(Msg. 17) Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Corruption Problem with 2.0 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: microsoft>public>access (more info?)
<david@epsomdotcomdotau> wrote:
>Corruption is only a problem with version 2.0 database if someone
>uses Access 2000-2003 at the same time on the same database as
>someone is using Access 2.0 or a VB3 program.
Almost. Newer versions of Access at times will be able to open and
fix corruptions that older versions of Access couldn't handle. This
was particularly notice with A2000 and A2003.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
(Msg. 18) Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:00 am
Post subject: Re: Corruption Problem with 2.0 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
"Tony Toews [MVP]" <ttoews.RemoveThis@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:aeja64d9ci4vthk2oeon4d1uro7a7q6udf@4ax.com...
> <david@epsomdotcomdotau> wrote:
>
> >Corruption is only a problem with version 2.0 database if someone
> >uses Access 2000-2003 at the same time on the same database as
> >someone is using Access 2.0 or a VB3 program.
>
> Almost. Newer versions of Access at times will be able to open and
> fix corruptions that older versions of Access couldn't handle. This
> was particularly notice with A2000 and A2003.
>
> Tony
> --
> Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
> Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
> read the entire thread of messages.
> Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
> http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm > Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
But the statement still stands doesn't it?
Access 2003 can fix problems in the Access 2000 project that
Access 2000 can't fix.
Sometimes you might be able to compact/repair a database
with the Jet Compact./Repair utility that you can't compact/repair
with Access 2.0 (Although this possibility is so rare that I've never
experienced it)
But apart from the problem caused by Access 2K+ deleting the
LDB file while Access 2.0 is still using it, an Access 2.0 database
is no more likely to become corrupt than an Access 2000 database.
(Msg. 19) Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Corruption Problem with 2.0 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
<david@epsomdotcomdotau> wrote:
>But the statement still stands doesn't it?
Yes, but my reply didn't exactly address your comment either. <smile>
>Access 2003 can fix problems in the Access 2000 project that
>Access 2000 can't fix.
>
>Sometimes you might be able to compact/repair a database
>with the Jet Compact./Repair utility that you can't compact/repair
>with Access 2.0 (Although this possibility is so rare that I've never
>experienced it)
>
>But apart from the problem caused by Access 2K+ deleting the
>LDB file while Access 2.0 is still using it,
I hadn't come across that problem before.
>an Access 2.0 database
>is no more likely to become corrupt than an Access 2000 database.
That's very likely.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
(Msg. 20) Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Corruption Problem with 2.0 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
bullshit you just deny everything
MDBs haven't been updated in several versions of Access and thus are
dead end technology.
Aaron
--
Aaron Kempf, Microsoft Certified IT Professional: Database
Administrator
On Jun 29, 1:36 pm, "Tony Toews [MVP]" <tto....DeleteThis@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> <david@epsomdotcomdotau> wrote:
> >But the statement still stands doesn't it?
>
> Yes, but my reply didn't exactly address your comment either. <smile>
>
> >Access 2003 can fix problems in the Access 2000 project that
> >Access 2000 can't fix.
>
> >Sometimes you might be able to compact/repair a database
> >with theJetCompact./Repair utility that you can't compact/repair
> >with Access 2.0 (Although this possibility is so rare that I've never
> >experienced it)
>
> >But apart from the problem caused by Access 2K+ deleting the
> >LDB file while Access 2.0 is still using it,
>
> I hadn't come across that problem before.
>
> >an Access 2.0 database
> >is no more likely to become corrupt than an Access 2000 database.
>
> That's very likely.
>
> Tony
> --
> Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
> Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
> read the entire thread of messages.
> Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems athttp://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm > Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
(Msg. 21) Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Corruption Problem with 2.0 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <aaron.kempf.RemoveThis@gmail.com>
wrote:
>MDBs haven't been updated in several versions of Access and thus are
>dead end technology.
Wrong.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
(Msg. 22) Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:44 pm
Post subject: RE: Corruption Problem with 2.0 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
"Louise54" wrote:
> I have a multi-user (approx 8 people) on a back-end 2.0 database which is
> currently about 86,000KB in size. They each have a front end on their local
> hard drive, using whatever Access version is on their pc (from 2000 up to
> 2007). The backend has been working just fine for several years until a few
> weeks ago.
