When i am trying to convert my access databases i get an error saying

Record(s) cannot be read; no read permission on 'MSysobjects'

also

Record(s) cannot be read; no read permission on 'MSysACEs'


Any ideas how to get around this?

That's generally a sign of corruption in the original database.

Take a look at what Tony Toews has at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/corruptmdbs.htm, specifically at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/corruption/symptoms.htm

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


"Diane" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> When i am trying to convert my access databases i get an error saying
>
> Record(s) cannot be read; no read permission on 'MSysobjects'
>
> also
>
> Record(s) cannot be read; no read permission on 'MSysACEs'
>
>
> Any ideas how to get around this?
>

In addition to a possible corruption problem, Microsoft recommends you not go
directly from 97 to 2003. They recommend a two step process 97 to 2000 then
2000 to 2003.

"Diane" wrote:

> When i am trying to convert my access databases i get an error saying
>
> Record(s) cannot be read; no read permission on 'MSysobjects'
>
> also
>
> Record(s) cannot be read; no read permission on 'MSysACEs'
>
>
> Any ideas how to get around this?
>
>

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=282357
You receive error messages when you convert Workgroup Information (.mdw)
file to Access 2002

(david)


"Diane" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> When i am trying to convert my access databases i get an error saying
>
> Record(s) cannot be read; no read permission on 'MSysobjects'
>
> also
>
> Record(s) cannot be read; no read permission on 'MSysACEs'
>
>
> Any ideas how to get around this?
>

The original database is working fine on an Access 97 platform in a
live enviorment with multi users. any further advice would be gratfully
appricated.

thanks

Just because a database works doesn't mean it hasn't been corrupted: it just
means that the corruption isn't causing any problems.

Converting means that all of the database is inspected, including parts that
may normally not be used. This is the exact same phenomenon as why you can
have an application that works fine, but be unable to convert it to an MDE.

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


"Diane" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The original database is working fine on an Access 97 platform in a
> live enviorment with multi users. any further advice would be gratfully
> appricated.
>
> thanks
>

"Klatuu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:FF339FC9-2454-417E-A8EC-(E-Mail Removed)...
> In addition to a possible corruption problem, Microsoft recommends you not
> go
> directly from 97 to 2003. They recommend a two step process 97 to 2000
> then
> 2000 to 2003.

I not heard the above advice. Considering that acesss2000, 20002, and 2003
ALL DEFAULT to the Same access 2000 format, I can't see why this step would
be suggested?

I see little, if any advantage of converting to a2000, and THEN to a2003.
Really, can't think of any advantage here....

However, it certainly suggested that when converting form access 1.0, or
2.0, then converting to access97 is a suggested idea, since access 97 did
have some features built in that aid in this converting. Further, access97
has roots *closer* to the very old and original versions.

Funny, but MS even came out with a 2.0 converting add-in for a2003 (so, this
means their is some VERY old applications out that are being converted!!!).

However, I don't believe there is any difference when converting from a97 to
a2000, or a2003.

I am open to suggestions, or being corrected on this issue..but I not seen
it suggested that anything at all is gained by converting to a2000, and THEN
a2003....

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal