secured with the Access 2000
    > Security Wizard, because there's a bug in it that leaves your database
    > unsecured, or 2.) the workgroup information file is corrupted. You'll know
    > that the workgroup information file is corrupted because you'll get really,
    > really bizarre error messages when you use it to open and run a secure
    > database. Your form permissions problem doesn't look like it fits into this
    > category, because one group of users (Access 2002) is having no problems
    > with it. Presumably they are multiple, concurrent users -- or are they
    > accessing the workgroup file one user at a time? (The latter might not
    > display bizarre error messages as often or as readily as when many people
    > are using the file at the same time.)
    >
    > HTH.
    > Gunny
    >
    > See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    > http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    > info.
    >
    >
    > "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:983AEA09-C64F-4AAA-BC28-1240A271627A@microsoft.com...
    > > Gunny,
    > >
    > > My name is Chris Fox. I live in Irvine, California. You've made
    > > reference
    > > to southern California as if you live in the area. I hope so. I would
    > > like
    > > to meet you. No, that is not a threat. It's an invitation. Two reasons
    > > 1.
    > > To prove that I am a man. 2. Anybody who can put together a response as
    > > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    > >
    > > At first I was pissed when you responded to my posting. I felt you were
    > > trying to make me look stupid. Suffice it to say that I believe you
    > > should
    > > have handled it differently. I think you should try harder at giving
    > > someone
    > > the benefit of the doubt before you start in on them. I can promise you
    > > this, if you would have given that courtesy to me, none of this nonsense
    > > would have happened. A little respect goes a long way in this world.
    > > Wouldn't you agree?
    > >
    > > I am not in the business of making enemies. So for any disrespect I've
    > > shown you, I apologize. And that's the last of it for me. I am far too
    > > busy
    > > to keep up with jarring back and forth over stupid stuff.
    > >
    > > I have already tried what you are suggesting in your response. Since you
    > > have once again attempted to give advice, I will bounce this off you.
    > >
    > > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the workgroup
    > > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup form
    > > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person who
    > > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    > > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed and
    > > login without issue.
    > >
    > > Also I should mention this is a split db. Both the FE and BE are 2000
    > > file
    > > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    > >
    > > Now what do you think?
    > >
    > >
    > > .
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Ma'am,
    > >>
    > >> You're taking offense where none is intended. Have you never heard the
    > >> legend of El Zorro, the fox, considered a hero and a very crafty
    > >> character
    > >> in California folklore? The term "crazy like a fox" means a very clever,
    > >> shrewd individual, one that others might not see how clever he is until
    > >> he
    > >> runs away from the chicken coop with every chicken while the other
    > >> animals
    > >> are still puzzling over how to get into the chicken coop and grab even
    > >> one
    > >> chicken. When you post a question in the Access newsgroups and get quick
    > >> answers from the experts, you get to be the genius in your organization,
    > >> because you quickly solved the problem that no one else knew how to solve
    > >> and, had your co-workers been in your shoes, they know that they would
    > >> have
    > >> still been struggling over it long after you figured it out and went on
    > >> to
    > >> the next problem.
    > >>
    > >> > Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within my
    > >> > question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me
    > >>
    > >> It may be crystal clear to you, but the terms XP2002 and XP2003 don't
    > >> clearly define what you think they do. If you read as many posts from
    > >> new
    > >> posters as we do, you'd find that way too often the subject line doesn't
    > >> match the content of the post. XP means Windows XP to most people, not
    > >> Office XP. People occasionally refer to Access 2003 as part of Office
    > >> XP,
    > >> which is obvious to us that it's incorrect, but not to those people.
    > >> 2003
    > >> generally means Windows 2003 Server, since far more people are connected
    > >> to
    > >> Windows 2003 Server on their networks than are using Access 2003.
    > >>
    > >> > I'm not a genius nor do I have enough Access experience to know what
    > >> > I'm
    > >> > talking about according to you.
    > >>
    > >> You knew exactly where to come to get instant answers without having to
    > >> pore
    > >> over thick books, or do days or weeks of trial and error to make
    > >> discoveries
    > >> about how Access really works -- and you think I'd put you in the "not a
    > >> genius" category? Hardly. I wish I'd known about this resource when I
    > >> was
    > >> struggling as an Access developer. You found the newsgroups precisely
    > >> when
    > >> you could benefit from them. I certainly didn't. I think people who
    > >> know
    > >> how to use the newsgroups to make themselves more productive at their
    > >> jobs
    > >> and make themselves look like geniuses are brilliant.
    > >>
    > >> As for not having enough Access experience to know what you're talking
    > >> about, you already realize that you didn't articulate yourself very well
    > >> in
    > >> your first post but, as with most things, we get better with practice,
    > >> and
    > >> you'll do a better job next time.
    > >>
    > >> > Just like you are certain that I am not experienced at Access,
    > >>
    > >> You may have experience with Access but, like most people, you need help
    > >> straightening out User-level Security. When you solve your problem,
    > >> you'll
    > >> realize that you received good advice, but at this point in time, it's
    > >> hard
    > >> for you to see how the current path is going to get you to your
    > >> destination.
    > >> That's what I was referring to when I mentioned, "And when you gain more
    > >> experience in Access, you'll realize that the explanations you were
    > >> given, .
    > >> .. . were helpful," even though you dismissed the advice on first sight.
    > >>
    > >> > posting
    > >> > questions
    > >>
    > >> You haven't posted many questions in the Access newsgroups, so no, you're
    > >> not an experienced poster yet. Experienced posters know how to post
    > >> well-written questions, know why they shouldn't multipost, and know why
    > >> they
    > >> shouldn't be rude. Most questioners get quick, accurate, helpful
    > >> responses
    > >> and have a pleasant experience in the newsgroups. If you aren't getting
    > >> that same type of experience, then please see
    > >> http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm for some helpful hints.
    > >>
    > >> > and being male! That's right, idiot I am a male.
    > >>
    > >> Perhaps you think that a self-respecting man behaves illogically, makes a
    > >> mountain out of a molehill, complains of being a victim ad nauseam,
    > >> redirects blame, jumps to conclusions, assumes others can read his mind,
    > >> nitpicks and nags on and on, and analyzes every detail of an encounter
    > >> trying to draw some kind of meaning by reading between every line -- and
    > >> doesn't even notice that he's doing any of these things. Your claim just
    > >> isn't believable because of your efforts thus far:
    > >>
    > >> 1.) "While it is true that I did use some interesting terminology to
    > >> describe my situation, I did so with the idea that I would receive
    > >> feedback
    > >> from PROFESSIONALS who would understand what I meant."
    > >>
    > >> Translation: "You didn't satisfy me, but you should have because you
    > >> knew
    > >> what I meant!"
    > >>
    > >> Interpretation: Notice the artful redirection of blame, the careful
    > >> avoidance of admission of "I may have made a mistake in my description,"
    > >> the
    > >> expectation that the intended audience has mind reading capabilities, the
    > >> subtle jab that the intended audience is unprofessional, and the
    > >> indicator
    > >> where an inflection of the voice would emphasize the jab so that there
    > >> can
    > >> be no doubt: it's a jab.
    > >>
    > >> Conclusion: Woman.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> 2.) "Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within
    > >> my
    > >> question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me .
    > >> . .
    > >> "
    > >>
    > >> Translation: "I'm going to point out the part that I didn't obfuscate so
    > >> that I can pretend that I was unreasonably attacked, and this was the
    > >> issue
    > >> that I was attacked for."
    > >>
    > >> Interpretation: Notice the avoidance of the terms XP2002 and XP2003 in
    > >> this
    > >> explanation by the author, the only terms that were pointed out as
    > >> confused
    > >> expressions.
    > >>
    > >> Conclusion: Convenient amnesia.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> 3.) "My problem with you started . . . "
    > >>
    > >> Translation: Nag.
    > >>
    > >> Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
    > >> speaker doesn't notice.
    > >>
    > >> Conclusion: Woman.
    > >>
    > >>
     
  16. Cfox4

    Cfox4
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Gunny,

    I just tested the following:

    changed the start up form to another form that is completely unbound.

    papercut, as a full data user, was able to successfully login on both 2002
    and 2003

    I think this issolates the issue to "MenuStartUp" form. I'm going to
    continue with this line of testing and wait for your thoughts.

    "Cfox4" wrote:

    > Gunny,
    >
    > Done with the test. Here's the results:
    >
    > I created a user - papercut. Made them part of the full data users group.
    > The same group as the 2003 users. The group has open/run, read design,
    > modify design rights on my start up form called MenuStartUp.
    >
    > Papercut on a 2003 machine) gets the message "You don't have permission to
    > run 'MenuStartUp'.
    >
    > Papercut on a 2002 machine) the database opens normally. No messages at all.
    >
    > This form was not designed by me. It has a tab strip, some sub forms, and a
    > quite a few unbound controls we use for searching different fields.
    >
    > Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms? Can a user with the
    > above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control? To save
    > space, the guy before me practiced using one subform control and changed it's
    > source object depending on what search criteria was entered.
    >
    > This db was not designed with security in mind obviously. But I still don't
    > get the different reaction between 2002 and 2003. If I get a message in
    > 2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >
    > > Hi, Chris.
    > >
    > > > You've made reference
    > > > to southern California as if you live in the area.

    > >
    > > I'm one of your former neighbors. I used to live the other side of I-5, off
    > > Trabuco, so I'm well aware of whose lips the words "You're such a jerk!"
    > > fall off of when hanging around with Jarheads.
    > >
    > > > I would like
    > > > to meet you.

    > >
    > > No need. I can live with your believing I'm an arrogant jerk, so I don't
    > > need to make a long distance trip to meet you and attempt to disprove your
    > > low opinion of me.
    > >
    > > > Anybody who can put together a response as
    > > > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!

    > >
    > > Glad to see that you have a sense of humor. :)
    > >
    > > > I felt you were
    > > > trying to make me look stupid.

    > >
    > > I gathered that, which is why I tried to clarify my earlier message. As
    > > Doug mentioned, I should have worded it differently, but the offer of
    > > assistance is genuine. We're here to help those who ask for it. We get a
    > > lot of E-mails and messages from posters thanking us for making them look
    > > like geniuses in front of their managers, so I mentioned it to you so you
    > > wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the advice you were given:
    > >
    > > http://groups.google.com/group/micr...0772/3237d5a34e801c17?&hl=en#3237d5a34e801c17
    > >
    > > > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the workgroup
    > > > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup form
    > > > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person who
    > > > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    > > > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed and
    > > > login without issue.

