Windows Forum

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Peachtree for DOS - Sharing Violation

0 helpful
5 replies

by susu

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I have a client who is using Peachtree for DOS.

The executables and data files are run from a mapped drive on an NT server. The clients are Windows 98.

Suddenly, the clients have been receiving "Sharing Violation: Abort Retry Fail" messages when they start Peachtree and when they access different modules.

I know this isn't a lot of information, but does anyone have any ideas as to what the problem might be or where to look?

5 replies

by dbaldwin

This error was quite common in Windows 95 when running a DOS program in it's own virtual machine. I'm not sure if you are having the client restart in MS-DOS mode or not, but you might try this to see if shutting down Windows resolves the issue. If it does it, than it will be a memory violation issue. You can overcome this by adjusting the settings for the MS-DOS session. Thanks. DB.

by susu

Restarting Windows does resolve the issue. So far, it has not returned. I am afraid, however, that it will, as it was occuring on several machines at the same time.

The client is running the software in a DOS window.

What did you mean by "adjusting the settings for the MS-DOS session"? What adjustments should be made?

by dbaldwin

What I was actually speaking of was restarting in MS-DOS, without Windows running. The bit about the MS-DOS setting would be what used to be called the PIF settings in Windows 3.1. You can right-click on the shortcut that points to an MS-DOS basedexecutable and you'll see vastly different tabs than those pointing to any Windows based executable. Some of these settings are for memory used by the application. I find it hard to believe that this type of error could have creeped up suddenly and be affecting multiple machines. The executable (if it's being launched centrally from a server could have been modified in some way unbeknownst to you. This could have been a patch applied or some other such occurance that now causes the executable to use slightly more conventional memory than before. Just a guess:-) Thanks. DB.

This discussion is closed to new replies.