By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,490 Members | 1,223 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,490 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Install ADO 2.8, get ADO 2.7?

P: n/a
I'm working on a system with a friend of mine, and we're using ADO. We had a
project failing with wierd errors on his new system, and we checked and found
it was referencing ADO 2.7, but the project had been compiled with a reference
to ADO 2.8. I've seen this before, and in Access 2002, it does not show as a
missing reference, but it does break.

OK, no problem, right? Just install MDAC 2.8, and we should be good to go,
right? Well, sort of.

We instlled MDAC 2.8 on the machine, went back into the project references,
and it still shows 2.7, and 2.8 is not listed. We tried unchecking 2.7, go
back into the references list, and 2.8 is available. OK, so we check 2.8,
close the references, re-open the references, and it again shows 2.7 checked,
and no 2.8.

Apparently, we have managed to get an install of ADO that lists as 2.8 when
it's not checked, and 2.7 when it is checked. We've tried reinstalling again,
but it's still mangled. I'm pretty sure the files are actually from 2.8, and
everything does appear to work, but we seem to have something very strange
going on in the registry, and I don't trust it while it's acting this way.

Does anyone have a clue what's going on with this?

Thanks,

Steve J.

P.S.
Win XP SP2 is not installed on this machine, so that's not part of the
problem.
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
7 Replies


P: n/a
Hi Steve.

Yes, I ran into this also, and it did cause no end of trouble. Eventually I
tracked down the references in RegEdit, and found that the file:
C:\Program Files\Common Files\System\ado\msadox.dll
was registered to both.

So, we followed these steps:
1. Verified that the file was actually version 2.8
2. Removed the ADOX reference from the problem mdb.
3. Ran RegEdit, and found the reference to:
ADO Ext. 2.7
4. Deleted that entry in the Windows Registry.
5. Re-registered the 2.8 library.
6. Open the mdb, and selected the 2.8 library.

There is probabably some correct sequence to follow, and some of that may
have been unnecessary, but worked for us.

--
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.

"Steve Jorgensen" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:23********************************@4ax.com...
I'm working on a system with a friend of mine, and we're using ADO. We
had a
project failing with wierd errors on his new system, and we checked and
found
it was referencing ADO 2.7, but the project had been compiled with a
reference
to ADO 2.8. I've seen this before, and in Access 2002, it does not show
as a
missing reference, but it does break.

OK, no problem, right? Just install MDAC 2.8, and we should be good to
go,
right? Well, sort of.

We instlled MDAC 2.8 on the machine, went back into the project
references,
and it still shows 2.7, and 2.8 is not listed. We tried unchecking 2.7,
go
back into the references list, and 2.8 is available. OK, so we check 2.8,
close the references, re-open the references, and it again shows 2.7
checked,
and no 2.8.

Apparently, we have managed to get an install of ADO that lists as 2.8
when
it's not checked, and 2.7 when it is checked. We've tried reinstalling
again,
but it's still mangled. I'm pretty sure the files are actually from 2.8,
and
everything does appear to work, but we seem to have something very strange
going on in the registry, and I don't trust it while it's acting this way.

Does anyone have a clue what's going on with this?

Thanks,

Steve J.

P.S.
Win XP SP2 is not installed on this machine, so that's not part of the
problem.

Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:48:21 +0800, "Allen Browne"
<Al*********@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote:
Hi Steve.

Yes, I ran into this also, and it did cause no end of trouble. Eventually I
tracked down the references in RegEdit, and found that the file:
C:\Program Files\Common Files\System\ado\msadox.dll
was registered to both.

So, we followed these steps:
1. Verified that the file was actually version 2.8
2. Removed the ADOX reference from the problem mdb.
3. Ran RegEdit, and found the reference to:
ADO Ext. 2.7
4. Deleted that entry in the Windows Registry.
5. Re-registered the 2.8 library.
6. Open the mdb, and selected the 2.8 library.

There is probabably some correct sequence to follow, and some of that may
have been unnecessary, but worked for us.


Oh, so the ADOX reference affects the ADO reference, eh? I'll try that
tonight.
Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
Sorry, Steve. The ADOX 2.7 and ADOX 2.8 references fought with each other in
my experience.

--
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.

"Steve Jorgensen" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:8p********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:48:21 +0800, "Allen Browne"
<Al*********@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote:
Hi Steve.

Yes, I ran into this also, and it did cause no end of trouble. Eventually
I
tracked down the references in RegEdit, and found that the file:
C:\Program Files\Common Files\System\ado\msadox.dll
was registered to both.

So, we followed these steps:
1. Verified that the file was actually version 2.8
2. Removed the ADOX reference from the problem mdb.
3. Ran RegEdit, and found the reference to:
ADO Ext. 2.7
4. Deleted that entry in the Windows Registry.
5. Re-registered the 2.8 library.
6. Open the mdb, and selected the 2.8 library.

There is probabably some correct sequence to follow, and some of that may
have been unnecessary, but worked for us.


Oh, so the ADOX reference affects the ADO reference, eh? I'll try that
tonight.

Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Oct 26 2004, 04:04 am, Steve Jorgensen <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote
in news:23********************************@4ax.com:

<snip>
Apparently, we have managed to get an install of ADO that lists as 2.8
when it's not checked, and 2.7 when it is checked. We've tried
reinstalling again, but it's still mangled. I'm pretty sure the files
are actually from 2.8, and everything does appear to work, but we seem
to have something very strange going on in the registry, and I don't
trust it while it's acting this way.


Steve,

Did you try ADO component checker?

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...8f0a8df6-4a21-
4b43-bf53-14332ef092c9&displaylang=en

It might show some inconsistencies with ADO installation.

--
remove a 9 to reply by email
Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:48:29 +0800, "Allen Browne"
<Al*********@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote:
Sorry, Steve. The ADOX 2.7 and ADOX 2.8 references fought with each other in
my experience.


Well, tonight, we deleted every ADO and ADOX reference we could find in the
registry, and still had the problem. Now, I'm thinking the issue might be the
..tlb files, but if you try to mess with that stuff, now, Windows XP puts it
all back the way it was. I think he's going to have to reinstall the OS.
Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a
Could you turn off System Restore in WinXP until the changes are made, and
then turn System Restore on again?

--
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.

"Steve Jorgensen" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:88********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:48:29 +0800, "Allen Browne"

Well, tonight, we deleted every ADO and ADOX reference we could find in
the
registry, and still had the problem. Now, I'm thinking the issue might be
the
.tlb files, but if you try to mess with that stuff, now, Windows XP puts
it
all back the way it was. I think he's going to have to reinstall the OS.

Nov 13 '05 #7

P: n/a
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:02:38 +0800, "Allen Browne"
<Al*********@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote:
Could you turn off System Restore in WinXP until the changes are made, and
then turn System Restore on again?


I guess since I've avoided Windows XP so far, I didn't know that was an option
you could turn off. Certainly sounds like something worth a try.
Nov 13 '05 #8

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.