    > >
    > > Everything seems to be in order, so let's throw a monkey wrench into it. Go
    > > to one of the Access 2002 computers and log into the secure database as a
    > > member of the Admins Group and create a new user. Use a name where there
    > > can be no doubt as to the correct spelling, such as Papercut. Assign this
    > > user to the same group the Access 2003 users are having trouble with. At a
    > > minimum, this group should have permissions to open/run the database and to
    > > open/run the forms. This group should not be the Admins Group or the Users
    > > Group if your database is secured properly.
    > >
    > > Log out as the member of the Admins Group, then log in as this new member to
    > > ensure that this new user can open the database and the forms. If
    > > successful, assign a password. Log out. Log in again to ensure that the
    > > new password works. Log out.
    > >
    > > Go to an Access 2003 computer where the user can't open the forms in the
    > > secure database, and then log into the secure database as the new user. Can
    > > you open the database, or do you get a permissions error message when you
    > > either try to open the database or when you attempt to open the form?
    > >
    > > If you can't open the database, log in as one of the Access 2003 users.
    > > Select the Tools -> Security -> Users and Group Accounts... menu. Look at
    > > the list of users on the "Users" tab. Is your new user listed?
    > >
    > > > Both the FE and BE are 2000 file
    > > > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.

    > >
    > > That's okay. User-level Security is virtually unchanged in all three
    > > versions, Access 2000, 2002, and 2003. The Access 2000 workgroup
    > > information file contains all the information you need to use with a secure
    > > database, regardless of whether you are using Access 2002 or 2003 to open
    > > it.
    > >
    > > The only problems that you might encounter with the Access 2000 database
    > > format are when 1.) the database file is secured with the Access 2000
    > > Security Wizard, because there's a bug in it that leaves your database
    > > unsecured, or 2.) the workgroup information file is corrupted. You'll know
    > > that the workgroup information file is corrupted because you'll get really,
    > > really bizarre error messages when you use it to open and run a secure
    > > database. Your form permissions problem doesn't look like it fits into this
    > > category, because one group of users (Access 2002) is having no problems
    > > with it. Presumably they are multiple, concurrent users -- or are they
    > > accessing the workgroup file one user at a time? (The latter might not
    > > display bizarre error messages as often or as readily as when many people
    > > are using the file at the same time.)
    > >
    > > HTH.
    > > Gunny
    > >
    > > See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > > See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    > > http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    > > info.
    > >
    > >
    > > "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > > news:983AEA09-C64F-4AAA-BC28-1240A271627A@microsoft.com...
    > > > Gunny,
    > > >
    > > > My name is Chris Fox. I live in Irvine, California. You've made
    > > > reference
    > > > to southern California as if you live in the area. I hope so. I would
    > > > like
    > > > to meet you. No, that is not a threat. It's an invitation. Two reasons
    > > > 1.
    > > > To prove that I am a man. 2. Anybody who can put together a response as
    > > > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    > > >
    > > > At first I was pissed when you responded to my posting. I felt you were
    > > > trying to make me look stupid. Suffice it to say that I believe you
    > > > should
    > > > have handled it differently. I think you should try harder at giving
    > > > someone
    > > > the benefit of the doubt before you start in on them. I can promise you
    > > > this, if you would have given that courtesy to me, none of this nonsense
    > > > would have happened. A little respect goes a long way in this world.
    > > > Wouldn't you agree?
    > > >
    > > > I am not in the business of making enemies. So for any disrespect I've
    > > > shown you, I apologize. And that's the last of it for me. I am far too
    > > > busy
    > > > to keep up with jarring back and forth over stupid stuff.
    > > >
    > > > I have already tried what you are suggesting in your response. Since you
    > > > have once again attempted to give advice, I will bounce this off you.
    > > >
    > > > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the workgroup
    > > > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup form
    > > > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person who
    > > > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    > > > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed and
    > > > login without issue.
    > > >
    > > > Also I should mention this is a split db. Both the FE and BE are 2000
    > > > file
    > > > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    > > >
    > > > Now what do you think?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > .
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> Ma'am,
    > > >>
    > > >> You're taking offense where none is intended. Have you never heard the
    > > >> legend of El Zorro, the fox, considered a hero and a very crafty
    > > >> character
    > > >> in California folklore? The term "crazy like a fox" means a very clever,
    > > >> shrewd individual, one that others might not see how clever he is until
    > > >> he
    > > >> runs away from the chicken coop with every chicken while the other
    > > >> animals
    > > >> are still puzzling over how to get into the chicken coop and grab even
    > > >> one
    > > >> chicken. When you post a question in the Access newsgroups and get quick
    > > >> answers from the experts, you get to be the genius in your organization,
    > > >> because you quickly solved the problem that no one else knew how to solve
    > > >> and, had your co-workers been in your shoes, they know that they would
    > > >> have
    > > >> still been struggling over it long after you figured it out and went on
    > > >> to
    > > >> the next problem.
    > > >>
    > > >> > Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within my
    > > >> > question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me
    > > >>
    > > >> It may be crystal clear to you, but the terms XP2002 and XP2003 don't
    > > >> clearly define what you think they do. If you read as many posts from
    > > >> new
    > > >> posters as we do, you'd find that way too often the subject line doesn't
    > > >> match the content of the post. XP means Windows XP to most people, not
    > > >> Office XP. People occasionally refer to Access 2003 as part of Office
    > > >> XP,
    > > >> which is obvious to us that it's incorrect, but not to those people.
    > > >> 2003
    > > >> generally means Windows 2003 Server, since far more people are connected
    > > >> to
    > > >> Windows 2003 Server on their networks than are using Access 2003.
    > > >>
    > > >> > I'm not a genius nor do I have enough Access experience to know what
    > > >> > I'm
    > > >> > talking about according to you.
    > > >>
    > > >> You knew exactly where to come to get instant answers without having to
    > > >> pore
    > > >> over thick books, or do days or weeks of trial and error to make
    > > >> discoveries
    > > >> about how Access really works -- and you think I'd put you in the "not a
    > > >> genius" category? Hardly. I wish I'd known about this resource when I
    > > >> was
    > > >> struggling as an Access developer. You found the newsgroups precisely
    > > >> when
    > > >> you could benefit from them. I certainly didn't. I think people who
    > > >> know
    > > >> how to use the newsgroups to make themselves more productive at their
    > > >> jobs
    > > >> and make themselves look like geniuses are brilliant.
    > > >>
    > > >> As for not having enough Access experience to know what you're talking
    > > >> about, you already realize that you didn't articulate yourself very well
    > > >> in
    > > >> your first post but, as with most things, we get better with practice,
    > > >> and
    > > >> you'll do a better job next time.
    > > >>
    > > >> > Just like you are certain that I am not experienced at Access,
    > > >>
    > > >> You may have experience with Access but, like most people, you need help
    > > >> straightening out User-level Security. When you solve your problem,
    > > >> you'll
    > > >> realize that you received good advice, but at this point in time, it's
    > > >> hard
    > > >> for you to see how the current path is going to get you to your
    > > >> destination.
    > > >> That's what I was referring to when I mentioned, "And when you gain more
    > > >> experience in Access, you'll realize that the explanations you were
    > > >> given, .
    > > >> .. . were helpful," even though you dismissed the advice on first sight.
    > > >>
    > > >> > posting
    > > >> > questions
    > > >>
    > > >> You haven't posted many questions in the Access newsgroups, so no, you're
    > > >> not an experienced poster yet. Experienced posters know how to post
    > > >> well-written questions, know why they shouldn't multipost, and know why
    > > >> they
    > > >> shouldn't be rude. Most questioners get quick, accurate, helpful
    > > >> responses
    > > >> and have a pleasant experience in the newsgroups. If you aren't getting
    > > >> that same type of experience, then please see
    > > >> http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm for some helpful hints.
    > > >>
    > > >> > and being male! That's right, idiot I am a male.
    > > >>
    > > >> Perhaps you think that a self-respecting man behaves illogically, makes a
    > > >> mountain out of a molehill, complains of being a victim ad nauseam,
    > > >> redirects blame, jumps to conclusions, assumes others can read his mind,
    > > >> nitpicks and nags on and on, and analyzes every detail of an encounter
    > > >> trying to draw some kind of meaning by reading between every line -- and
    > > >> doesn't even notice that he's doing any of these things. Your claim just
    > > >> isn't believable because of your efforts thus far:
    > > >>
    > > >> 1.) "While it is true that I did use some interesting terminology to
    > > >> describe my situation, I did so with the idea that I would receive
    > > >> feedback
    > > >> from PROFESSIONALS who would understand what I meant."
    > > >>
    > > >> Translation: "You didn't satisfy me, but you should have because you
    > > >> knew
    > > >> what I meant!"
    > > >>
    > > >> Interpretation: Notice the artful redirection of blame, the careful
    > > >> avoidance of admission of "I may have made a mistake in my description,"
    > > >> the
    > > >> expectation that the intended audience has mind reading capabilities, the
    > > >> subtle jab that the intended audience is unprofessional, and the
    > > >> indicator
    > > >> where an inflection of the voice would emphasize the jab so that there
    > > >> can
    > > >> be no doubt: it's a jab.
    > > >>
    > > >> Conclusion: Woman.
    > > >>
    > > >>
     
  17. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi, Chris.

    > Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms?


    No. You'd get error #2614, "You don't have permission to insert this form
    into another form" if the user doesn't have permissions to Open/Run and Read
    Design for the subform.

    > Can a user with the
    > above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control?


    Yes, as long as the user also has Open/Run and Read Design permissions for
    all of the objects that the subform control might hold.

    > If I get a message in
    > 2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?


    When it comes to User-level Security, yes.

    Go to the Access 2002 workstation and log into the secure database as
    Papercut. Look at the User and Group accounts and record every group that
    papercut is a member of. For the purposes of this test, Papercut should
    only be a member of the Users Group and the Full Data Users Group. Next,
    look at the User and Group Permissions, and verify that Papercut doesn't
    have any permissions as a User for the MenuStartUp form or the other objects
    that might be used for the subform control, but the Full Data Users Group
    has Open/Run, Read Design, and Modify Design permissions for this form and
    Open/Run and Read Design permissions for the subform control's sources. If
    you removed Papercut from any of the groups, retest whether Papercut still
    has no problems with this secure database by logging out of the database,
    logging back in as Papercut, then opening the MenuStartUp form.

    Log out of the database and go to the Access 2003 workstation and log into
    the secure database again as Papercut. Look at the User and Group accounts
    and verify that Papercut is only a member of the Users Group and the Full
    Data Users Group. These should match the groups that Papercut is a member
    of on the Access 2002 workstation exactly. Next, look at the User and Group
    Permissions, and verify that Papercut doesn't have any permissions as a User
    for the MenuStartUp form or the other objects that might be used for the
    subform control, but the Full Data Users Group has Open/Run, Read Design,
    and Modify Design permissions for this form and Open/Run and Read Design
    permissions for the subform control's sources.

