Opening Access 97 in Access 2003

[steve goodrich]

We have an Access 97 database on our network, used by 110 members of staff,
which has been working smoothly for over five years.

Four months ago 2 of our staff upgraded to Access 2003 and at first had
problems using the Access 97 database. One of our network guys looked into
it and as far as I know the problem was resolved. Just recently they have
had problems opening the database (some days they can open it and some days
they can't) On trying to open it the following message is displayed:





The database that you are trying to open or convert is currently in use, or
you do not have permission to open it exclusively.



When you convert a database, or the first time you open an earlier version
database, another user can't have the database open.



Try one of the following:

a.. Request that other users close the database.
b.. Using the version of Microsoft Office Access in which the database is
written, have your workgroup administrator grant you the permission to open
the database exclusively.
c.. Multiple users can share the database after you convert it, or after
you open it for the first time.


Requesting other users close the database is not possible as there is no way
of knowing who has the database open.

The second suggestion is not possible as they no longer have Access 97 on
their machine.

The third option is not possible either, Converting it to Access 2003 would
prevent the staff who have only got Access 97 from using it.



I personally thought that you could not open an Access 97 database in Access
2003 without converting it first, but they assure me that they've had it
working.



Do you think it's a network or permissions issue? The days they can open
it - Could it be that no one else in the building has it open at that time?



Any help on how to solve this problem would be greatly appreciated.



Steve Goodrich

 

[David F Cox]

There was probably an improper termination. You should take a copy of the
database and do what you can to check tits integrity when you have it
running again.

If you are sure that nobody else has the database open then look for and
rename a very small .ldb file with the same name. If that fixes the problem
you can delete that. The .ldb file controls sharing and should be deleted
automatically when the database is closed.

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Is your application split into a front-end (containing the queries, forms,
reports, macros and modules) and a back-end (containing only the tables and
relationships)? Even ignoring the issue of different versions of Access
installed, it should be. When it's split, only the back-end should be on the
server: each user should have his/her own copy of the front-end, ideally on
his/her hard drive.

With that sort of set up, it's easy to convert a copy of the front-end to
Access 2003 so that those uses with Access 2003 already installed can use
the "correct" version of the front-end. Leave the back-end in Access 97
format until everyone's converted (or longer, if you like...)

If it's necessary to make any changes to the application, make them in
Access 97, create an Access 2003 version of the new Access 97 front-end, and
redistribute to all users. While Access 2003 does have the ability to save
an application in Access 97 format, it's far better to go from Access 97 to
Access 2003 than vice versa: if you inadvertently used any features of
Access 2003 that didn't exist in Access 97, you'll run into problems going
backwards.

 

[David W. Fenton]

With that sort of set up, it's easy to convert a copy of the
front-end to Access 2003 so that those uses with Access 2003
already installed can use the "correct" version of the front-end.

Why not convert the front end to Access 2000, which will then work
for all versions of Access beyond A97?

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Why not convert the front end to Access 2000, which will then work
for all versions of Access beyond A97?

That's actually what I meant, although if the company is upgrading from
Access 97 to Access 2003, it's kind of a moot point.

 

[David W. Fenton]

That's actually what I meant, although if the company is upgrading
from Access 97 to Access 2003, it's kind of a moot point.

I'd still use 2000, even if they are all upgrading to 2003. It *is*
the default MDB format for 2003, no?

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

I'd still use 2000, even if they are all upgrading to 2003. It *is*
the default MDB format for 2003, no?

Of course, that would prevent them from creating MDEs.

 

[steve goodrich]

Hi Guys
The company isn't upgrading to access 2003, just a select few - don't ask!
the database is not split, just one access 97 file

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Well, you really need to split it.

As I said earlier in this thread, that should have been done even when you
all had Access 97.

 

[David W. Fenton]

Of course, that would prevent them from creating MDEs.

But they can *run* an A2K MDE.

 

[David W. Fenton]

The company isn't upgrading to access 2003, just a select few -
don't ask! the database is not split, just one access 97 file

I'd still go with A2K format for the non-A97 users.

And, of course, you *must* split. There is no other way to
accomplish waht you need here.

And you should have been split from the beginning -- there is no
justification for non-split multi-user apps.

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

But they can *run* an A2K MDE.

Large companies often standardize their desktops. That would mean that a
company that went from Access 97 to Access 2003 might very well have no
versions of Access 2000 or Access 2002 in-house, so that they would be
unable to produce an Access 2000 MDE.

That's certainly the case where I work, we have 100,000 desktops world-wide.
Everyone has Office 2003, with the exception of Access 97. However, it is
possible to get permission to use Access 2003. Nothing in between though.