Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

**Allen Browne** · Nov 13 '05, 01:33 PM

Re: Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

John, as you found, Access 2000 and later do a monolithic save, and there is
no setting to override this.

For other suggestions on adapting to the newer versions, see:
Converting from Access 97 to 2000, 2002 or 2003
at:

Microsoft Access tips: Converting from Access 97

http://allenbrowne.com/ser-48.html

Issues you may face when converting a Microsoft Access 97 database to a later version. Covers setup issues, conversion issue, and usability issues.

(The monolithic save issue is listed as #6 under 'Usability issues'.)

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"John Ortt" <JohnOrtt@Idont wantspamsonoret urnaddress.com> wrote in message
news:42ef2804$1 _1@glkas0286.gr eenlnk.net...[color=blue]
>
> Our company is migrating from Windows NT to XP and in the process from
> Access 97 to Access 2003.
> Due to the phased rollout we are faced with a situation where some users
> are
> still on NT while others have been fully upgraded, but all users need to
> use
> the same Access databases.
> At first we tried just opening the Access 97 databases with XP but we were
> worried that some of the less computer-literate employees may click "yes"
> on
> the "Do you want to convert this database to the latest version" prompt.
> The solution we have come up with is to create an exact duplicate of the
> database in XP but with all the Tables removed and relinked to the 97
> version.
> This solution is working well on the whole but there have been a couple of
> instances where that database has required a repair.
>
> The main problem we are still having is that my colleagues and I can no
> longer make any changes to the database while there are any users in. Is
> this a setting which we can change?
> For instance, on 97 you could alter a form in the live database and then
> save the altered form......XP doesn't seem to allow you to do that.
>
> Any help would be massively appreciated.
>
> Thanks in Advance,
>
> John[/color]

**John Ortt** · Nov 13 '05, 01:33 PM

Re: Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

Thanks Allen,

No the answer I wanted but still very helpful :)

"Allen Browne" <AllenBrowne@Se eSig.Invalid> wrote in message
news:42ef2c33$0 $11948$5a62ac22 @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au ...[color=blue]
> John, as you found, Access 2000 and later do a monolithic save, and there[/color]
is[color=blue]
> no setting to override this.
>
> For other suggestions on adapting to the newer versions, see:
> Converting from Access 97 to 2000, 2002 or 2003
> at:
> http://allenbrowne.com/ser-48.html
> (The monolithic save issue is listed as #6 under 'Usability issues'.)
>
> --
> Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
> Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
> Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.[/color]

**Keith** · Nov 13 '05, 01:33 PM

Re: Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

"John Ortt" <JohnOrtt@Idont wantspamsonoret urnaddress.com> wrote in message
news:42ef2804$1 _1@glkas0286.gr eenlnk.net...[color=blue]
> Hi All,
>
> Our company is migrating from Windows NT to XP and in the process from
> Access 97 to Access 2003.[/color]

I wonder which company that is.
[color=blue]
> Due to the phased rollout we are faced with a situation where some users
> are
> still on NT while others have been fully upgraded, but all users need to
> use
> the same Access databases.
> At first we tried just opening the Access 97 databases with XP but we were
> worried that some of the less computer-literate employees may click "yes"
> on
> the "Do you want to convert this database to the latest version" prompt.
> The solution we have come up with is to create an exact duplicate of the
> database in XP but with all the Tables removed and relinked to the 97
> version.[/color]

Seems reasonable.
[color=blue]
> This solution is working well on the whole but there have been a couple of
> instances where that database has required a repair.[/color]

I'm not sure that is related to A2k3 linking to an A97 BE.[color=blue]
>
> The main problem we are still having is that my colleagues and I can no
> longer make any changes to the database while there are any users in. Is
> this a setting which we can change?
> For instance, on 97 you could alter a form in the live database and then
> save the altered form......XP doesn't seem to allow you to do that.
>[/color]

This is very dangerous practice, far more likely a source of corruption than
linking different versions. You should never attempt to change a FE in the
production environment, you should always work on a development copy and
deploy it to production once testing is complete. You should also ensure
that all users have their own copies of the FE. This would also minimise
the risk of unwanted conversions taking place. Applying user-level security
would stop it in its tracks but is a more long-term solution.

HTH - Keith.

https://www.keithwilby.com

**David W. Fenton** · Nov 13 '05, 01:34 PM

Re: Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

"Keith" <keith.wilby@ba eAWAYWITHITsyst ems.com> wrote in
news:42ef7dea$1 _1@glkas0286.gr eenlnk.net:
[color=blue]
> This is very dangerous practice, far more likely a source of
> corruption than linking different versions. You should never
> attempt to change a FE in the production environment, you should
> always work on a development copy and deploy it to production once
> testing is complete. You should also ensure that all users have
> their own copies of the FE. This would also minimise the risk of
> unwanted conversions taking place. Applying user-level security
> would stop it in its tracks but is a more long-term solution.[/color]

Secondly, each user should have their own copy of the front end, so
if they convert, it won't affect anybody but the single user.