>
> In the last 3 weeks we've been getting "unrecognized database format" errors
> (7 times total). I've been able, thus far, to repair/compact, but it's taking
> longer each time. I'm running through various checks to see if I can find the
> cause.
>
> At the same time, I think it's probably time to bite the bullet and convert
> the back end to a higher version. I know this has been discussed many times,
> but is there a favorite set of procedures to do this conversion? And a
> version more stable than others that I should move to? We don't have that
> many tables, but I think the biggest headache for me will be dealing with
> several auto-number fields. Also, is it ok to have two backend databases?
> Because of size restrictions, I thought it might be better to split the one
> backend into two this time?
>
> Any and all help, comments, suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank
> you!
> Louise
(Msg. 23) Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:47 pm
Post subject: RE: Corruption Problem with 2.0 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
An issue was introduced with WinXp XP3 as well as a security update Microsoft
shipped in late May (MS08-028 / KB950749) that is causing the issue you are
experiencing. Call Microsoft Customer Support and request hotfix KB954193.
"Louise54" wrote:
> I have a multi-user (approx 8 people) on a back-end 2.0 database which is
> currently about 86,000KB in size. They each have a front end on their local
> hard drive, using whatever Access version is on their pc (from 2000 up to
> 2007). The backend has been working just fine for several years until a few
> weeks ago.
>
> In the last 3 weeks we've been getting "unrecognized database format" errors
> (7 times total). I've been able, thus far, to repair/compact, but it's taking
> longer each time. I'm running through various checks to see if I can find the
> cause.
>
> At the same time, I think it's probably time to bite the bullet and convert
> the back end to a higher version. I know this has been discussed many times,
> but is there a favorite set of procedures to do this conversion? And a
> version more stable than others that I should move to? We don't have that
> many tables, but I think the biggest headache for me will be dealing with
> several auto-number fields. Also, is it ok to have two backend databases?
> Because of size restrictions, I thought it might be better to split the one
> backend into two this time?
>
> Any and all help, comments, suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank
> you!
> Louise
(Msg. 24) Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:32 pm
Post subject: RE: Corruption Problem with 2.0 [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Thank you LeeG! This was certainly our problem, and we were at our wits end
trying to figure out what was causing it. Just saw your reply two days ago,
and after immediately installing the hotfix, we have gone two straight days
without an issue - something that hasn't occurred since late May!
Once again, thank you for taking the time to provide me with this information!
Louise
"LeeG" wrote:
> An issue was introduced with WinXp XP3 as well as a security update Microsoft
> shipped in late May (MS08-028 / KB950749) that is causing the issue you are
> experiencing. Call Microsoft Customer Support and request hotfix KB954193.
>
> "Louise54" wrote:
>
> > I have a multi-user (approx 8 people) on a back-end 2.0 database which is
> > currently about 86,000KB in size. They each have a front end on their local
> > hard drive, using whatever Access version is on their pc (from 2000 up to
> > 2007). The backend has been working just fine for several years until a few
> > weeks ago.
> >
> > In the last 3 weeks we've been getting "unrecognized database format" errors
> > (7 times total). I've been able, thus far, to repair/compact, but it's taking
> > longer each time. I'm running through various checks to see if I can find the
> > cause.
> >
> > At the same time, I think it's probably time to bite the bullet and convert
> > the back end to a higher version. I know this has been discussed many times,
> > but is there a favorite set of procedures to do this conversion? And a
> > version more stable than others that I should move to? We don't have that
> > many tables, but I think the biggest headache for me will be dealing with
> > several auto-number fields. Also, is it ok to have two backend databases?
> > Because of size restrictions, I thought it might be better to split the one
> > backend into two this time?
> >
> > Any and all help, comments, suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank
> > you!
> > Louise
All times are: Eastern Time (US & Canada) (change) Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 3 of 4
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Home
Forums
Home
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Office Other