    The MenuStartUp form isn't bound, correct? And Track name AutoCorrect is
    off, correct?

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:BA1AA754-6867-4D23-836B-71DE744B598B@microsoft.com...
    > Gunny,
    >
    > Done with the test. Here's the results:
    >
    > I created a user - papercut. Made them part of the full data users group.
    > The same group as the 2003 users. The group has open/run, read design,
    > modify design rights on my start up form called MenuStartUp.
    >
    > Papercut on a 2003 machine) gets the message "You don't have permission to
    > run 'MenuStartUp'.
    >
    > Papercut on a 2002 machine) the database opens normally. No messages at
    > all.
    >
    > This form was not designed by me. It has a tab strip, some sub forms, and
    > a
    > quite a few unbound controls we use for searching different fields.
    >
    > Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms? Can a user with
    > the
    > above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control? To
    > save
    > space, the guy before me practiced using one subform control and changed
    > it's
    > source object depending on what search criteria was entered.
    >
    > This db was not designed with security in mind obviously. But I still
    > don't
    > get the different reaction between 2002 and 2003. If I get a message in
    > 2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >
    >> Hi, Chris.
    >>
    >> > You've made reference
    >> > to southern California as if you live in the area.

    >>
    >> I'm one of your former neighbors. I used to live the other side of I-5,
    >> off
    >> Trabuco, so I'm well aware of whose lips the words "You're such a jerk!"
    >> fall off of when hanging around with Jarheads.
    >>
    >> > I would like
    >> > to meet you.

    >>
    >> No need. I can live with your believing I'm an arrogant jerk, so I don't
    >> need to make a long distance trip to meet you and attempt to disprove
    >> your
    >> low opinion of me.
    >>
    >> > Anybody who can put together a response as
    >> > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!

    >>
    >> Glad to see that you have a sense of humor. :)
    >>
    >> > I felt you were
    >> > trying to make me look stupid.

    >>
    >> I gathered that, which is why I tried to clarify my earlier message. As
    >> Doug mentioned, I should have worded it differently, but the offer of
    >> assistance is genuine. We're here to help those who ask for it. We get
    >> a
    >> lot of E-mails and messages from posters thanking us for making them look
    >> like geniuses in front of their managers, so I mentioned it to you so you
    >> wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the advice you were given:
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.com/group/micr...0772/3237d5a34e801c17?&hl=en#3237d5a34e801c17
    >>
    >> > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the
    >> > workgroup
    >> > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup
    >> > form
    >> > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person
    >> > who
    >> > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    >> > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed
    >> > and
    >> > login without issue.

    >>
    >> Everything seems to be in order, so let's throw a monkey wrench into it.
    >> Go
    >> to one of the Access 2002 computers and log into the secure database as a
    >> member of the Admins Group and create a new user. Use a name where there
    >> can be no doubt as to the correct spelling, such as Papercut. Assign
    >> this
    >> user to the same group the Access 2003 users are having trouble with. At
    >> a
    >> minimum, this group should have permissions to open/run the database and
    >> to
    >> open/run the forms. This group should not be the Admins Group or the
    >> Users
    >> Group if your database is secured properly.
    >>
    >> Log out as the member of the Admins Group, then log in as this new member
    >> to
    >> ensure that this new user can open the database and the forms. If
    >> successful, assign a password. Log out. Log in again to ensure that the
    >> new password works. Log out.
    >>
    >> Go to an Access 2003 computer where the user can't open the forms in the
    >> secure database, and then log into the secure database as the new user.
    >> Can
    >> you open the database, or do you get a permissions error message when you
    >> either try to open the database or when you attempt to open the form?
    >>
    >> If you can't open the database, log in as one of the Access 2003 users.
    >> Select the Tools -> Security -> Users and Group Accounts... menu. Look
    >> at
    >> the list of users on the "Users" tab. Is your new user listed?
    >>
    >> > Both the FE and BE are 2000 file
    >> > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.

    >>
    >> That's okay. User-level Security is virtually unchanged in all three
    >> versions, Access 2000, 2002, and 2003. The Access 2000 workgroup
    >> information file contains all the information you need to use with a
    >> secure
    >> database, regardless of whether you are using Access 2002 or 2003 to open
    >> it.
    >>
    >> The only problems that you might encounter with the Access 2000 database
    >> format are when 1.) the database file is secured with the Access 2000
    >> Security Wizard, because there's a bug in it that leaves your database
    >> unsecured, or 2.) the workgroup information file is corrupted. You'll
    >> know
    >> that the workgroup information file is corrupted because you'll get
    >> really,
    >> really bizarre error messages when you use it to open and run a secure
    >> database. Your form permissions problem doesn't look like it fits into
    >> this
    >> category, because one group of users (Access 2002) is having no problems
    >> with it. Presumably they are multiple, concurrent users -- or are they
    >> accessing the workgroup file one user at a time? (The latter might not
    >> display bizarre error messages as often or as readily as when many people
    >> are using the file at the same time.)
    >>
    >> HTH.
    >> Gunny
    >>
    >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    >> info.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> news:983AEA09-C64F-4AAA-BC28-1240A271627A@microsoft.com...
    >> > Gunny,
    >> >
    >> > My name is Chris Fox. I live in Irvine, California. You've made
    >> > reference
    >> > to southern California as if you live in the area. I hope so. I would
    >> > like
    >> > to meet you. No, that is not a threat. It's an invitation. Two
    >> > reasons
    >> > 1.
    >> > To prove that I am a man. 2. Anybody who can put together a response
    >> > as
    >> > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    >> >
    >> > At first I was pissed when you responded to my posting. I felt you
    >> > were
    >> > trying to make me look stupid. Suffice it to say that I believe you
    >> > should
    >> > have handled it differently. I think you should try harder at giving
    >> > someone
    >> > the benefit of the doubt before you start in on them. I can promise
    >> > you
    >> > this, if you would have given that courtesy to me, none of this
    >> > nonsense
    >> > would have happened. A little respect goes a long way in this world.
    >> > Wouldn't you agree?
    >> >
    >> > I am not in the business of making enemies. So for any disrespect I've
    >> > shown you, I apologize. And that's the last of it for me. I am far
    >> > too
    >> > busy
    >> > to keep up with jarring back and forth over stupid stuff.
    >> >
    >> > I have already tried what you are suggesting in your response. Since
    >> > you
    >> > have once again attempted to give advice, I will bounce this off you.
    >> >
    >> > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the
    >> > workgroup
    >> > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup
    >> > form
    >> > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person
    >> > who
    >> > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    >> > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed
    >> > and
    >> > login without issue.
    >> >
    >> > Also I should mention this is a split db. Both the FE and BE are 2000
    >> > file
    >> > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    >> >
    >> > Now what do you think?
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > .
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Ma'am,
    >> >>
    >> >> You're taking offense where none is intended. Have you never heard
    >> >> the
    >> >> legend of El Zorro, the fox, considered a hero and a very crafty
    >> >> character
    >> >> in California folklore? The term "crazy like a fox" means a very
    >> >> clever,
    >> >> shrewd individual, one that others might not see how clever he is
    >> >> until
    >> >> he
    >> >> runs away from the chicken coop with every chicken while the other
    >> >> animals
    >> >> are still puzzling over how to get into the chicken coop and grab even
    >> >> one
    >> >> chicken. When you post a question in the Access newsgroups and get
    >> >> quick
    >> >> answers from the experts, you get to be the genius in your
    >> >> organization,
    >> >> because you quickly solved the problem that no one else knew how to
    >> >> solve
    >> >> and, had your co-workers been in your shoes, they know that they would
    >> >> have
    >> >> still been struggling over it long after you figured it out and went
    >> >> on
    >> >> to
    >> >> the next problem.
    >> >>
    >> >> > Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within
    >> >> > my
    >> >> > question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to
    >> >> > me
    >> >>
    >> >> It may be crystal clear to you, but the terms XP2002 and XP2003 don't
    >> >> clearly define what you think they do. If you read as many posts from
    >> >> new
    >> >> posters as we do, you'd find that way too often the subject line
    >> >> doesn't
    >> >> match the content of the post. XP means Windows XP to most people,
    >> >> not
    >> >> Office XP. People occasionally refer to Access 2003 as part of Office
    >> >> XP,
    >> >> which is obvious to us that it's incorrect, but not to those people.
    >> >> 2003
    >> >> generally means Windows 2003 Server, since far more people are
    >> >> connected
    >> >> to
    >> >> Windows 2003 Server on their networks than are using Access 2003.
    >> >>
    >> >> > I'm not a genius nor do I have enough Access experience to know what
    >> >> > I'm
    >> >> > talking about according to you.
    >> >>
    >> >> You knew exactly where to come to get instant answers without having
    >> >> to
    >> >> pore
    >> >> over thick books, or do days or weeks of trial and error to make
    >> >> discoveries
    >> >> about how Access really works -- and you think I'd put you in the "not
    >> >> a
    >> >> genius" category? Hardly. I wish I'd known about this resource when
    >> >> I
    >> >> was
    >> >> struggling as an Access developer. You found the newsgroups precisely
    >> >> when
    >> >> you could benefit from them. I certainly didn't. I think people who
    >> >> know
    >> >> how to use the newsgroups to make themselves more productive at their
    >> >> jobs
    >> >> and make themselves look like geniuses are brilliant.
    >> >>
    >> >> As for not having enough Access experience to know what you're talking
    >> >> about, you already realize that you didn't articulate yourself very
    >> >> well
    >> >> in
    >> >> your first post but, as with most things, we get better with practice,
    >> >> and
    >> >> you'll do a better job next time.
    >> >>
    >> >> > Just like you are certain that I am not experienced at Access,
    >> >>
    >> >> You may have experience with Access but, like most people, you need
    >> >> help
    >> >> straightening out User-level Security. When you solve your problem,
    >> >> you'll
    >> >> realize that you received good advice, but at this point in time, it's
    >> >> hard
    >> >> for you to see how the current path is going to get you to your
    >> >> destination.
    >> >> That's what I was referring to when I mentioned, "And when you gain
    >> >> more
    >> >> experience in Access, you'll realize that the explanations you were
    >> >> given, .
    >> >> .. . were helpful," even though you dismissed the advice on first
    >> >> sight.
    >> >>
    >> >> > posting
    >> >> > questions
    >> >>
    >> >> You haven't posted many questions in the Access newsgroups, so no,
    >> >> you're
    >> >> not an experienced poster yet. Experienced posters know how to post
    >> >> well-written questions, know why they shouldn't multipost, and know
    >> >> why
    >> >> they
    >> >> shouldn't be rude. Most questioners get quick, accurate, helpful
    >> >> responses
    >> >> and have a pleasant experience in the newsgroups. If you aren't
    >> >> getting
    >> >> that same type of experience, then please see
    >> >> http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm for some helpful hints.
    >> >>
    >> >> > and being male! That's right, idiot I am a male.
    >> >>
    >> >> Perhaps you think that a self-respecting man behaves illogically,
    >> >> makes a
    >> >> mountain out of a molehill, complains of being a victim ad nauseam,
    >> >> redirects blame, jumps to conclusions, assumes others can read his
    >> >> mind,
    >> >> nitpicks and nags on and on, and analyzes every detail of an encounter
    >> >> trying to draw some kind of meaning by reading between every line --
    >> >> and
    >> >> doesn't even notice that he's doing any of these things. Your claim
    >> >> just
    >> >> isn't believable because of your efforts thus far:
    >> >>
    >> >> 1.) "While it is true that I did use some interesting terminology to
    >> >> describe my situation, I did so with the idea that I would receive
    >> >> feedback
    >> >> from PROFESSIONALS who would understand what I meant."
    >> >>
    >> >> Translation: "You didn't satisfy me, but you should have because you
    >> >> knew
    >> >> what I meant!"
    >> >>
    >> >> Interpretation: Notice the artful redirection of blame, the careful
    >> >> avoidance of admission of "I may have made a mistake in my
    >> >> description,"
    >> >> the
    >> >> expectation that the intended audience has mind reading capabilities,
    >> >> the
    >> >> subtle jab that the intended audience is unprofessional, and the
    >> >> indicator
    >> >> where an inflection of the voice would emphasize the jab so that there
    >> >> can
    >> >> be no doubt: it's a jab.
    >> >>
    >> >> Conclusion: Woman.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> 2.) "Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere
    >> >> within
    >> >> my
    >> >> question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me
    >> >> .
    >> >> . .
    >> >> "
    >> >>
    >> >> Translation: "I'm going to point out the part that I didn't obfuscate
    >> >> so
    >> >> that I can pretend that I was unreasonably attacked, and this was the
    >> >> issue
    >> >> that I was attacked for."
    >> >>
    >> >> Interpretation: Notice the avoidance of the terms XP2002 and XP2003
    >> >> in
    >> >> this
    >> >> explanation by the author, the only terms that were pointed out as
    >> >> confused
    >> >> expressions.
    >> >>
    >> >> Conclusion: Convenient amnesia.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> 3.) "My problem with you started . . . "
    >> >>
    >> >> Translation: Nag.
    >> >>
    >> >> Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only
    >> >> the
    >> >> speaker doesn't notice.
    >> >>
    >> >> Conclusion: Woman.
    >> >>
    >> >>
     
