[AccessD] 64-but ONLY front end ?

[Ryan Wehler]

Oh and 8GB physical memory. At least on my machine. But that hardly matters from what I've read with the virtual memory limit imposed on 32 bit apps on 64 OS. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 8:32 PM, John Colby <jwcolby at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Never mind.  I didn't see "just the switchboard"
> 
> I read somewhere that much of Access (back in the day) was written in assembler.  Perhaps they switched to C# or something.  Just a WAG.
> 
> The whole thing is bizarre.
> 
> What I'm not seeing however is an "apples to apples".  It seems like we need 4 pictures.
> 
> 2013 on 32 bit OS
> 2013 on 64 bit OS
> 2003 on 32 bit OS
> 2003 on 64 bit OS.
> 
> I do know that 64 bit windows (assuming sufficient RAM) is able to push mapped video up out of the way.
> 
> Speaking of sufficient ram, what is the physical memory of these machines?  And does more physical memory help in any way?
> 
>> On 1/17/2017 3:35 PM, Ryan W wrote:
>> A deeper look:
>> 
>> 
>> Access 2013 32-bit on 64 bit OS:
>> https://i.imgur.com/erUcFpo.png
>> 
>> Access 2003 32-bit on 32 bit OS:
>> https://i.imgur.com/1qCRQLm.png
>> 
>> 
>> By the time I load my app up with JUST the switchboard open:
>> 
>> Access 2013 32 bit:
>> https://i.imgur.com/OkYxSsg.png
>> 
>> Access 2003 32 bit:
>> https://i.imgur.com/DeStcnt.png
>> 
>> 
>> So I'm using 40% more memory just to run Access 2013!  Once I hit a "TOTAL"
>> number of around 1.45GB I start getting out of resource errors.   When
>> switching to 64 bit my memory wall becomes big enough (up to 8TB) that it's
>> never ever a problem.
>> 
>> 
>> Here we are with 5 of our most used and most commonly opened forms all
>> opened up:
>> https://i.imgur.com/RjPRpnd.png
>> 
>> We are just barely skirting that limit here.  It would not take much (just
>> a slightly larger data set on one of the forms) to stop the user in it's
>> tracks.
>> 
>> Those same forms open in Access 2003:
>> https://i.imgur.com/ed296vH.png
>> 
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Martin Reid <martinreid at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> He's been an amazing resource to
>>> bounce ideas and questions off
>>> 
>>> Has been for many years.
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: ‎17/‎01/‎2017 18:01
>>> To: "Access Developers discussion and problem solving" <
>>> accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [AccessD] 64-but ONLY front end ?
>>> 
>>> Assuming is mb?
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 17, 2017 9:56 AM, "Ryan W" <wrwehler at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> For those following along:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> VMMap.exe (sysinternals) shows that Access 2003 sitting idle uses about
>>> 75K
>>>> of memory "total", Access 2013 (32 bit) is using 516K of memory "total"
>>>> sitting idle. This is WITHOUT having my MDE/ACCDE loaded.
>>>> 
>>>> Talk about bloat! It looks like a lot of this might be the 64 bit to 32
>>> bit
>>>> layer (SYSWOW)
>>>> 
>>>> I'm still chasing down "JIT" forms (via Classes) with John Colby
>>> providing
>>>> assistance via email and telephone!  He's been an amazing resource to
>>>> bounce ideas and questions off.
>>>> --
>>>> AccessD mailing list
>>>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>>>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>>>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>>>> 
>>> --
>>> AccessD mailing list
>>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>>> --
>>> AccessD mailing list
>>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> John W. Colby
> 
> -- 
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com