Rookie question - I have converted a copy of our DB in Access 97 to Access
2003 and don't see any problems so far at all. It's probably not very
sophisticated as DBs go - not sure what if any problems are common. My only
concern is that the file size in 97 is 6.78 MB, and in 2003 it's 2.06 MB. Is
there a simple explanation? Does it matter? It seems like everything is
there, everything seems to behave fine.

Thanks,
Larry

Hi.

> not sure what if any problems are common.

Folks commonly try to share the database file without splitting it into a
front end and back end. This often causes corruption, especially when a
developer is making changes to the database file when other users have the
file open. This is prevented in Access 2000 and later versions with an error
message that exclusive access is needed to save the object, but Access 97
happily saves -- or tries to, with corruption being the likely result. So if
you're used to making changes in a shared database, don't.

Turn off Track Name AutoCorrect info (common cause of corruption), remove
subdatasheets from related tables (performance dragger), turn on "Require
Variable Declaration" (easier bug detection) and turn off "Compile On Demand"
(less common cause of corruption) in the VB Editor. And don't let anyone
open the Access 2003 database file with Access 2000 _unless_ they also have
Microsoft Office 2000 SP-3 installed (causes unrecoverable code corruption
due to incompatible VBE libraries).

> My only
> concern is that the file size in 97 is 6.78 MB, and in 2003 it's 2.06 MB. Is
> there a simple explanation?

This is most likely due to the Access 97 file not being compacted. Compact
it and it will likely shrink to a similar size compared to the Access 2003
file. Expect the compacted Access 97 file to be "a little smaller" than the
compacted Access 2003 file.

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/ex...ributors2.html for contact info.


"Golyz" wrote:

> Rookie question - I have converted a copy of our DB in Access 97 to Access
> 2003 and don't see any problems so far at all. It's probably not very
> sophisticated as DBs go - not sure what if any problems are common. My only
> concern is that the file size in 97 is 6.78 MB, and in 2003 it's 2.06 MB. Is
> there a simple explanation? Does it matter? It seems like everything is
> there, everything seems to behave fine.
>
> Thanks,
> Larry

When was the last time you compacted the Access 97 database? If you haven't
done so recently, try compacting it now, and see what size it is.

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


"Golyz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1C46766D-5005-4B0F-8A1D-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Rookie question - I have converted a copy of our DB in Access 97 to Access
> 2003 and don't see any problems so far at all. It's probably not very
> sophisticated as DBs go - not sure what if any problems are common. My
> only
> concern is that the file size in 97 is 6.78 MB, and in 2003 it's 2.06 MB.
> Is
> there a simple explanation? Does it matter? It seems like everything is
> there, everything seems to behave fine.
>
> Thanks,
> Larry

Compacting was the key to my main question. Thanks for that and thanks for
all the extra reference material!

Larry

"'69 Camaro" wrote:

> Hi.
>
> > not sure what if any problems are common.
>
> Folks commonly try to share the database file without splitting it into a
> front end and back end. This often causes corruption, especially when a
> developer is making changes to the database file when other users have the
> file open. This is prevented in Access 2000 and later versions with an error
> message that exclusive access is needed to save the object, but Access 97
> happily saves -- or tries to, with corruption being the likely result. So if
> you're used to making changes in a shared database, don't.
>
> Turn off Track Name AutoCorrect info (common cause of corruption), remove
> subdatasheets from related tables (performance dragger), turn on "Require
> Variable Declaration" (easier bug detection) and turn off "Compile On Demand"
> (less common cause of corruption) in the VB Editor. And don't let anyone
> open the Access 2003 database file with Access 2000 _unless_ they also have
> Microsoft Office 2000 SP-3 installed (causes unrecoverable code corruption
> due to incompatible VBE libraries).
>
> > My only
> > concern is that the file size in 97 is 6.78 MB, and in 2003 it's 2.06 MB. Is
> > there a simple explanation?
>
> This is most likely due to the Access 97 file not being compacted. Compact
> it and it will likely shrink to a similar size compared to the Access 2003
> file. Expect the compacted Access 97 file to be "a little smaller" than the
> compacted Access 2003 file.
>
> 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/ex...ributors2.html for contact info.
>
>
> "Golyz" wrote:
>
> > Rookie question - I have converted a copy of our DB in Access 97 to Access
> > 2003 and don't see any problems so far at all. It's probably not very
> > sophisticated as DBs go - not sure what if any problems are common. My only
> > concern is that the file size in 97 is 6.78 MB, and in 2003 it's 2.06 MB. Is
> > there a simple explanation? Does it matter? It seems like everything is
> > there, everything seems to behave fine.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Larry

Golyz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>That was it. I didn't even know there was such a thing. Wasn't kidding
>about my rookie status.

And now you know where to get the answers to rapidly move you out of
rookie status.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

No kidding! A guy could spend months poking around in here without looking
under every rock.

"Tony Toews" wrote:

> Golyz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >That was it. I didn't even know there was such a thing. Wasn't kidding
> >about my rookie status.
>
> And now you know where to get the answers to rapidly move you out of
> rookie status.
>
> Tony
> --
> Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
> Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
> read the entire thread of messages.
> Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
> http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
>