| Author |
Access 2000 to 2003
|
|
|
| Will be converting to Access 2003 from Access 2000 soon. Have several large
databases. Any known issues I should be aware of??
Thanks!
--
All help greatly appreciated.
| |
| Van T. Dinh 2005-04-06, 8:05 pm |
| You don't even need to convert the databases!
Access 2003 can use databases in Access 2000 file format natively.
--
HTH
Van T. Dinh
MVP (Access)
"Deb" <Deb@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AC3BAE26-D2B6-4C52-B2BD- 8E3FB90DC274@microso
ft.com...
> Will be converting to Access 2003 from Access 2000 soon. Have several
large
> databases. Any known issues I should be aware of??
>
> Thanks!
> --
> All help greatly appreciated.
| |
| Chris Mills 2005-04-06, 8:05 pm |
| Provided you're happy with a decompiled state, surely? After all, the
references MUST change.
Chris
"Van T. Dinh" <VanThien.Dinh@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uh3$9YlNFHA.3156@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> You don't even need to convert the databases!
>
> Access 2003 can use databases in Access 2000 file format natively.
>
> --
> HTH
> Van T. Dinh
> MVP (Access)
>
>
>
> "Deb" <Deb@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AC3BAE26-D2B6-4C52-B2BD- 8E3FB90DC274@microso
ft.com...
> large
>
>
| |
| david epsom dot com dot au 2005-04-06, 8:05 pm |
| Form and Report module public variables are no longer
available as Form/Report properties for use in a control
source or record source.
I'm still not 100% convinced about the practical compatibility
of A2K MDE's on A2003 (obviously, doesn't work the other way
at all).
And I still seem to have occasional problems converting
from A2003 back to A2K.
(david)
"Deb" <Deb@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AC3BAE26-D2B6-4C52-B2BD- 8E3FB90DC274@microso
ft.com...
> Will be converting to Access 2003 from Access 2000 soon. Have several
> large
> databases. Any known issues I should be aware of??
>
> Thanks!
> --
> All help greatly appreciated.
| |
| Chris Mills 2005-04-06, 8:05 pm |
| > I'm still not 100% convinced about the practical compatibility
> of A2K MDE's on A2003 (obviously, doesn't work the other way
> at all).
>
I was only thinking of mdb's when I said references MUST change.
Deb,
It's claimed there need be no changes at all, after all A2000 format IS native
to later versions.
But I would, as a matter of course, Decompile/Compile/Repair/Compact an app
before shifting it to another version (and afterwards). There could be subtle
corruptions in it ... and though "conversions" tend to be automatic, not so if
there are any "unspecified corruptions".
If you use any more than the 3 (I think) required references, you may need to
check them.
I assume you have purchased (or are happy with) the "Digital Certificate"
arrangements and pesky warnings.
(I don't have direct knowledge of A2003, just A2002 and "downwards" from
there)
Chris
| |
| Van T. Dinh 2005-04-06, 8:05 pm |
| I I couldn't remember exactly but I have just tried using A2K2 to open 2
databases in A2000 file format that have never been opened by A2K2. One of
these was originally written in Access 2.0.
Access 2002 seems to know the old References and changes References to the
new version (from Office 9.0 to Office 10.0 Library) correctly. I am not
sure about ADO both databases used JET Back-Ends and I prefer to use DAO
with JET Back-Ends. DAO 3.6 is the same for both A2K & A2K2.
I guess if you have added other References besides the standard References,
these need to be changed if required.
Both databases seem to work fine in A2000-file-format (before and after
re-compiling), i.e. no conversion to A2K2 file format is required.
--
HTH
Van T. Dinh
MVP (Access)
"Chris Mills" < phad_nospam@cleardot
net.nz> wrote in message
news:O9KHRulNFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Provided you're happy with a decompiled state, surely? After all, the
> references MUST change.
>
> Chris
>
| |
| Chris Mills 2005-04-06, 8:05 pm |
| I had no intention of putting you to so much trouble, Van!
I just thought it was worthwhile pointing out that an mdb (ANY mdb) might
benefit from compiling when running on a new version of Access!
Regards
Chris
"Van T. Dinh" <VanThien.Dinh@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uJ9NkE0NFHA.2704@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I I couldn't remember exactly but I have just tried using A2K2 to open 2
> databases in A2000 file format that have never been opened by A2K2. One of
> these was originally written in Access 2.0.
>
> Access 2002 seems to know the old References and changes References to the
> new version (from Office 9.0 to Office 10.0 Library) correctly. I am not
> sure about ADO both databases used JET Back-Ends and I prefer to use DAO
> with JET Back-Ends. DAO 3.6 is the same for both A2K & A2K2.
>
> I guess if you have added other References besides the standard References,
> these need to be changed if required.
>
> Both databases seem to work fine in A2000-file-format (before and after
> re-compiling), i.e. no conversion to A2K2 file format is required.
>
> --
> HTH
> Van T. Dinh
> MVP (Access)
>
>
>
>
> "Chris Mills" < phad_nospam@cleardot
net.nz> wrote in message
> news:O9KHRulNFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>
| |
| Chris Mills 2005-04-06, 8:05 pm |
| My point was, Access certainly fixes up standard references automatically, but
only if there was no corruption or other errors in a conversion. (in my
experience)
| |
| Van T. Dinh 2005-04-06, 8:05 pm |
| No problems. I need my memory refreshed occasionally (old age has caught up
finally).
Completely agree with you regarding re-compiling. Whever, I publish a new
version of my databases, I always relink Tables, check References,
Re-Compile, Compact & Repair and finally Make MDE for publication.
--
HTH
Van T. Dinh
MVP (Access)
"Chris Mills" < phad_nospam@cleardot
net.nz> wrote in message
news:ubItmh0NFHA.3156@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I had no intention of putting you to so much trouble, Van!
>
> I just thought it was worthwhile pointing out that an mdb (ANY mdb) might
> benefit from compiling when running on a new version of Access!
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
|
|
|
|