Hi,
You can install both Access 97 and Access XP on the same machine.
So you can use 97 for legacy apps and use XP for those that connect to SQL
Server 2000.
It is by far better to use XP for this because it has better integration
with SQL Server 2000
whereas 97 has pretty much nothing.
Bye,
Pete
"Ben" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Uvkta.963$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I am currently working on a project that uses Access97. (The computers of
my
> company are now running Office XP but had to revert Access XP to Access 97
> due to the legacy programs that are currently running in Access 97. I have
a
> remote NT server with SQL Server 2000 installed in it.)
> My problem is that Access 97 slows down when a table grows bigger. My base
> tables consist of 42,000 records and 35,000 records each respectively. Is
> there a way in which Access 97 work with SQL Server 2000? I installed the
> patch to Access 97 in order to run the Upsizing tools wizard. During the
> upsizing, the .dsn file was created and Access was communicating with SQL
> Server, the test was okay. I had a problem when I reached the point to
> export the tables. It gave me an "Overflow" error. So what I did was to
> import the tables using DTS from SQL Server itself and it was successful.
I
> did fix the configuration as well as users access rights on the remote
> server. From Access, I created a new .dsn connecting to the ODBC
> datasource. I then created links to the tables using the ODBC datasource
> connection. All my controls in Access are unbound and they are populated
> using DAO recordsets. I could pull out records and populate my forms
without
> any problem. My problem occurs when I try to add a new record or update an
> existing record. Is Access 97 incapable of doing an update or am I doing
> something wrong? Or how should I do my DML to SQL Server using Access 97?
> I will appreciate any suggestion.
>
> Ben
>
>
|
Similar Threads