  18. Cfox4

    Cfox4
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The MenuStartUp form is unbound and Track name autocorrect is off.

    Papercut is only a member of Users and Full Data Users groups.
    There are no permissions granted to the users group.

    "'69 Camaro" wrote:

    > Hi, Chris.
    >
    > > Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms?

    >
    > No. You'd get error #2614, "You don't have permission to insert this form
    > into another form" if the user doesn't have permissions to Open/Run and Read
    > Design for the subform.
    >
    > > Can a user with the
    > > above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control?

    >
    > Yes, as long as the user also has Open/Run and Read Design permissions for
    > all of the objects that the subform control might hold.
    >
    > > If I get a message in
    > > 2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?

    >
    > When it comes to User-level Security, yes.
    >
    > Go to the Access 2002 workstation and log into the secure database as
    > Papercut. Look at the User and Group accounts and record every group that
    > papercut is a member of. For the purposes of this test, Papercut should
    > only be a member of the Users Group and the Full Data Users Group. Next,
    > look at the User and Group Permissions, and verify that Papercut doesn't
    > have any permissions as a User for the MenuStartUp form or the other objects
    > that might be used for the subform control, but the Full Data Users Group
    > has Open/Run, Read Design, and Modify Design permissions for this form and
    > Open/Run and Read Design permissions for the subform control's sources. If
    > you removed Papercut from any of the groups, retest whether Papercut still
    > has no problems with this secure database by logging out of the database,
    > logging back in as Papercut, then opening the MenuStartUp form.
    >
    > Log out of the database and go to the Access 2003 workstation and log into
    > the secure database again as Papercut. Look at the User and Group accounts
    > and verify that Papercut is only a member of the Users Group and the Full
    > Data Users Group. These should match the groups that Papercut is a member
    > of on the Access 2002 workstation exactly. Next, look at the User and Group
    > Permissions, and verify that Papercut doesn't have any permissions as a User
    > for the MenuStartUp form or the other objects that might be used for the
    > subform control, but the Full Data Users Group has Open/Run, Read Design,
    > and Modify Design permissions for this form and Open/Run and Read Design
    > permissions for the subform control's sources.
    >
    > The MenuStartUp form isn't bound, correct? And Track name AutoCorrect is
    > off, correct?
    >
    > HTH.
    > Gunny
    >
    > See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    > http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    > info.
    >
    >
    > "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:BA1AA754-6867-4D23-836B-71DE744B598B@microsoft.com...
    > > Gunny,
    > >
    > > Done with the test. Here's the results:
    > >
    > > I created a user - papercut. Made them part of the full data users group.
    > > The same group as the 2003 users. The group has open/run, read design,
    > > modify design rights on my start up form called MenuStartUp.
    > >
    > > Papercut on a 2003 machine) gets the message "You don't have permission to
    > > run 'MenuStartUp'.
    > >
    > > Papercut on a 2002 machine) the database opens normally. No messages at
    > > all.
    > >
    > > This form was not designed by me. It has a tab strip, some sub forms, and
    > > a
    > > quite a few unbound controls we use for searching different fields.
    > >
    > > Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms? Can a user with
    > > the
    > > above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control? To
    > > save
    > > space, the guy before me practiced using one subform control and changed
    > > it's
    > > source object depending on what search criteria was entered.
    > >
    > > This db was not designed with security in mind obviously. But I still
    > > don't
    > > get the different reaction between 2002 and 2003. If I get a message in
    > > 2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Hi, Chris.
    > >>
    > >> > You've made reference
    > >> > to southern California as if you live in the area.
    > >>
    > >> I'm one of your former neighbors. I used to live the other side of I-5,
    > >> off
    > >> Trabuco, so I'm well aware of whose lips the words "You're such a jerk!"
    > >> fall off of when hanging around with Jarheads.
    > >>
    > >> > I would like
    > >> > to meet you.
    > >>
    > >> No need. I can live with your believing I'm an arrogant jerk, so I don't
    > >> need to make a long distance trip to meet you and attempt to disprove
    > >> your
    > >> low opinion of me.
    > >>
    > >> > Anybody who can put together a response as
    > >> > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    > >>
    > >> Glad to see that you have a sense of humor. :)
    > >>
    > >> > I felt you were
    > >> > trying to make me look stupid.
    > >>
    > >> I gathered that, which is why I tried to clarify my earlier message. As
    > >> Doug mentioned, I should have worded it differently, but the offer of
    > >> assistance is genuine. We're here to help those who ask for it. We get
    > >> a
    > >> lot of E-mails and messages from posters thanking us for making them look
    > >> like geniuses in front of their managers, so I mentioned it to you so you
    > >> wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the advice you were given:
    > >>
    > >> http://groups.google.com/group/micr...0772/3237d5a34e801c17?&hl=en#3237d5a34e801c17
    > >>
    > >> > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the
    > >> > workgroup
    > >> > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup
    > >> > form
    > >> > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person
    > >> > who
    > >> > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    > >> > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed
    > >> > and
    > >> > login without issue.
    > >>
    > >> Everything seems to be in order, so let's throw a monkey wrench into it.
    > >> Go
    > >> to one of the Access 2002 computers and log into the secure database as a
    > >> member of the Admins Group and create a new user. Use a name where there
    > >> can be no doubt as to the correct spelling, such as Papercut. Assign
    > >> this
    > >> user to the same group the Access 2003 users are having trouble with. At
    > >> a
    > >> minimum, this group should have permissions to open/run the database and
    > >> to
    > >> open/run the forms. This group should not be the Admins Group or the
    > >> Users
    > >> Group if your database is secured properly.
    > >>
    > >> Log out as the member of the Admins Group, then log in as this new member
    > >> to
    > >> ensure that this new user can open the database and the forms. If
    > >> successful, assign a password. Log out. Log in again to ensure that the
    > >> new password works. Log out.
    > >>
    > >> Go to an Access 2003 computer where the user can't open the forms in the
    > >> secure database, and then log into the secure database as the new user.
    > >> Can
    > >> you open the database, or do you get a permissions error message when you
    > >> either try to open the database or when you attempt to open the form?
    > >>
    > >> If you can't open the database, log in as one of the Access 2003 users.
    > >> Select the Tools -> Security -> Users and Group Accounts... menu. Look
    > >> at
    > >> the list of users on the "Users" tab. Is your new user listed?
    > >>
    > >> > Both the FE and BE are 2000 file
    > >> > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    > >>
    > >> That's okay. User-level Security is virtually unchanged in all three
    > >> versions, Access 2000, 2002, and 2003. The Access 2000 workgroup
    > >> information file contains all the information you need to use with a
    > >> secure
    > >> database, regardless of whether you are using Access 2002 or 2003 to open
    > >> it.
    > >>
    > >> The only problems that you might encounter with the Access 2000 database
    > >> format are when 1.) the database file is secured with the Access 2000
    > >> Security Wizard, because there's a bug in it that leaves your database
    > >> unsecured, or 2.) the workgroup information file is corrupted. You'll
    > >> know
    > >> that the workgroup information file is corrupted because you'll get
    > >> really,
    > >> really bizarre error messages when you use it to open and run a secure
    > >> database. Your form permissions problem doesn't look like it fits into
    > >> this
    > >> category, because one group of users (Access 2002) is having no problems
    > >> with it. Presumably they are multiple, concurrent users -- or are they
    > >> accessing the workgroup file one user at a time? (The latter might not
    > >> display bizarre error messages as often or as readily as when many people
    > >> are using the file at the same time.)
    > >>
    > >> HTH.
    > >> Gunny
    > >>
    > >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    > >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    > >> info.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > >> news:983AEA09-C64F-4AAA-BC28-1240A271627A@microsoft.com...
    > >> > Gunny,
    > >> >
    > >> > My name is Chris Fox. I live in Irvine, California. You've made
    > >> > reference
    > >> > to southern California as if you live in the area. I hope so. I would
    > >> > like
    > >> > to meet you. No, that is not a threat. It's an invitation. Two
    > >> > reasons
    > >> > 1.
    > >> > To prove that I am a man. 2. Anybody who can put together a response
    > >> > as
    > >> > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    > >> >
    > >> > At first I was pissed when you responded to my posting. I felt you
    > >> > were
    > >> > trying to make me look stupid. Suffice it to say that I believe you
    > >> > should
    > >> > have handled it differently. I think you should try harder at giving
    > >> > someone
    > >> > the benefit of the doubt before you start in on them. I can promise
    > >> > you
    > >> > this, if you would have given that courtesy to me, none of this
    > >> > nonsense
    > >> > would have happened. A little respect goes a long way in this world.
    > >> > Wouldn't you agree?
    > >> >
    > >> > I am not in the business of making enemies. So for any disrespect I've
    > >> > shown you, I apologize. And that's the last of it for me. I am far
    > >> > too
    > >> > busy
    > >> > to keep up with jarring back and forth over stupid stuff.
    > >> >
    > >> > I have already tried what you are suggesting in your response. Since
    > >> > you
    > >> > have once again attempted to give advice, I will bounce this off you.
    > >> >
    > >> > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the
    > >> > workgroup
    > >> > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup
    > >> > form
    > >> > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person
    > >> > who
    > >> > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    > >> > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed
    > >> > and
    > >> > login without issue.
    > >> >
    > >> > Also I should mention this is a split db. Both the FE and BE are 2000
    > >> > file
    > >> > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    > >> >
    > >> > Now what do you think?
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > .
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> Ma'am,
    > >> >>
    > >> >> You're taking offense where none is intended. Have you never heard
    > >> >> the
    > >> >> legend of El Zorro, the fox, considered a hero and a very crafty
    > >> >> character
    > >> >> in California folklore? The term "crazy like a fox" means a very
    > >> >> clever,
    > >> >> shrewd individual, one that others might not see how clever he is
    > >> >> until
    > >> >> he
    > >> >> runs away from the chicken coop with every chicken while the other
    > >> >> animals
    > >> >> are still puzzling over how to get into the chicken coop and grab even
    > >> >> one
    > >> >> chicken. When you post a question in the Access newsgroups and get
    > >> >> quick
    > >> >> answers from the experts, you get to be the genius in your
    > >> >> organization,
    > >> >> because you quickly solved the problem that no one else knew how to
    > >> >> solve
    > >> >> and, had your co-workers been in your shoes, they know that they would
    > >> >> have
    > >> >> still been struggling over it long after you figured it out and went
    > >> >> on
    > >> >> to
    > >> >> the next problem.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within
     
  19. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi, Chris.

    > and Track name autocorrect is off.


    On both workstations, correct?

    Recheck both workstations and ensure that the owner of the MenuStartUp form
    is the same on both workstations. Has it always been the same owner, or was
    there a change after the form was created?

    If it's the same owner on both workstations and always has been, then let's
    check the documentation. If you aren't allowed to use third-party tools at
    your company, run the Documenter utility on the MenuStartUp form and the
    objects that can be used in the subform control, and ensure that the
    "Permissions by user and group" checkbox is checked. Otherwise, download
    Access MVP Jeff Conrad's CSD Tools utility:

    http://home.bendbroadband.com/conradsystems/accessjunkie/csdtools.html

    Get on the Access 2002 workstation and log into the secure database as a
    member of the Admins Group. Run the Documenter as suggested above or a CSD
    Tools report with the Group Membership on all groups and the permissions on
    all the objects listed above, then export it to Excel. Do the same thing on
    an Access 2003 workstation where the Access 2003 users can't open the
    MenuStartUp form. Convert the Excel files to CSV files, zip them and send
    me the zip file, if you don't mind my seeing the names of your users,
    Groups, and all these objects and their permissions. My E-mail address on
    my posts is munged to avoid spammers, but if you remove ZERO_SPAM wherever
    you see it, then you'll find a valid E-mail address. Just don't post the
    correct version here in the newsgroups asking whether or not you sent it to
    the right address.

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:C7F974DD-16DC-4868-A3AE-85D4D2336A8C@microsoft.com...
    > The MenuStartUp form is unbound and Track name autocorrect is off.
    >
    > Papercut is only a member of Users and Full Data Users groups.
    > There are no permissions granted to the users group.
    >
    > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >
    >> Hi, Chris.
    >>
    >> > Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms?

    >>
    >> No. You'd get error #2614, "You don't have permission to insert this
    >> form
    >> into another form" if the user doesn't have permissions to Open/Run and
    >> Read
    >> Design for the subform.
    >>
    >> > Can a user with the
    >> > above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control?

    >>
    >> Yes, as long as the user also has Open/Run and Read Design permissions
    >> for
    >> all of the objects that the subform control might hold.
    >>
    >> > If I get a message in
    >> > 2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?

    >>
    >> When it comes to User-level Security, yes.
    >>
    >> Go to the Access 2002 workstation and log into the secure database as
    >> Papercut. Look at the User and Group accounts and record every group
    >> that
    >> papercut is a member of. For the purposes of this test, Papercut should
    >> only be a member of the Users Group and the Full Data Users Group. Next,
    >> look at the User and Group Permissions, and verify that Papercut doesn't
    >> have any permissions as a User for the MenuStartUp form or the other
    >> objects
    >> that might be used for the subform control, but the Full Data Users Group
    >> has Open/Run, Read Design, and Modify Design permissions for this form
    >> and
    >> Open/Run and Read Design permissions for the subform control's sources.
    >> If
    >> you removed Papercut from any of the groups, retest whether Papercut
    >> still
    >> has no problems with this secure database by logging out of the database,
    >> logging back in as Papercut, then opening the MenuStartUp form.
    >>
    >> Log out of the database and go to the Access 2003 workstation and log
    >> into
    >> the secure database again as Papercut. Look at the User and Group
    >> accounts
    >> and verify that Papercut is only a member of the Users Group and the Full
    >> Data Users Group. These should match the groups that Papercut is a
    >> member
    >> of on the Access 2002 workstation exactly. Next, look at the User and
    >> Group
    >> Permissions, and verify that Papercut doesn't have any permissions as a
    >> User
    >> for the MenuStartUp form or the other objects that might be used for the
    >> subform control, but the Full Data Users Group has Open/Run, Read Design,
    >> and Modify Design permissions for this form and Open/Run and Read Design
    >> permissions for the subform control's sources.
    >>
    >> The MenuStartUp form isn't bound, correct? And Track name AutoCorrect is
    >> off, correct?
    >>
    >> HTH.
    >> Gunny
    >>
    >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    >> info.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> news:BA1AA754-6867-4D23-836B-71DE744B598B@microsoft.com...
    >> > Gunny,
    >> >
    >> > Done with the test. Here's the results:
    >> >
    >> > I created a user - papercut. Made them part of the full data users
    >> > group.
    >> > The same group as the 2003 users. The group has open/run, read design,
    >> > modify design rights on my start up form called MenuStartUp.
    >> >
    >> > Papercut on a 2003 machine) gets the message "You don't have permission
    >> > to
    >> > run 'MenuStartUp'.
    >> >
    >> > Papercut on a 2002 machine) the database opens normally. No messages
    >> > at
    >> > all.
    >> >
    >> > This form was not designed by me. It has a tab strip, some sub forms,
    >> > and
    >> > a
    >> > quite a few unbound controls we use for searching different fields.
    >> >
    >> > Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms? Can a user
    >> > with
    >> > the
    >> > above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control?
    >> > To
    >> > save
    >> > space, the guy before me practiced using one subform control and
    >> > changed
    >> > it's
    >> > source object depending on what search criteria was entered.
    >> >
    >> > This db was not designed with security in mind obviously. But I still
    >> > don't
    >> > get the different reaction between 2002 and 2003. If I get a message
    >> > in
    >> > 2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Hi, Chris.
    >> >>
    >> >> > You've made reference
    >> >> > to southern California as if you live in the area.
    >> >>
    >> >> I'm one of your former neighbors. I used to live the other side of
    >> >> I-5,
    >> >> off
    >> >> Trabuco, so I'm well aware of whose lips the words "You're such a
    >> >> jerk!"
    >> >> fall off of when hanging around with Jarheads.
    >> >>
    >> >> > I would like
    >> >> > to meet you.
    >> >>
    >> >> No need. I can live with your believing I'm an arrogant jerk, so I
    >> >> don't
    >> >> need to make a long distance trip to meet you and attempt to disprove
    >> >> your
    >> >> low opinion of me.
    >> >>
    >> >> > Anybody who can put together a response as
    >> >> > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    >> >>
    >> >> Glad to see that you have a sense of humor. :)
    >> >>
    >> >> > I felt you were
    >> >> > trying to make me look stupid.
    >> >>
    >> >> I gathered that, which is why I tried to clarify my earlier message.
    >> >> As
    >> >> Doug mentioned, I should have worded it differently, but the offer of
    >> >> assistance is genuine. We're here to help those who ask for it. We
    >> >> get
    >> >> a
    >> >> lot of E-mails and messages from posters thanking us for making them
    >> >> look
    >> >> like geniuses in front of their managers, so I mentioned it to you so
    >> >> you
    >> >> wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the advice you were given:
    >> >>
    >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/micr...0772/3237d5a34e801c17?&hl=en#3237d5a34e801c17
    >> >>
    >> >> > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the
    >> >> > workgroup
    >> >> > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup
    >> >> > form
    >> >> > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same
    >> >> > person
    >> >> > who
    >> >> > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from
    >> >> > their
    >> >> > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002
    >> >> > installed
    >> >> > and
    >> >> > login without issue.
    >> >>
    >> >> Everything seems to be in order, so let's throw a monkey wrench into
    >> >> it.
    >> >> Go
    >> >> to one of the Access 2002 computers and log into the secure database
    >> >> as a
    >> >> member of the Admins Group and create a new user. Use a name where
    >> >> there
    >> >> can be no doubt as to the correct spelling, such as Papercut. Assign
    >> >> this
    >> >> user to the same group the Access 2003 users are having trouble with.
    >> >> At
    >> >> a
    >> >> minimum, this group should have permissions to open/run the database
    >> >> and
    >> >> to
    >> >> open/run the forms. This group should not be the Admins Group or the
    >> >> Users
    >> >> Group if your database is secured properly.
    >> >>
    >> >> Log out as the member of the Admins Group, then log in as this new
    >> >> member
    >> >> to
    >> >> ensure that this new user can open the database and the forms. If
    >> >> successful, assign a password. Log out. Log in again to ensure that
    >> >> the
    >> >> new password works. Log out.
    >> >>
    >> >> Go to an Access 2003 computer where the user can't open the forms in
    >> >> the
    >> >> secure database, and then log into the secure database as the new
    >> >> user.
    >> >> Can
    >> >> you open the database, or do you get a permissions error message when
    >> >> you
    >> >> either try to open the database or when you attempt to open the form?
    >> >>
    >> >> If you can't open the database, log in as one of the Access 2003
    >> >> users.
    >> >> Select the Tools -> Security -> Users and Group Accounts... menu.
    >> >> Look
    >> >> at
    >> >> the list of users on the "Users" tab. Is your new user listed?
    >> >>
    >> >> > Both the FE and BE are 2000 file
    >> >> > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    >> >>
    >> >> That's okay. User-level Security is virtually unchanged in all three
    >> >> versions, Access 2000, 2002, and 2003. The Access 2000 workgroup
    >> >> information file contains all the information you need to use with a
    >> >> secure
    >> >> database, regardless of whether you are using Access 2002 or 2003 to
    >> >> open
    >> >> it.
    >> >>
    >> >> The only problems that you might encounter with the Access 2000
    >> >> database
    >> >> format are when 1.) the database file is secured with the Access 2000
    >> >> Security Wizard, because there's a bug in it that leaves your database
    >> >> unsecured, or 2.) the workgroup information file is corrupted. You'll
    >> >> know
    >> >> that the workgroup information file is corrupted because you'll get
    >> >> really,
    >> >> really bizarre error messages when you use it to open and run a secure
    >> >> database. Your form permissions problem doesn't look like it fits
    >> >> into
    >> >> this
    >> >> category, because one group of users (Access 2002) is having no
    >> >> problems
    >> >> with it. Presumably they are multiple, concurrent users -- or are
    >> >> they
    >> >> accessing the workgroup file one user at a time? (The latter might
    >> >> not
    >> >> display bizarre error messages as often or as readily as when many
    >> >> people
    >> >> are using the file at the same time.)
    >> >>
    >> >> HTH.
    >> >> Gunny
    >> >>
    >> >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    >> >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and
    >> >> tutorials.
    >> >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for
    >> >> contact
    >> >> info.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> >> news:983AEA09-C64F-4AAA-BC28-1240A271627A@microsoft.com...
    >> >> > Gunny,
    >> >> >
    >> >> > My name is Chris Fox. I live in Irvine, California. You've made
    >> >> > reference
    >> >> > to southern California as if you live in the area. I hope so. I
    >> >> > would
    >> >> > like
    >> >> > to meet you. No, that is not a threat. It's an invitation. Two
    >> >> > reasons
    >> >> > 1.
    >> >> > To prove that I am a man. 2. Anybody who can put together a
    >> >> > response
    >> >> > as
    >> >> > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    >> >> >
    >> >> > At first I was pissed when you responded to my posting. I felt you
    >> >> > were
    >> >> > trying to make me look stupid. Suffice it to say that I believe you
    >> >> > should
    >> >> > have handled it differently. I think you should try harder at
    >> >> > giving
    >> >> > someone
    >> >> > the benefit of the doubt before you start in on them. I can promise
    >> >> > you
    >> >> > this, if you would have given that courtesy to me, none of this
    >> >> > nonsense
    >> >> > would have happened. A little respect goes a long way in this
    >> >> > world.
    >> >> > Wouldn't you agree?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I am not in the business of making enemies. So for any disrespect
    >> >> > I've
    >> >> > shown you, I apologize. And that's the last of it for me. I am far
    >> >> > too
    >> >> > busy
    >> >> > to keep up with jarring back and forth over stupid stuff.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I have already tried what you are suggesting in your response.
    >> >> > Since
    >> >> > you
    >> >> > have once again attempted to give advice, I will bounce this off
    >> >> > you.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the
    >> >> > workgroup
    >> >> > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup
    >> >> > form
    >> >> > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same
    >> >> > person
    >> >> > who
    >> >> > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from
    >> >> > their
    >> >> > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002
    >> >> > installed
    >> >> > and
    >> >> > login without issue.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Also I should mention this is a split db. Both the FE and BE are
    >> >> > 2000
    >> >> > file
    >> >> > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Now what do you think?
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> > .
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> Ma'am,
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> You're taking offense where none is intended. Have you never heard
    >> >> >> the
    >> >> >> legend of El Zorro, the fox, considered a hero and a very crafty
    >> >> >> character
    >> >> >> in California folklore? The term "crazy like a fox" means a very
    >> >> >> clever,
    >> >> >> shrewd individual, one that others might not see how clever he is
    >> >> >> until
    >> >> >> he
    >> >> >> runs away from the chicken coop with every chicken while the other
    >> >> >> animals
    >> >> >> are still puzzling over how to get into the chicken coop and grab
    >> >> >> even
    >> >> >> one
    >> >> >> chicken. When you post a question in the Access newsgroups and get
    >> >> >> quick
    >> >> >> answers from the experts, you get to be the genius in your
    >> >> >> organization,
    >> >> >> because you quickly solved the problem that no one else knew how to
    >> >> >> solve
    >> >> >> and, had your co-workers been in your shoes, they know that they
    >> >> >> would
    >> >> >> have
    >> >> >> still been struggling over it long after you figured it out and
    >> >> >> went
    >> >> >> on
    >> >> >> to
    >> >> >> the next problem.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> > Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere
    >> >> >> > within
     
  20. Cfox4

    Cfox4
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Gunny,

    Cha Ching!!!! (I think anyway)

    Do the permissions I set in a workgroup file apply to ALL secure instances
    of the database using the workgroup file? Or is it in combination (mdw +
    mdb)?

    I have a server copy of the FE. I do my dev work in this file and
    distribute the updates to each user via a VB script. I also receive this
    update. As I have been working on this, I've been opening my local copy of
    the FE and setting the permissions for the groups. It finally dawned on me
    to check the permissions on the server copy and see if they were the same.
    They weren't! So I opened the server copy of the FE and set the permissions.
    Had my tester run their update script and HELLO!!! The 2003 user had no
    issue.

    Basically, I thought that I could assign permissions in the workgroup file
    regardless of which file I used to access it and I was done. ???

    Feel free to rip on me now, I might just deserve it. LOL

    "Cfox4" wrote:

    > The MenuStartUp form is unbound and Track name autocorrect is off.
    >
    > Papercut is only a member of Users and Full Data Users groups.
    > There are no permissions granted to the users group.
    >
    > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >
    > > Hi, Chris.
    > >
    > > > Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms?

    > >
    > > No. You'd get error #2614, "You don't have permission to insert this form
    > > into another form" if the user doesn't have permissions to Open/Run and Read
    > > Design for the subform.
    > >
    > > > Can a user with the
    > > > above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control?

    > >
    > > Yes, as long as the user also has Open/Run and Read Design permissions for
    > > all of the objects that the subform control might hold.
    > >
    > > > If I get a message in
    > > > 2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?

