[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference bump::msaccess

Title:MSACCESS
Moderator:BUMP::HONER
Created:Tue Dec 01 1992
Last Modified:Mon Jun 02 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1661
Total number of notes:6339

1628.0. "Access 97 vs Access 95 file formats" by OSEC::pervy.mco.dec.com::gilbertb (cyberpaddler) Wed Feb 05 1997 05:01

I'm a bit put out, to say the least, by the database file 
incompatibility between Access 95 and Access 97.

The other components of MS Office 97 allow backwards file 
compatibility when loading and saving data, even allowing 
you to set the previous file format as the default.

However, Access 97 is restricted to two options:

a) A one-way only forward conversion.

b) Runtime only use of Access 95 format files i.e. you can't 
change the design of the database.

This means that if you are a developer, you need to stick 
with Access 95 as your development platform until all of 
your users have migrated to Access 97.

In fact, it seems to be a good reason to not move forward to 
Access 97 at all.

Does anyone know of an Add-in that would allow me to produce 
a database in Access 95 file format whilst developing in 
Access 97? **

(** I accept that new Access 97 functionality wouldn't be 
supported).

Discuss.....

Brian
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
1628.1No different than V2 -> V7NSIC00::KLERKThunderbirds are GoWed Feb 05 1997 06:2411
   There was no way to use Access V2 databases with Access 95 either.
   You could only open them in read-only mode and there was no backward
   compatibility (creating V2 databases) either.

   So the transit Access 95 -> 97 is no different in this respect.

   It is awkward and one may wonder how often Microsoft will keep changing
   a database format (especially if it only contains tables with data).

   Theo
1628.2OSEC::pervy.mco.dec.com::gilbertbcyberpaddlerWed Feb 05 1997 13:0233
So, MS got away with it before - very consistent! However, the differences 
between Access 2 and '95 were a smidgeon more substantial - 32-bit, VBA to 
name two - so a gap in compatibility is more justifiable.

In case I gave the wrong impression, Access 97 can access(!) a tables-only 
Access 95 database OK. The problem is with developing Access based 
applications (forms, reports, macros, VBA code) or making changes to the 
database schema.

If an Access application is still in development or support*, and there are 
users of both flavours of Access in the field, how does one develop or 
maintain it?

The answer at present seems to be either:

a) Develop on Access 95 and then use Access 97 to produce an Access 97 
version. Plain vanilla '95 functionality only.

Or:

b) Develop two application streams.

I'd prefer to use a single source base with conditional code to derive 
target platform dependent variants. To be able to use Access 97 I'd need an 
Add-In or freestanding utility to convert file formats - any takers?

Interim solution: I've de-installed '97 and re-installed '95.

Brian

* If it is not in one of these categories, it's dead. And if it is dead, 
who cares anyway.
1628.3Can you distribute runtime only versions?POWDML::HUSTONJeff HustonWed Feb 05 1997 16:1420
    You haven't given many specifics and I have no real experience to
    apply, but you might be able to use the Access run-time distribution in
    the Access 95 Developer's Toolit or Office 97 Developer Edition to make 
    the transition easier.
    
    For instance if your application is completely self-contained, it could
    be bundled up and distributed as a kit in either 95 or 97.  There may
    be some conflict in the various support files, but it is a possibility.
    
    Or, if the users need to access the tables for reporting or inquery,
    the tables might be able to go out in a Access 95 MDB and be accessed
    by a runtime distribution of the application in 97.
    
    Again, I don't have any experience with these options, but the
    alternatives that Access offers are interesting to play with.
    
    Regards,
    
    Jeff
1628.4Good ideaOSEC::pervy.mco.dec.com::gilbertbcyberpaddlerWed Feb 05 1997 18:3112
Good suggestion, thanks Jeff.

I'd not gone as far as packaging a runtime-only version yet because we are 
still in proof-of-concept/prototyping/RAD/JAD/evolutionary/suck-it-and-see 
mode. (this sounds messy, but it's more effective than trying to get a 
bunch of techy DECcies to specify what they want, they're worse than 
customers!)

I'll get hold of the ADT and see if that helps.

Rgds, Brian