Conversion problem, Access 97 to 2003

[Guest]

I have a database which was developed originally on Access 97 which is to be
converted to 2003. The conversion has worked successfully and the
application runs on one machine. However, on another machine (which ought to
be an identical build of Windows 2000 and Office 2003) an error is generated:
"Cannot open a database created with a previous version of your application."

Can you suggest what might be causing this?

Many thanks

 

[Guest]

Hi Colin,

One possibility is if your application was split and you only converted the
front-end to the Access 2000 file format. If the new PC did not have a copy
of the JET 3.51 database engine, in order to read data from a back-end file
that may have been left in the Access 97 format, then this could potentially
cause the problem.

Usually, when things don't work on one PC, but they do work on another
similarly configured PC, the first place to look is for references marked as
MISSING. However, I would't expect the error message you quoted in that case.
In any event, here are two good references on the subject of missing
references:

Solving Problems with Library References (Allen Browne)
http://allenbrowne.com/ser-38.html

Access Reference Problems (Doug Steele)
http://www.accessmvp.com/djsteele/AccessReferenceErrors.html


Can the PC that is having problems open the JET 3.5 (ie. Access 97) version
of your database? Can this PC open other databases that are in the JET 4.0
(ie. Access 2000/2002/2003) file format?


Tom Wickerath
Microsoft Access MVP

http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/expert_contributors.html
http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/search.html
__________________________________________

 

[Guest]

Hi Tom,

Many thanks for your help with this. There was a missing reference, but
this was fixed early on. In fact the front end and the three backend
databases have all been converted to 2003. I have just tried running the
application on a third machine, this time a brand new one which has never had
anything other than Office 2003/Jet 4 on it. It works fine.

The one thing that hasn't been converted is the workgroup information file.
This is Access 97, or it may even be Access 2 (this is a very old
application!). I do have the workgroup ID and the personal IDs, so I can
build a new one if necessary. There is conflicting advice on the Web about
whether or not it is necessary to convert a WIF. Do you think of this might
be the problem?

Thanks again,

Colin Dimond

 

[Guest]

Hi Colin,

I have no idea if having an older workgroup information file could be a
problem, since I do not deal with user-level security myself. I suppose it is
possible, so it wouldn't hurt to try converting this file. You will likely
get a more definitive answer if you post this question to the
microsoft.public.access.security group:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...icrosoft.public.access.security&lang=en&cr=US


Tom Wickerath
Microsoft Access MVP

http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/expert_contributors.html
http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/search.html
__________________________________________

 

[David W. Fenton]

One possibility is if your application was split and you only
converted the front-end to the Access 2000 file format. If the new
PC did not have a copy of the JET 3.51 database engine, in order
to read data from a back-end file that may have been left in the
Access 97 format, then this could potentially cause the problem.

Huh? All Jet versions are backwardly compatible with reading and
writing to earlier versions of Jet. Jet 4 can read and write Jet 3.x
and Jet 2.x. The only exception if replication, which is read-only
for earlier versions.

Now, that's the difference between DATA and FRONT END, but the front
end is NOT JET, so it doesn't matter if you're discussing reading
the data alone.

 

[David W. Fenton]

I have no idea if having an older workgroup information file could
be a problem, since I do not deal with user-level security myself.
I suppose it is possible, so it wouldn't hurt to try converting
this file.

Yes, you can use older versions of workgroup files with newer
versions, because, of course, a workgroup file is just a special Jet
database file. However, it can slow things down because it requires
using two different versions of Jet simultaneously. I would
recommend it only as a temporary measure during a conversion process
where more than one version needs to be used simultaenously. Once
the data files are converted to a single version, then the workgroup
file should be upgraded, as well (i.e., recreated in the new
version).