Access V2.0 Database/Vista

Posted By: a235301 | Jul 3rd @ 1:03 PM
page 1 of 1
Comments: 2 | Views: 323
#Jul 3rd @ 1:03 PM
a235301
a235301
We distribute an older application that uses an Access V2.0 database.  We've found that the Access 2.0 database becomes corrupt when running on Vista.  Our only workaround to this is manually upgrade the database to say V2000 or V2003.  Then the database behaves fine, no corruption.  We're also seeing some corruptions now on XP and may be the same problem as we're seeing on Vista(although it's much, much more prevalent on Vista).

Note that we are NOT running the Access 2.0 application on Vista, we're simply accessing an Access 2.0 database from our application. That Access 2.0 database is becoming corrupted routinely on Vista.

Is anyone aware of this issue, are there workarounds?  Is there a tool that I can distribute with my application where I can upgrade the V2.0 databases that are currently in place to V2000 or V2003?

I haven't found any documentation on this on the web.

Thanks!
#Jul 3rd @ 1:34 PM
figuerres
figuerres
this may help:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=2E861E76-5D89-450A-B977-980A9841111E&displaylang=en

depends on what you are providing the customers and what they have...

for sure I would get any V2 stuff over to 2003 format as V2 is WAY WAY old.....
you may or may not have problems to fix, some things that were done in v2 were phased out by 2003
some macros and vba code may need to be edited if you have any in the access files.

also you may want to look at the ADK -- Access developer Kit if you can get a copy of the 2003 version then you can ship a runtime of 2003 with your app such that the users do not need to have access at all.

you make your package run like a regualr app and they can't mess with the forms and stuff.
#Jul 3rd @ 5:24 PM
DCMonkey
DCMonkey
A WAG but it could be related to Opportunistic Locking (oplocks), which has been known to cause problems with file share based databases (we disabled oplocks here because of that).
page 1 of 1
Comments: 2 | Views: 323