    > >
    > > When it comes to User-level Security, yes.
    > >
    > > Go to the Access 2002 workstation and log into the secure database as
    > > Papercut. Look at the User and Group accounts and record every group that
    > > papercut is a member of. For the purposes of this test, Papercut should
    > > only be a member of the Users Group and the Full Data Users Group. Next,
    > > look at the User and Group Permissions, and verify that Papercut doesn't
    > > have any permissions as a User for the MenuStartUp form or the other objects
    > > that might be used for the subform control, but the Full Data Users Group
    > > has Open/Run, Read Design, and Modify Design permissions for this form and
    > > Open/Run and Read Design permissions for the subform control's sources. If
    > > you removed Papercut from any of the groups, retest whether Papercut still
    > > has no problems with this secure database by logging out of the database,
    > > logging back in as Papercut, then opening the MenuStartUp form.
    > >
    > > Log out of the database and go to the Access 2003 workstation and log into
    > > the secure database again as Papercut. Look at the User and Group accounts
    > > and verify that Papercut is only a member of the Users Group and the Full
    > > Data Users Group. These should match the groups that Papercut is a member
    > > of on the Access 2002 workstation exactly. Next, look at the User and Group
    > > Permissions, and verify that Papercut doesn't have any permissions as a User
    > > for the MenuStartUp form or the other objects that might be used for the
    > > subform control, but the Full Data Users Group has Open/Run, Read Design,
    > > and Modify Design permissions for this form and Open/Run and Read Design
    > > permissions for the subform control's sources.
    > >
    > > The MenuStartUp form isn't bound, correct? And Track name AutoCorrect is
    > > off, correct?
    > >
    > > HTH.
    > > Gunny
    > >
    > > See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > > See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    > > http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    > > info.
    > >
    > >
    > > "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > > news:BA1AA754-6867-4D23-836B-71DE744B598B@microsoft.com...
    > > > Gunny,
    > > >
    > > > Done with the test. Here's the results:
    > > >
    > > > I created a user - papercut. Made them part of the full data users group.
    > > > The same group as the 2003 users. The group has open/run, read design,
    > > > modify design rights on my start up form called MenuStartUp.
    > > >
    > > > Papercut on a 2003 machine) gets the message "You don't have permission to
    > > > run 'MenuStartUp'.
    > > >
    > > > Papercut on a 2002 machine) the database opens normally. No messages at
    > > > all.
    > > >
    > > > This form was not designed by me. It has a tab strip, some sub forms, and
    > > > a
    > > > quite a few unbound controls we use for searching different fields.
    > > >
    > > > Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms? Can a user with
    > > > the
    > > > above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control? To
    > > > save
    > > > space, the guy before me practiced using one subform control and changed
    > > > it's
    > > > source object depending on what search criteria was entered.
    > > >
    > > > This db was not designed with security in mind obviously. But I still
    > > > don't
    > > > get the different reaction between 2002 and 2003. If I get a message in
    > > > 2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> Hi, Chris.
    > > >>
    > > >> > You've made reference
    > > >> > to southern California as if you live in the area.
    > > >>
    > > >> I'm one of your former neighbors. I used to live the other side of I-5,
    > > >> off
    > > >> Trabuco, so I'm well aware of whose lips the words "You're such a jerk!"
    > > >> fall off of when hanging around with Jarheads.
    > > >>
    > > >> > I would like
    > > >> > to meet you.
    > > >>
    > > >> No need. I can live with your believing I'm an arrogant jerk, so I don't
    > > >> need to make a long distance trip to meet you and attempt to disprove
    > > >> your
    > > >> low opinion of me.
    > > >>
    > > >> > Anybody who can put together a response as
    > > >> > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    > > >>
    > > >> Glad to see that you have a sense of humor. :)
    > > >>
    > > >> > I felt you were
    > > >> > trying to make me look stupid.
    > > >>
    > > >> I gathered that, which is why I tried to clarify my earlier message. As
    > > >> Doug mentioned, I should have worded it differently, but the offer of
    > > >> assistance is genuine. We're here to help those who ask for it. We get
    > > >> a
    > > >> lot of E-mails and messages from posters thanking us for making them look
    > > >> like geniuses in front of their managers, so I mentioned it to you so you
    > > >> wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the advice you were given:
    > > >>
    > > >> http://groups.google.com/group/micr...0772/3237d5a34e801c17?&hl=en#3237d5a34e801c17
    > > >>
    > > >> > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the
    > > >> > workgroup
    > > >> > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup
    > > >> > form
    > > >> > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person
    > > >> > who
    > > >> > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    > > >> > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed
    > > >> > and
    > > >> > login without issue.
    > > >>
    > > >> Everything seems to be in order, so let's throw a monkey wrench into it.
    > > >> Go
    > > >> to one of the Access 2002 computers and log into the secure database as a
    > > >> member of the Admins Group and create a new user. Use a name where there
    > > >> can be no doubt as to the correct spelling, such as Papercut. Assign
    > > >> this
    > > >> user to the same group the Access 2003 users are having trouble with. At
    > > >> a
    > > >> minimum, this group should have permissions to open/run the database and
    > > >> to
    > > >> open/run the forms. This group should not be the Admins Group or the
    > > >> Users
    > > >> Group if your database is secured properly.
    > > >>
    > > >> Log out as the member of the Admins Group, then log in as this new member
    > > >> to
    > > >> ensure that this new user can open the database and the forms. If
    > > >> successful, assign a password. Log out. Log in again to ensure that the
    > > >> new password works. Log out.
    > > >>
    > > >> Go to an Access 2003 computer where the user can't open the forms in the
    > > >> secure database, and then log into the secure database as the new user.
    > > >> Can
    > > >> you open the database, or do you get a permissions error message when you
    > > >> either try to open the database or when you attempt to open the form?
    > > >>
    > > >> If you can't open the database, log in as one of the Access 2003 users.
    > > >> Select the Tools -> Security -> Users and Group Accounts... menu. Look
    > > >> at
    > > >> the list of users on the "Users" tab. Is your new user listed?
    > > >>
    > > >> > Both the FE and BE are 2000 file
    > > >> > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    > > >>
    > > >> That's okay. User-level Security is virtually unchanged in all three
    > > >> versions, Access 2000, 2002, and 2003. The Access 2000 workgroup
    > > >> information file contains all the information you need to use with a
    > > >> secure
    > > >> database, regardless of whether you are using Access 2002 or 2003 to open
    > > >> it.
    > > >>
    > > >> The only problems that you might encounter with the Access 2000 database
    > > >> format are when 1.) the database file is secured with the Access 2000
    > > >> Security Wizard, because there's a bug in it that leaves your database
    > > >> unsecured, or 2.) the workgroup information file is corrupted. You'll
    > > >> know
    > > >> that the workgroup information file is corrupted because you'll get
    > > >> really,
    > > >> really bizarre error messages when you use it to open and run a secure
    > > >> database. Your form permissions problem doesn't look like it fits into
    > > >> this
    > > >> category, because one group of users (Access 2002) is having no problems
    > > >> with it. Presumably they are multiple, concurrent users -- or are they
    > > >> accessing the workgroup file one user at a time? (The latter might not
    > > >> display bizarre error messages as often or as readily as when many people
    > > >> are using the file at the same time.)
    > > >>
    > > >> HTH.
    > > >> Gunny
    > > >>
    > > >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > > >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    > > >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    > > >> info.
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >> "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > > >> news:983AEA09-C64F-4AAA-BC28-1240A271627A@microsoft.com...
    > > >> > Gunny,
    > > >> >
    > > >> > My name is Chris Fox. I live in Irvine, California. You've made
    > > >> > reference
    > > >> > to southern California as if you live in the area. I hope so. I would
    > > >> > like
    > > >> > to meet you. No, that is not a threat. It's an invitation. Two
    > > >> > reasons
    > > >> > 1.
    > > >> > To prove that I am a man. 2. Anybody who can put together a response
    > > >> > as
    > > >> > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    > > >> >
    > > >> > At first I was pissed when you responded to my posting. I felt you
    > > >> > were
    > > >> > trying to make me look stupid. Suffice it to say that I believe you
    > > >> > should
    > > >> > have handled it differently. I think you should try harder at giving
    > > >> > someone
    > > >> > the benefit of the doubt before you start in on them. I can promise
    > > >> > you
    > > >> > this, if you would have given that courtesy to me, none of this
    > > >> > nonsense
    > > >> > would have happened. A little respect goes a long way in this world.
    > > >> > Wouldn't you agree?
    > > >> >
    > > >> > I am not in the business of making enemies. So for any disrespect I've
    > > >> > shown you, I apologize. And that's the last of it for me. I am far
    > > >> > too
    > > >> > busy
    > > >> > to keep up with jarring back and forth over stupid stuff.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > I have already tried what you are suggesting in your response. Since
    > > >> > you
    > > >> > have once again attempted to give advice, I will bounce this off you.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the
    > > >> > workgroup
    > > >> > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the startup
    > > >> > form
    > > >> > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same person
    > > >> > who
    > > >> > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from their
    > > >> > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002 installed
    > > >> > and
    > > >> > login without issue.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > Also I should mention this is a split db. Both the FE and BE are 2000
    > > >> > file
    > > >> > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > Now what do you think?
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >> > .
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >> > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    > > >> >
    > > >> >> Ma'am,
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >> You're taking offense where none is intended. Have you never heard
    > > >> >> the
    > > >> >> legend of El Zorro, the fox, considered a hero and a very crafty
    > > >> >> character
    > > >> >> in California folklore? The term "crazy like a fox" means a very
    > > >> >> clever,
    > > >> >> shrewd individual, one that others might not see how clever he is
    > > >> >> until
    > > >> >> he
    > > >> >> runs away from the chicken coop with every chicken while the other
    > > >> >> animals
    > > >> >> are still puzzling over how to get into the chicken coop and grab even
    > > >> >> one
    > > >> >> chicken. When you post a question in the Access newsgroups and get
    > > >> >> quick
    > > >> >> answers from the experts, you get to be the genius in your
    > > >> >> organization,
    > > >> >> because you quickly solved the problem that no one else knew how to
    > > >> >> solve
    > > >> >> and, had your co-workers been in your shoes, they know that they would
     
  21. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi, Chris.

    > Do the permissions I set in a workgroup file apply to ALL secure instances
    > of the database using the workgroup file?


    No. The workgroup information file just holds the groups, users, and
    passwords. No permissions are stored in the workgroup file. The database
    file itself has the ownership and permissions assigned to each object in the
    database container.

    > Feel free to rip on me now, I might just deserve it. LOL


    No way. When the lightbulb comes on, it's a great feeling! Very glad you
    worked it out.

