By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,471 Members | 2,192 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,471 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

New Type Library Causing Incompatibility?

P: n/a
I have an Access database that has been running fine on multiple
platforms (Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc.) for several
years. Recently, the database has begun to issue "Run-Time Error 2467"
on one XP platform when certain forms are opened. Other forms result
in a total application crash with the resulting "Bug Report" dialog
sequence. The same forms within the same application run fine under
Win2000.

I'm wondering if this is due to changes in the type libraries. I
checked the type libraries and there are differences between the two
platforms, namely:

2000 XP
--------------------------- ---------------------------
Visual Basic For Applications Visual Basic For Applications
Microsoft Access 9.0 Object Library Microsoft Access 10.0 Object Library
Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.5 Compatibility Library Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.51 Compatibility Library
Microsoft Office 10.0 Object Library Microsoft Office 10.0 Object Library

Does anyone know if these change would result in the described problems?
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
ra*********@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
16 Replies


P: n/a
On 29 Oct 2004 08:45:44 -0400, Randy Yates
<ra*********@sonyericsson.com> wrote:
I have an Access database that has been running fine on multiple
platforms (Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc.) for several
years. Recently, the database has begun to issue "Run-Time Error 2467"
on one XP platform when certain forms are opened. Other forms result
in a total application crash with the resulting "Bug Report" dialog
sequence. The same forms within the same application run fine under
Win2000.

I'm wondering if this is due to changes in the type libraries. I
checked the type libraries and there are differences between the two
platforms, namely:

2000 XP
--------------------------- ---------------------------
Visual Basic For Applications Visual Basic For Applications
Microsoft Access 9.0 Object Library Microsoft Access 10.0 Object Library
Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.5 Compatibility Library Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.51 Compatibility Library
Microsoft Office 10.0 Object Library Microsoft Office 10.0 Object Library

Does anyone know if these change would result in the described problems?
Hi
Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.5 Compatibility Library Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.51 Compatibility Library


This indicates that the application was programmed originally in
Access 2.0. The use of the Compatibility Library is not supported
anymore since Acess 2000. You should remove the reference to the
Compatibility Library, recompile the application and correct any
syntax errors.

HTH
Matthias Kläy
--
www.kcc.ch
Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
Matthias Klaey <mp**@hotmail.com> writes:
On 29 Oct 2004 08:45:44 -0400, Randy Yates
<ra*********@sonyericsson.com> wrote:
I have an Access database that has been running fine on multiple
platforms (Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc.) for several
years. Recently, the database has begun to issue "Run-Time Error 2467"
on one XP platform when certain forms are opened. Other forms result
in a total application crash with the resulting "Bug Report" dialog
sequence. The same forms within the same application run fine under
Win2000.

I'm wondering if this is due to changes in the type libraries. I
checked the type libraries and there are differences between the two
platforms, namely:

2000 XP
--------------------------- ---------------------------
Visual Basic For Applications Visual Basic For Applications
Microsoft Access 9.0 Object Library Microsoft Access 10.0 Object Library
Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.5 Compatibility Library Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.51 Compatibility Library
Microsoft Office 10.0 Object Library Microsoft Office 10.0 Object Library

Does anyone know if these change would result in the described problems?
Hi
Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.5 Compatibility Library Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.51 Compatibility Library


This indicates that the application was programmed originally in
Access 2.0.


Yes, that's right.
The use of the Compatibility Library is not supported
anymore since Acess 2000.
A prime reason why I hate Microsoft and why any new developments will not
utilize their products.
You should remove the reference to the
Compatibility Library, recompile the application and correct any
syntax errors.


I "should"? Why "should" I? Because Microsoft decided they won't
support the existing API? Sorry, I can't disagree more.

What "should" happen is that Microsoft ensure their compatibility
libraries operate correctly.
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
ra*********@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124
Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
C'mon Randy!

Lighten up! Microsoft products are responsible for the boon in the
economy! Sometimes they make decisions that annoy the heck out of us
but for the most part they are the best game in town.

HTH

Randy Yates <ra*********@sonyericsson.com> wrote in message news:<xx*************@usrts005.corpusers.net>...
Matthias Klaey <mp**@hotmail.com> writes:
On 29 Oct 2004 08:45:44 -0400, Randy Yates
<ra*********@sonyericsson.com> wrote:
I have an Access database that has been running fine on multiple
platforms (Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc.) for several
years. Recently, the database has begun to issue "Run-Time Error 2467"
on one XP platform when certain forms are opened. Other forms result
in a total application crash with the resulting "Bug Report" dialog
sequence. The same forms within the same application run fine under
Win2000.

I'm wondering if this is due to changes in the type libraries. I
checked the type libraries and there are differences between the two
platforms, namely:

2000 XP
--------------------------- ---------------------------
Visual Basic For Applications Visual Basic For Applications
Microsoft Access 9.0 Object Library Microsoft Access 10.0 Object Library
Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.5 Compatibility Library Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.51 Compatibility Library
Microsoft Office 10.0 Object Library Microsoft Office 10.0 Object Library

Does anyone know if these change would result in the described problems?


Hi
Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.5 Compatibility Library Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.51 Compatibility Library


This indicates that the application was programmed originally in
Access 2.0.