This was true *before* Access 2000, of course.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

**Keith** · Nov 13 '05, 01:34 PM

Re: Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

"David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns96A6BE7 089BAAdfentonbw aynetinvali@216 .196.97.142...[color=blue]
> "Keith" <keith.wilby@ba eAWAYWITHITsyst ems.com> wrote in
> news:42ef7dea$1 _1@glkas0286.gr eenlnk.net:
>[color=green]
>> You should also ensure that all users have
>> their own copies of the FE. This would also minimise the risk of
>> unwanted conversions taking place.[/color]
>
> Secondly, each user should have their own copy of the front end, so
> if they convert, it won't affect anybody but the single user.
>[/color]
Erm, didn't I already say that David? ;-)

**Trevor Best** · Nov 13 '05, 01:35 PM

Re: Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

Keith wrote:[color=blue]
> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns96A6BE7 089BAAdfentonbw aynetinvali@216 .196.97.142...
>[color=green]
>>"Keith" <keith.wilby@ba eAWAYWITHITsyst ems.com> wrote in
>>news:42ef7dea $1_1@glkas0286. greenlnk.net:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>You should also ensure that all users have
>>>their own copies of the FE. This would also minimise the risk of
>>>unwanted conversions taking place.[/color]
>>
>>Secondly, each user should have their own copy of the front end, so
>>if they convert, it won't affect anybody but the single user.
>>[/color]
>
> Erm, didn't I already say that David? ;-)
>
>[/color]

Can I just add that all users should have their own copy of the front end.
;-)
--
[OO=00=OO]

**Trevor Best** · Nov 13 '05, 01:35 PM

Re: Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

Keith wrote:[color=blue]
> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns96A6BE7 089BAAdfentonbw aynetinvali@216 .196.97.142...
>[color=green]
>>"Keith" <keith.wilby@ba eAWAYWITHITsyst ems.com> wrote in
>>news:42ef7dea $1_1@glkas0286. greenlnk.net:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>You should also ensure that all users have
>>>their own copies of the FE. This would also minimise the risk of
>>>unwanted conversions taking place.[/color]
>>
>>Secondly, each user should have their own copy of the front end, so
>>if they convert, it won't affect anybody but the single user.
>>[/color]
>
> Erm, didn't I already say that David? ;-)
>
>[/color]

Can I just add that all users should have their own copy of the front end.
;-)
--
[OO=00=OO]

**Keith** · Nov 13 '05, 01:36 PM

Re: Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

"Trevor Best" <nospam@besty.o rg.uk> wrote in message
news:42f104b0$0 $318$da0feed9@n ews.zen.co.uk.. .[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Secondly, each user should have their own copy of the front end, so
>>>if they convert, it won't affect anybody but the single user.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Erm, didn't I already say that David? ;-)[/color]
>
> Can I just add that all users should have their own copy of the front end.
> ;-)
>[/color]
Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?
;-p

**Keith** · Nov 13 '05, 01:36 PM

Re: Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

"Trevor Best" <nospam@besty.o rg.uk> wrote in message
news:42f104b0$0 $318$da0feed9@n ews.zen.co.uk.. .[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Secondly, each user should have their own copy of the front end, so
>>>if they convert, it won't affect anybody but the single user.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Erm, didn't I already say that David? ;-)[/color]
>
> Can I just add that all users should have their own copy of the front end.
> ;-)
>[/color]
Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?
;-p

**Trevor Best** · Nov 13 '05, 01:37 PM

Re: Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

Keith wrote:[color=blue]
> "Trevor Best" <nospam@besty.o rg.uk> wrote in message
> news:42f104b0$0 $318$da0feed9@n ews.zen.co.uk.. .
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>Secondly, each user should have their own copy of the front end, so
>>>>if they convert, it won't affect anybody but the single user.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Erm, didn't I already say that David? ;-)[/color]
>>
>>Can I just add that all users should have their own copy of the front end.
>>;-)
>>[/color]
>
> Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?
> ;-p
>
>[/color]

I normally end up on the telly when I'm drunk... or the sideboard, or
the coffee table...

--
[OO=00=OO]

**Trevor Best** · Nov 13 '05, 01:37 PM

Re: Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

Keith wrote:[color=blue]
> "Trevor Best" <nospam@besty.o rg.uk> wrote in message
> news:42f104b0$0 $318$da0feed9@n ews.zen.co.uk.. .
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>Secondly, each user should have their own copy of the front end, so
>>>>if they convert, it won't affect anybody but the single user.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Erm, didn't I already say that David? ;-)[/color]
>>
>>Can I just add that all users should have their own copy of the front end.
>>;-)
>>[/color]
>
> Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?
> ;-p
>
>[/color]

I normally end up on the telly when I'm drunk... or the sideboard, or
the coffee table...

--
[OO=00=OO]

Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

Differences between Access 97 and Access 2000/2003

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment