Corruption Problem with 2.0

You haven't got anyone connecting using DAO 2.5 or
Access 2 do you? The database is OK with Jet 4.0
(Access 2000/200x) only as long as you don't try to
use Access 97 or Access 2 (or VB3 or VB4-16) on
it at the same time.

There are only four* database versions: 2, 3, 4
and ACDB. Access 2000-2007 use version 4.0.

There is a new Access Project version inside the database
for each Access version. Since this is a BE database,
it doesn't matter which project version you also have inside
the database. If you use Access to convert the database
(instead of DAO), you will get a new Access project in
the current version, but the actual data conversion is done
by Jet 4, and will be exactly the same no matter which
version the conversion is called from.

Which project version should you have in your BE database?
If you have a 5 year long change control process, don't do it
that way at all. Do a DAO conversion, so that you don't get
a project at all. Then if you open the BE in Access, you will
get a conversion message, which will remind you that you
shouldn't be modifying the BE.

If you have more dynamic upgrade process, do the conversion
in your current development environment. Earlier version users
won't be able to open the BE in Access (only link to it), which
will remind them that they shouldn't be modifying the BE.

(david)

*ignoring 1 and 1.1, Jet 2.5 and Jet 3.5 use version 2.0 and 3.0


"Louise54" <Louise54 DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9CCB2BA9-0778-48FA-8DB0-993481A25FC5@microsoft.com...
> 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

Thanks David, but I'm sorry I'm confused about your answer. All users will
have their front end in various versions of Access (2000, 2003, or 2007). I'm
assuming I can convert the back end from 2.0 to 2000, and then everyone will
be happy? Not sure what you mean about DAO as opposed to Access for the
conversion. What is DAO, and also, what is a 5 year long change control
process? I'm not a programmer, but would be very interested in learning what
those are so that I can understand if or how I should use them? I was
planning to do a practice run of the conversion by using a copy of the back
end database (renaming it first) to make sure everything runs smoothly. Sound
ok?
Thanks so much for your help.

"david@epsomdotcomdotau" wrote:

> You haven't got anyone connecting using DAO 2.5 or
> Access 2 do you? The database is OK with Jet 4.0
> (Access 2000/200x) only as long as you don't try to
> use Access 97 or Access 2 (or VB3 or VB4-16) on
> it at the same time.
>
> There are only four* database versions: 2, 3, 4
> and ACDB. Access 2000-2007 use version 4.0.
>
> There is a new Access Project version inside the database
> for each Access version. Since this is a BE database,
> it doesn't matter which project version you also have inside
> the database. If you use Access to convert the database
> (instead of DAO), you will get a new Access project in
> the current version, but the actual data conversion is done
> by Jet 4, and will be exactly the same no matter which
> version the conversion is called from.
>
> Which project version should you have in your BE database?
> If you have a 5 year long change control process, don't do it
> that way at all. Do a DAO conversion, so that you don't get
> a project at all. Then if you open the BE in Access, you will
> get a conversion message, which will remind you that you
> shouldn't be modifying the BE.
>
> If you have more dynamic upgrade process, do the conversion
> in your current development environment. Earlier version users
> won't be able to open the BE in Access (only link to it), which
> will remind them that they shouldn't be modifying the BE.
>
> (david)
>
> *ignoring 1 and 1.1, Jet 2.5 and Jet 3.5 use version 2.0 and 3.0
>
>
> "Louise54" <Louise54 DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9CCB2BA9-0778-48FA-8DB0-993481A25FC5@microsoft.com...
> > 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
>
>
>

You know what Access is, and it has version 2, 2000 and so on.

Each version of Access can connect to lots of different kinds of
databases. Access databases, SQL Server databases, FoxPro
databases and so on.


There are three kinds of "Access databases", 2, 3, and 4.

Access 2000 - 2003 normally use a type 4 database.
Access 97 uses a type 3 database
Access 2 uses a type 2 database.

Access uses the 'Jet engine' to talk to these databases

Jet 2.5 for database type 2 originally from Access 2
Jet 3.5 for database type 3 originally from Access 95
Jet 4.0 for database type 4 originally from Access 2000

You don't have to use Access to talk to these databases.
Any kind of program can use the Jet engine to talk to these
databases.

You can use your current version of Access to convert
your database. It probably won't fix your corruption problem,
unless your problem is that someone is using an old program
to talk to your database. If someone is using an old program
to talk to your database, changing the database from version
2.0 to version 4.0 will stop that person, and stop that program.
They won't be able to use the database anymore.

Corruption problems are also caused by bad network cards,
or by networks. Changing the database from 2 to 4 won't
make that go away. Problems don't come from nowhere, and
they don't just go away.

For the corruption problem, it won't matter if you use 2000
or 2003 to convert the database. 2000, 2002 and 2003 all
use the same version of Jet to talk to the database. The version
of the database (version 4, Jet 4) will be exactly the same.
Jet 2.5 can't talk to a version 4 database, so if that is your
problem, conversion will stop the problem.

If you use Access 2003 to convert the database, no one will
be able to open the database in 2000 any more, but that won't
affect the users using 2000 or 2002. They don't open the database
in 2000 or 2002. They just use Jet 4 to talk to the database. It
doesn't matter if a BE database is converted in 2000 or 2003.

After you convert the database, it may be much slower. You may
have to do more work to make it faster again, and it may never
be as fast as it is now.

(david)




"Louise54" <Louise54 RemoveThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FFAFB43-0988-454A-80EB-190DAC315EB2@microsoft.com...
> Thanks David, but I'm sorry I'm confused about your answer. All users will
> have their front end in various versions of Access (2000, 2003, or 2007).
I'm
> assuming I can convert the back end from 2.0 to 2000, and then everyone
will
> be happy? Not sure what you mean about DAO as opposed to Access for the
> conversion. What is DAO, and also, what is a 5 year long change control
> process? I'm not a programmer, but would be very interested in learning
what
> those are so that I can understand if or how I should use them? I was
> planning to do a practice run of the conversion by using a copy of the
back
> end database (renaming it first) to make sure everything runs smoothly.
Sound
> ok?
> Thanks so much for your help.
>
> "david@epsomdotcomdotau" wrote:
>
> > You haven't got anyone connecting using DAO 2.5 or
> > Access 2 do you? The database is OK with Jet 4.0
> > (Access 2000/200x) only as long as you don't try to
> > use Access 97 or Access 2 (or VB3 or VB4-16) on
> > it at the same time.
> >
> > There are only four* database versions: 2, 3, 4
> > and ACDB. Access 2000-2007 use version 4.0.
> >
> > There is a new Access Project version inside the database
> > for each Access version. Since this is a BE database,
> > it doesn't matter which project version you also have inside
> > the database. If you use Access to convert the database
> > (instead of DAO), you will get a new Access project in
> > the current version, but the actual data conversion is done
> > by Jet 4, and will be exactly the same no matter which
> > version the conversion is called from.
> >
> > Which project version should you have in your BE database?
> > If you have a 5 year long change control process, don't do it
> > that way at all. Do a DAO conversion, so that you don't get
> > a project at all. Then if you open the BE in Access, you will
> > get a conversion message, which will remind you that you
> > shouldn't be modifying the BE.
> >
> > If you have more dynamic upgrade process, do the conversion
> > in your current development environment. Earlier version users
> > won't be able to open the BE in Access (only link to it), which
> > will remind them that they shouldn't be modifying the BE.
> >
> > (david)
> >
> > *ignoring 1 and 1.1, Jet 2.5 and Jet 3.5 use version 2.0 and 3.0
> >
> >
> > "Louise54" <Louise54 RemoveThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:9CCB2BA9-0778-48FA-8DB0-993481A25FC5@microsoft.com...
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >

Daivd, thank you so much for that very detailed response. It's just what I
needed to help understand the differences. The part that has me worried is
where you mention that if I convert the 2.0 database to, say, 2003, it will
never run as fast as it currently does. That's mainly the reason why I've
never converted it over the years - it has been running just fine, so why
take the risk? My users will complain for sure if I give them something
slower.

How do other people handle the slowdown - and is it wrong to keep this 2.0
going?
Once again, I very much appreciate everyone's help.


"david@epsomdotcomdotau" wrote:

> You know what Access is, and it has version 2, 2000 and so on.
>
> Each version of Access can connect to lots of different kinds of
> databases. Access databases, SQL Server databases, FoxPro
> databases and so on.
>
>
> There are three kinds of "Access databases", 2, 3, and 4.
>
> Access 2000 - 2003 normally use a type 4 database.
> Access 97 uses a type 3 database
> Access 2 uses a type 2 database.
>
> Access uses the 'Jet engine' to talk to these databases
>
> Jet 2.5 for database type 2 originally from Access 2
> Jet 3.5 for database type 3 originally from Access 95
> Jet 4.0 for database type 4 originally from Access 2000
>
> You don't have to use Access to talk to these databases.
> Any kind of program can use the Jet engine to talk to these
> databases.
>
> You can use your current version of Access to convert
> your database. It probably won't fix your corruption problem,
> unless your problem is that someone is using an old program
> to talk to your database. If someone is using an old program
> to talk to your database, changing the database from version
> 2.0 to version 4.0 will stop that person, and stop that program.
> They won't be able to use the database anymore.
>
> Corruption problems are also caused by bad network cards,
> or by networks. Changing the database from 2 to 4 won't
> make that go away. Problems don't come from nowhere, and
> they don't just go away.
>
> For the corruption problem, it won't matter if you use 2000
> or 2003 to convert the database. 2000, 2002 and 2003 all
> use the same version of Jet to talk to the database. The version
> of the database (version 4, Jet 4) will be exactly the same.
> Jet 2.5 can't talk to a version 4 database, so if that is your
> problem, conversion will stop the problem.
>
> If you use Access 2003 to convert the database, no one will
> be able to open the database in 2000 any more, but that won't
> affect the users using 2000 or 2002. They don't open the database
> in 2000 or 2002. They just use Jet 4 to talk to the database. It
> doesn't matter if a BE database is converted in 2000 or 2003.
>
> After you convert the database, it may be much slower. You may
> have to do more work to make it faster again, and it may never
> be as fast as it is now.
>
> (david)
>
>
>
>
> "Louise54" <Louise54.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6FFAFB43-0988-454A-80EB-190DAC315EB2@microsoft.com...
> > Thanks David, but I'm sorry I'm confused about your answer. All users will
> > have their front end in various versions of Access (2000, 2003, or 2007).
> I'm
> > assuming I can convert the back end from 2.0 to 2000, and then everyone
> will
> > be happy? Not sure what you mean about DAO as opposed to Access for the
> > conversion. What is DAO, and also, what is a 5 year long change control
> > process? I'm not a programmer, but would be very interested in learning
> what
> > those are so that I can understand if or how I should use them? I was
> > planning to do a practice run of the conversion by using a copy of the
> back
> > end database (renaming it first) to make sure everything runs smoothly.
> Sound
> > ok?
> > Thanks so much for your help.
> >
> > "david@epsomdotcomdotau" wrote:
> >
> > > You haven't got anyone connecting using DAO 2.5 or
> > > Access 2 do you? The database is OK with Jet 4.0
> > > (Access 2000/200x) only as long as you don't try to
> > > use Access 97 or Access 2 (or VB3 or VB4-16) on
> > > it at the same time.
> > >
> > > There are only four* database versions: 2, 3, 4
> > > and ACDB. Access 2000-2007 use version 4.0.
> > >
> > > There is a new Access Project version inside the database
> > > for each Access version. Since this is a BE database,
> > > it doesn't matter which project version you also have inside
> > > the database. If you use Access to convert the database
> > > (instead of DAO), you will get a new Access project in
> > > the current version, but the actual data conversion is done
> > > by Jet 4, and will be exactly the same no matter which
> > > version the conversion is called from.
> > >
> > > Which project version should you have in your BE database?
> > > If you have a 5 year long change control process, don't do it
> > > that way at all. Do a DAO conversion, so that you don't get
> > > a project at all. Then if you open the BE in Access, you will
> > > get a conversion message, which will remind you that you
> > > shouldn't be modifying the BE.
> > >
> > > If you have more dynamic upgrade process, do the conversion
> > > in your current development environment. Earlier version users
> > > won't be able to open the BE in Access (only link to it), which
> > > will remind them that they shouldn't be modifying the BE.
> > >
> > > (david)
> > >
> > > *ignoring 1 and 1.1, Jet 2.5 and Jet 3.5 use version 2.0 and 3.0
> > >
> > >
> > > "Louise54" <Louise54.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9CCB2BA9-0778-48FA-8DB0-993481A25FC5@microsoft.com...
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>

There are a couple of simple optimisations that bring back most of
the speed -- keep linked databases open, subdatasheet name.
See Tony's speed FAQ:
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm

Try the conversion and see if it is acceptable -- it is for everyone
else, so it will probably be ok for you too.

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.

(david)



"Louise54" <Louise54.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:61905ACE-3C3D-4662-8248-235D8C0DBA7F@microsoft.com...
> Daivd, thank you so much for that very detailed response. It's just what I
> needed to help understand the differences. The part that has me worried is
> where you mention that if I convert the 2.0 database to, say, 2003, it
will
> never run as fast as it currently does. That's mainly the reason why I've
> never converted it over the years - it has been running just fine, so why
> take the risk? My users will complain for sure if I give them something
> slower.
>
> How do other people handle the slowdown - and is it wrong to keep this 2.0
> going?
> Once again, I very much appreciate everyone's help.
>
>
> "david@epsomdotcomdotau" wrote:
>
> > You know what Access is, and it has version 2, 2000 and so on.
> >
> > Each version of Access can connect to lots of different kinds of
> > databases. Access databases, SQL Server databases, FoxPro
> > databases and so on.
> >
> >
> > There are three kinds of "Access databases", 2, 3, and 4.
> >
> > Access 2000 - 2003 normally use a type 4 database.
> > Access 97 uses a type 3 database
> > Access 2 uses a type 2 database.
> >
> > Access uses the 'Jet engine' to talk to these databases
> >
> > Jet 2.5 for database type 2 originally from Access 2
> > Jet 3.5 for database type 3 originally from Access 95
> > Jet 4.0 for database type 4 originally from Access 2000
> >
> > You don't have to use Access to talk to these databases.
> > Any kind of program can use the Jet engine to talk to these
> > databases.
> >
> > You can use your current version of Access to convert
> > your database. It probably won't fix your corruption problem,
> > unless your problem is that someone is using an old program
> > to talk to your database. If someone is using an old program
> > to talk to your database, changing the database from version
> > 2.0 to version 4.0 will stop that person, and stop that program.
> > They won't be able to use the database anymore.
> >
> > Corruption problems are also caused by bad network cards,
> > or by networks. Changing the database from 2 to 4 won't
> > make that go away. Problems don't come from nowhere, and
> > they don't just go away.
> >
> > For the corruption problem, it won't matter if you use 2000
> > or 2003 to convert the database. 2000, 2002 and 2003 all
> > use the same version of Jet to talk to the database. The version
> > of the database (version 4, Jet 4) will be exactly the same.
> > Jet 2.5 can't talk to a version 4 database, so if that is your
> > problem, conversion will stop the problem.
> >
> > If you use Access 2003 to convert the database, no one will
> > be able to open the database in 2000 any more, but that won't
> > affect the users using 2000 or 2002. They don't open the database
> > in 2000 or 2002. They just use Jet 4 to talk to the database. It
> > doesn't matter if a BE database is converted in 2000 or 2003.
> >
> > After you convert the database, it may be much slower. You may
> > have to do more work to make it faster again, and it may never
> > be as fast as it is now.
> >
> > (david)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Louise54" <Louise54.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:6FFAFB43-0988-454A-80EB-190DAC315EB2@microsoft.com...
> > > Thanks David, but I'm sorry I'm confused about your answer. All users
will
> > > have their front end in various versions of Access (2000, 2003, or
2007).
> > I'm
> > > assuming I can convert the back end from 2.0 to 2000, and then
everyone
> > will
> > > be happy? Not sure what you mean about DAO as opposed to Access for
the
> > > conversion. What is DAO, and also, what is a 5 year long change
control
> > > process? I'm not a programmer, but would be very interested in
learning
> > what
> > > those are so that I can understand if or how I should use them? I was
> > > planning to do a practice run of the conversion by using a copy of the
> > back
> > > end database (renaming it first) to make sure everything runs
smoothly.
> > Sound
> > > ok?
> > > Thanks so much for your help.
> > >
> > > "david@epsomdotcomdotau" wrote:
> > >
> > > > You haven't got anyone connecting using DAO 2.5 or
> > > > Access 2 do you? The database is OK with Jet 4.0
> > > > (Access 2000/200x) only as long as you don't try to
> > > > use Access 97 or Access 2 (or VB3 or VB4-16) on
> > > > it at the same time.
> > > >
> > > > There are only four* database versions: 2, 3, 4
> > > > and ACDB. Access 2000-2007 use version 4.0.
> > > >
> > > > There is a new Access Project version inside the database
> > > > for each Access version. Since this is a BE database,
> > > > it doesn't matter which project version you also have inside
> > > > the database. If you use Access to convert the database
> > > > (instead of DAO), you will get a new Access project in
> > > > the current version, but the actual data conversion is done
> > > > by Jet 4, and will be exactly the same no matter which
> > > > version the conversion is called from.
> > > >
> > > > Which project version should you have in your BE database?
> > > > If you have a 5 year long change control process, don't do it
> > > > that way at all. Do a DAO conversion, so that you don't get
> > > > a project at all. Then if you open the BE in Access, you will
> > > > get a conversion message, which will remind you that you
> > > > shouldn't be modifying the BE.
> > > >
> > > > If you have more dynamic upgrade process, do the conversion
> > > > in your current development environment. Earlier version users
> > > > won't be able to open the BE in Access (only link to it), which
> > > > will remind them that they shouldn't be modifying the BE.
> > > >
> > > > (david)
> > > >
> > > > *ignoring 1 and 1.1, Jet 2.5 and Jet 3.5 use version 2.0 and 3.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Louise54" <Louise54.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:9CCB2BA9-0778-48FA-8DB0-993481A25FC5@microsoft.com...
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >

Thank you so much!

"david@epsomdotcomdotau" wrote:

>
> There are a couple of simple optimisations that bring back most of
> the speed -- keep linked databases open, subdatasheet name.
> See Tony's speed FAQ:
> http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/performancefaq.htm
>
> Try the conversion and see if it is acceptable -- it is for everyone
> else, so it will probably be ok for you too.
>
> 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.
>
> (david)
>
>
>
> "Louise54" <Louise54.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:61905ACE-3C3D-4662-8248-235D8C0DBA7F@microsoft.com...
> > Daivd, thank you so much for that very detailed response. It's just what I
> > needed to help understand the differences. The part that has me worried is
> > where you mention that if I convert the 2.0 database to, say, 2003, it
> will
> > never run as fast as it currently does. That's mainly the reason why I've
> > never converted it over the years - it has been running just fine, so why
> > take the risk? My users will complain for sure if I give them something
> > slower.
> >
> > How do other people handle the slowdown - and is it wrong to keep this 2.0
> > going?
> > Once again, I very much appreciate everyone's help.
> >
> >
> > "david@epsomdotcomdotau" wrote:
> >
> > > You know what Access is, and it has version 2, 2000 and so on.
> > >
> > > Each version of Access can connect to lots of different kinds of
> > > databases. Access databases, SQL Server databases, FoxPro
> > > databases and so on.
> > >
> > >
> > > There are three kinds of "Access databases", 2, 3, and 4.
> > >
> > > Access 2000 - 2003 normally use a type 4 database.
> > > Access 97 uses a type 3 database
> > > Access 2 uses a type 2 database.
> > >
> > > Access uses the 'Jet engine' to talk to these databases
> > >
> > > Jet 2.5 for database type 2 originally from Access 2
> > > Jet 3.5 for database type 3 originally from Access 95
> > > Jet 4.0 for database type 4 originally from Access 2000
> > >
> > > You don't have to use Access to talk to these databases.
> > > Any kind of program can use the Jet engine to talk to these
> > > databases.
> > >
> > > You can use your current version of Access to convert
> > > your database. It probably won't fix your corruption problem,
> > > unless your problem is that someone is using an old program
> > > to talk to your database. If someone is using an old program
> > > to talk to your database, changing the database from version
> > > 2.0 to version 4.0 will stop that person, and stop that program.
> > > They won't be able to use the database anymore.
> > >
> > > Corruption problems are also caused by bad network cards,
> > > or by networks. Changing the database from 2 to 4 won't
> > > make that go away. Problems don't come from nowhere, and
> > > they don't just go away.
> > >
> > > For the corruption problem, it won't matter if you use 2000
> > > or 2003 to convert the database. 2000, 2002 and 2003 all
> > > use the same version of Jet to talk to the database. The version
> > > of the database (version 4, Jet 4) will be exactly the same.
> > > Jet 2.5 can't talk to a version 4 database, so if that is your
> > > problem, conversion will stop the problem.
> > >
> > > If you use Access 2003 to convert the database, no one will
> > > be able to open the database in 2000 any more, but that won't
> > > affect the users using 2000 or 2002. They don't open the database
> > > in 2000 or 2002. They just use Jet 4 to talk to the database. It
> > > doesn't matter if a BE database is converted in 2000 or 2003.
> > >
> > > After you convert the database, it may be much slower. You may
> > > have to do more work to make it faster again, and it may never
> > > be as fast as it is now.
> > >
> > > (david)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Louise54" <Louise54.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6FFAFB43-0988-454A-80EB-190DAC315EB2@microsoft.com...
> > > > Thanks David, but I'm sorry I'm confused about your answer. All users
> will
> > > > have their front end in various versions of Access (2000, 2003, or
> 2007).
> > > I'm
> > > > assuming I can convert the back end from 2.0 to 2000, and then
> everyone
> > > will
> > > > be happy? Not sure what you mean about DAO as opposed to Access for
> the
> > > > conversion. What is DAO, and also, what is a 5 year long change
> control
> > > > process? I'm not a programmer, but would be very interested in
> learning
> > > what
> > > > those are so that I can understand if or how I should use them? I was
> > > > planning to do a practice run of the conversion by using a copy of the
> > > back
> > > > end database (renaming it first) to make sure everything runs
> smoothly.
> > > Sound
> > > > ok?
> > > > Thanks so much for your help.
> > > >
> > > > "david@epsomdotcomdotau" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You haven't got anyone connecting using DAO 2.5 or
> > > > > Access 2 do you? The database is OK with Jet 4.0
> > > > > (Access 2000/200x) only as long as you don't try to
> > > > > use Access 97 or Access 2 (or VB3 or VB4-16) on
> > > > > it at the same time.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are only four* database versions: 2, 3, 4
> > > > > and ACDB. Access 2000-2007 use version 4.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a new Access Project version inside the database
> > > > > for each Access version. Since this is a BE database,
> > > > > it doesn't matter which project version you also have inside
> > > > > the database. If you use Access to convert the database
> > > > > (instead of DAO), you will get a new Access project in
> > > > > the current version, but the actual data conversion is done
> > > > > by Jet 4, and will be exactly the same no matter which
> > > > > version the conversion is called from.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which project version should you have in your BE database?
> > > > > If you have a 5 year long change control process, don't do it
> > > > > that way at all. Do a DAO conversion, so that you don't get
> > > > > a project at all. Then if you open the BE in Access, you will
> > > > > get a conversion message, which will remind you that you
> > > > > shouldn't be modifying the BE.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have more dynamic upgrade process, do the conversion
> > > > > in your current development environment. Earlier version users
> > > > > won't be able to open the BE in Access (only link to it), which
> > > > > will remind them that they shouldn't be modifying the BE.
> > > > >
> > > > > (david)
> > > > >
> > > > > *ignoring 1 and 1.1, Jet 2.5 and Jet 3.5 use version 2.0 and 3.0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Louise54" <Louise54.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:9CCB2BA9-0778-48FA-8DB0-993481A25FC5@microsoft.com...
> > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>