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:270C8229-ADA7-4E46-B875-06E223031DBA@microsoft.com...
    > Gunny,
    >
    > Cha Ching!!!! (I think anyway)
    >
    > Do the permissions I set in a workgroup file apply to ALL secure instances
    > of the database using the workgroup file? Or is it in combination (mdw +
    > mdb)?
    >
    > I have a server copy of the FE. I do my dev work in this file and
    > distribute the updates to each user via a VB script. I also receive this
    > update. As I have been working on this, I've been opening my local copy
    > of
    > the FE and setting the permissions for the groups. It finally dawned on
    > me
    > to check the permissions on the server copy and see if they were the same.
    > They weren't! So I opened the server copy of the FE and set the
    > permissions.
    > Had my tester run their update script and HELLO!!! The 2003 user had no
    > issue.
    >
    > Basically, I thought that I could assign permissions in the workgroup file
    > regardless of which file I used to access it and I was done. ???
    >
    > Feel free to rip on me now, I might just deserve it. LOL
    >
    > "Cfox4" wrote:
    >
    >> The MenuStartUp form is unbound and Track name autocorrect is off.
    >>
    >> Papercut is only a member of Users and Full Data Users groups.
    >> There are no permissions granted to the users group.
    >>
    >> "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >>
    >> > Hi, Chris.
    >> >
    >> > > Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms?
    >> >
    >> > No. You'd get error #2614, "You don't have permission to insert this
    >> > form
    >> > into another form" if the user doesn't have permissions to Open/Run and
    >> > Read
    >> > Design for the subform.
    >> >
    >> > > Can a user with the
    >> > > above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control?
    >> >
    >> > Yes, as long as the user also has Open/Run and Read Design permissions
    >> > for
    >> > all of the objects that the subform control might hold.
    >> >
    >> > > If I get a message in
    >> > > 2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?
    >> >
    >> > When it comes to User-level Security, yes.
    >> >
    >> > Go to the Access 2002 workstation and log into the secure database as
    >> > Papercut. Look at the User and Group accounts and record every group
    >> > that
    >> > papercut is a member of. For the purposes of this test, Papercut
    >> > should
    >> > only be a member of the Users Group and the Full Data Users Group.
    >> > Next,
    >> > look at the User and Group Permissions, and verify that Papercut
    >> > doesn't
    >> > have any permissions as a User for the MenuStartUp form or the other
    >> > objects
    >> > that might be used for the subform control, but the Full Data Users
    >> > Group
    >> > has Open/Run, Read Design, and Modify Design permissions for this form
    >> > and
    >> > Open/Run and Read Design permissions for the subform control's sources.
    >> > If
    >> > you removed Papercut from any of the groups, retest whether Papercut
    >> > still
    >> > has no problems with this secure database by logging out of the
    >> > database,
    >> > logging back in as Papercut, then opening the MenuStartUp form.
    >> >
    >> > Log out of the database and go to the Access 2003 workstation and log
    >> > into
    >> > the secure database again as Papercut. Look at the User and Group
    >> > accounts
    >> > and verify that Papercut is only a member of the Users Group and the
    >> > Full
    >> > Data Users Group. These should match the groups that Papercut is a
    >> > member
    >> > of on the Access 2002 workstation exactly. Next, look at the User and
    >> > Group
    >> > Permissions, and verify that Papercut doesn't have any permissions as a
    >> > User
    >> > for the MenuStartUp form or the other objects that might be used for
    >> > the
    >> > subform control, but the Full Data Users Group has Open/Run, Read
    >> > Design,
    >> > and Modify Design permissions for this form and Open/Run and Read
    >> > Design
    >> > permissions for the subform control's sources.
    >> >
    >> > The MenuStartUp form isn't bound, correct? And Track name AutoCorrect
    >> > is
    >> > off, correct?
    >> >
    >> > HTH.
    >> > Gunny
    >> >
    >> > See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    >> > See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and
    >> > tutorials.
    >> > http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    >> > info.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> > news:BA1AA754-6867-4D23-836B-71DE744B598B@microsoft.com...
    >> > > Gunny,
    >> > >
    >> > > Done with the test. Here's the results:
    >> > >
    >> > > I created a user - papercut. Made them part of the full data users
    >> > > group.
    >> > > The same group as the 2003 users. The group has open/run, read
    >> > > design,
    >> > > modify design rights on my start up form called MenuStartUp.
    >> > >
    >> > > Papercut on a 2003 machine) gets the message "You don't have
    >> > > permission to
    >> > > run 'MenuStartUp'.
    >> > >
    >> > > Papercut on a 2002 machine) the database opens normally. No messages
    >> > > at
    >> > > all.
    >> > >
    >> > > This form was not designed by me. It has a tab strip, some sub
    >> > > forms, and
    >> > > a
    >> > > quite a few unbound controls we use for searching different fields.
    >> > >
    >> > > Do you think this problem could be linked to sub forms? Can a user
    >> > > with
    >> > > the
    >> > > above permissions change the 'source object' for a sub form control?
    >> > > To
    >> > > save
    >> > > space, the guy before me practiced using one subform control and
    >> > > changed
    >> > > it's
    >> > > source object depending on what search criteria was entered.
    >> > >
    >> > > This db was not designed with security in mind obviously. But I
    >> > > still
    >> > > don't
    >> > > get the different reaction between 2002 and 2003. If I get a message
    >> > > in
    >> > > 2003, I should get the same message in 2002. Don't you think?
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > >> Hi, Chris.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > You've made reference
    >> > >> > to southern California as if you live in the area.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> I'm one of your former neighbors. I used to live the other side of
    >> > >> I-5,
    >> > >> off
    >> > >> Trabuco, so I'm well aware of whose lips the words "You're such a
    >> > >> jerk!"
    >> > >> fall off of when hanging around with Jarheads.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > I would like
    >> > >> > to meet you.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> No need. I can live with your believing I'm an arrogant jerk, so I
    >> > >> don't
    >> > >> need to make a long distance trip to meet you and attempt to
    >> > >> disprove
    >> > >> your
    >> > >> low opinion of me.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > Anybody who can put together a response as
    >> > >> > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    >> > >>
    >> > >> Glad to see that you have a sense of humor. :)
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > I felt you were
    >> > >> > trying to make me look stupid.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> I gathered that, which is why I tried to clarify my earlier message.
    >> > >> As
    >> > >> Doug mentioned, I should have worded it differently, but the offer
    >> > >> of
    >> > >> assistance is genuine. We're here to help those who ask for it. We
    >> > >> get
    >> > >> a
    >> > >> lot of E-mails and messages from posters thanking us for making them
    >> > >> look
    >> > >> like geniuses in front of their managers, so I mentioned it to you
    >> > >> so you
    >> > >> wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the advice you were given:
    >> > >>
    >> > >> http://groups.google.com/group/micr...0772/3237d5a34e801c17?&hl=en#3237d5a34e801c17
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the
    >> > >> > workgroup
    >> > >> > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the
    >> > >> > startup
    >> > >> > form
    >> > >> > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same
    >> > >> > person
    >> > >> > who
    >> > >> > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from
    >> > >> > their
    >> > >> > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002
    >> > >> > installed
    >> > >> > and
    >> > >> > login without issue.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> Everything seems to be in order, so let's throw a monkey wrench into
    >> > >> it.
    >> > >> Go
    >> > >> to one of the Access 2002 computers and log into the secure database
    >> > >> as a
    >> > >> member of the Admins Group and create a new user. Use a name where
    >> > >> there
    >> > >> can be no doubt as to the correct spelling, such as Papercut.
    >> > >> Assign
    >> > >> this
    >> > >> user to the same group the Access 2003 users are having trouble
    >> > >> with. At
    >> > >> a
    >> > >> minimum, this group should have permissions to open/run the database
    >> > >> and
    >> > >> to
    >> > >> open/run the forms. This group should not be the Admins Group or
    >> > >> the
    >> > >> Users
    >> > >> Group if your database is secured properly.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> Log out as the member of the Admins Group, then log in as this new
    >> > >> member
    >> > >> to
    >> > >> ensure that this new user can open the database and the forms. If
    >> > >> successful, assign a password. Log out. Log in again to ensure
    >> > >> that the
    >> > >> new password works. Log out.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> Go to an Access 2003 computer where the user can't open the forms in
    >> > >> the
    >> > >> secure database, and then log into the secure database as the new
    >> > >> user.
    >> > >> Can
    >> > >> you open the database, or do you get a permissions error message
    >> > >> when you
    >> > >> either try to open the database or when you attempt to open the
    >> > >> form?
    >> > >>
    >> > >> If you can't open the database, log in as one of the Access 2003
    >> > >> users.
    >> > >> Select the Tools -> Security -> Users and Group Accounts... menu.
    >> > >> Look
    >> > >> at
    >> > >> the list of users on the "Users" tab. Is your new user listed?
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > Both the FE and BE are 2000 file
    >> > >> > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> That's okay. User-level Security is virtually unchanged in all
    >> > >> three
    >> > >> versions, Access 2000, 2002, and 2003. The Access 2000 workgroup
    >> > >> information file contains all the information you need to use with a
    >> > >> secure
    >> > >> database, regardless of whether you are using Access 2002 or 2003 to
    >> > >> open
    >> > >> it.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> The only problems that you might encounter with the Access 2000
    >> > >> database
    >> > >> format are when 1.) the database file is secured with the Access
    >> > >> 2000
    >> > >> Security Wizard, because there's a bug in it that leaves your
    >> > >> database
    >> > >> unsecured, or 2.) the workgroup information file is corrupted.
    >> > >> You'll
    >> > >> know
    >> > >> that the workgroup information file is corrupted because you'll get
    >> > >> really,
    >> > >> really bizarre error messages when you use it to open and run a
    >> > >> secure
    >> > >> database. Your form permissions problem doesn't look like it fits
    >> > >> into
    >> > >> this
    >> > >> category, because one group of users (Access 2002) is having no
    >> > >> problems
    >> > >> with it. Presumably they are multiple, concurrent users -- or are
    >> > >> they
    >> > >> accessing the workgroup file one user at a time? (The latter might
    >> > >> not
    >> > >> display bizarre error messages as often or as readily as when many
    >> > >> people
    >> > >> are using the file at the same time.)
    >> > >>
    >> > >> HTH.
    >> > >> Gunny
    >> > >>
    >> > >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    >> > >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and
    >> > >> tutorials.
    >> > >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for
    >> > >> contact
    >> > >> info.
    >> > >>
    >> > >>
    >> > >> "Cfox4" <Cfox4@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> > >> news:983AEA09-C64F-4AAA-BC28-1240A271627A@microsoft.com...
    >> > >> > Gunny,
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > My name is Chris Fox. I live in Irvine, California. You've made
    >> > >> > reference
    >> > >> > to southern California as if you live in the area. I hope so. I
    >> > >> > would
    >> > >> > like
    >> > >> > to meet you. No, that is not a threat. It's an invitation. Two
    >> > >> > reasons
    >> > >> > 1.
    >> > >> > To prove that I am a man. 2. Anybody who can put together a
    >> > >> > response
    >> > >> > as
    >> > >> > comical as this one deserves a handshake at least!!!
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > At first I was pissed when you responded to my posting. I felt
    >> > >> > you
    >> > >> > were
    >> > >> > trying to make me look stupid. Suffice it to say that I believe
    >> > >> > you
    >> > >> > should
    >> > >> > have handled it differently. I think you should try harder at
    >> > >> > giving
    >> > >> > someone
    >> > >> > the benefit of the doubt before you start in on them. I can
    >> > >> > promise
    >> > >> > you
    >> > >> > this, if you would have given that courtesy to me, none of this
    >> > >> > nonsense
    >> > >> > would have happened. A little respect goes a long way in this
    >> > >> > world.
    >> > >> > Wouldn't you agree?
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > I am not in the business of making enemies. So for any disrespect
    >> > >> > I've
    >> > >> > shown you, I apologize. And that's the last of it for me. I am
    >> > >> > far
    >> > >> > too
    >> > >> > busy
    >> > >> > to keep up with jarring back and forth over stupid stuff.
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > I have already tried what you are suggesting in your response.
    >> > >> > Since
    >> > >> > you
    >> > >> > have once again attempted to give advice, I will bounce this off
    >> > >> > you.
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > I added one of the Access 2003 users to the Admins group in the
    >> > >> > workgroup
    >> > >> > file. After I did this, they logged in successfully and the
    >> > >> > startup
    >> > >> > form
    >> > >> > opened on their machine with 2003 installed. This is the same
    >> > >> > person
    >> > >> > who
    >> > >> > before I did this could not log in and open the startup form from
    >> > >> > their
    >> > >> > machine with 2003 on it but could go to a machine with 2002
    >> > >> > installed
    >> > >> > and
    >> > >> > login without issue.
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > Also I should mention this is a split db. Both the FE and BE are
    >> > >> > 2000
    >> > >> > file
    >> > >> > format. The mdw is also 2000 format.
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > Now what do you think?
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > .
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> >> Ma'am,
    >> > >> >>
    >> > >> >> You're taking offense where none is intended. Have you never
    >> > >> >> heard
    >> > >> >> the
    >> > >> >> legend of El Zorro, the fox, considered a hero and a very crafty
    >> > >> >> character
    >> > >> >> in California folklore? The term "crazy like a fox" means a very
    >> > >> >> clever,
    >> > >> >> shrewd individual, one that others might not see how clever he is
    >> > >> >> until
    >> > >> >> he
    >> > >> >> runs away from the chicken coop with every chicken while the
    >> > >> >> other
    >> > >> >> animals
    >> > >> >> are still puzzling over how to get into the chicken coop and grab
    >> > >> >> even
    >> > >> >> one
    >> > >> >> chicken. When you post a question in the Access newsgroups and
    >> > >> >> get
    >> > >> >> quick
    >> > >> >> answers from the experts, you get to be the genius in your
    >> > >> >> organization,
    >> > >> >> because you quickly solved the problem that no one else knew how
    >> > >> >> to
    >> > >> >> solve
    >> > >> >> and, had your co-workers been in your shoes, they know that they
    >> > >> >> would
     

Share This Page