Yes, that's right.
The use of the Compatibility Library is not supported
anymore since Acess 2000.


A prime reason why I hate Microsoft and why any new developments will not
utilize their products.
You should remove the reference to the
Compatibility Library, recompile the application and correct any
syntax errors.


I "should"? Why "should" I? Because Microsoft decided they won't
support the existing API? Sorry, I can't disagree more.

What "should" happen is that Microsoft ensure their compatibility
libraries operate correctly.

Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a
du********@aol.com (Ed Marzan) writes:
C'mon Randy!

Lighten up! Microsoft products are responsible for the boon in the
economy! Sometimes they make decisions that annoy the heck out of us
but for the most part they are the best game in town.
I'm lighter than hell. :)

I do stand by my statements. Has Microsoft innovated? Yes, of course they
have. Have they developed a nice graphical desktop system? Relatively so, yes.

But, ... as long as they expect us to pay them to debug their products, and
as long as their product and API lifetimes are in the 1-3 year range or even
less, I'm not going to bank any future development on them.

I have this funny attitude toward computer software - it should do what I want it
to do, not vice-versa. Microsoft seems hell-bent on implementing the latter.

--RY


HTH

Randy Yates <ra*********@sonyericsson.com> wrote in message news:<xx*************@usrts005.corpusers.net>...
Matthias Klaey <mp**@hotmail.com> writes:
On 29 Oct 2004 08:45:44 -0400, Randy Yates
<ra*********@sonyericsson.com> wrote:

>I have an Access database that has been running fine on multiple
>platforms (Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc.) for several
>years. Recently, the database has begun to issue "Run-Time Error 2467"
>on one XP platform when certain forms are opened. Other forms result
>in a total application crash with the resulting "Bug Report" dialog
>sequence. The same forms within the same application run fine under
>Win2000.
>
>I'm wondering if this is due to changes in the type libraries. I
>checked the type libraries and there are differences between the two
>platforms, namely:
>
>2000 XP
>--------------------------- ---------------------------
>Visual Basic For Applications Visual Basic For Applications
>Microsoft Access 9.0 Object Library Microsoft Access 10.0 Object Library
>Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.5 Compatibility Library Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.51 Compatibility Library
>Microsoft Office 10.0 Object Library Microsoft Office 10.0 Object Library
>
>Does anyone know if these change would result in the described problems?

Hi

>Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.5 Compatibility Library Microsoft DAO 2.5/3.51 Compatibility Library

This indicates that the application was programmed originally in
Access 2.0.


Yes, that's right.
The use of the Compatibility Library is not supported
anymore since Acess 2000.


A prime reason why I hate Microsoft and why any new developments will not
utilize their products.
You should remove the reference to the
Compatibility Library, recompile the application and correct any
syntax errors.


I "should"? Why "should" I? Because Microsoft decided they won't
support the existing API? Sorry, I can't disagree more.

What "should" happen is that Microsoft ensure their compatibility
libraries operate correctly.


--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
ra*********@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124
Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Randy Yates" <ra*********@sonyericsson.com> wrote...
A prime reason why I hate Microsoft and why any new developments will not
utilize their products.
Microsoft makes object model changes in 1995 during the move to 32bits and
keeps around the old syntax for the sake of backcompact for five years (and
two versions), but you hate them and do not want to use their products
because you think the syntax should be supported forever.

Interesting. I guess that also means you must hate companies like Oracle and
all of their paid support options (especially for downlevel), or companies
like RedHat with its decision to sunset prior version support. I could go on
(and there are many similar examples) but there is no point, you can find
them as easily yourself. What products will you use instead, exactly?

I guess you also must not have had a very complicated Access 2.0 application
if you did not have to make changes to move from EB to VBA or from 16bit to
32bit. I mean, if the minor syntax changes that they dumped a decade ago are
a big deal then you must not havd had to deal with the major changes caused
by all of the true architectural modifications. Being mad about the 2.5/3.5
library is like the doctor telling you that you have cancer and you being
mad about the undiagnosed dandruff. :-)
I "should"? Why "should" I? Because Microsoft decided they won't
support the existing API? Sorry, I can't disagree more.


Um, no -- it was boneheaded syntax, it was updated 10 years ago. If you do
not think that you need to change code that old then maybe the old version
is the place to stay?
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Windows International Division

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> writes:
"Randy Yates" <ra*********@sonyericsson.com> wrote...
A prime reason why I hate Microsoft and why any new developments will not
utilize their products.
Microsoft makes object model changes in 1995 during the move to 32bits and
keeps around the old syntax for the sake of backcompact for five years (and
two versions), but you hate them and do not want to use their products
because you think the syntax should be supported forever.


That's not what I said. Stop misquoting me.
Interesting. I guess that also means you must hate companies like Oracle and
all of their paid support options (especially for downlevel), or companies
like RedHat with its decision to sunset prior version support. I could go on
(and there are many similar examples) but there is no point, you can find
them as easily yourself. What products will you use instead, exactly?
Postgresql.
[...]
I "should"? Why "should" I? Because Microsoft decided they won't
support the existing API? Sorry, I can't disagree more.
Um, no -- it was boneheaded syntax,


The issue is not the syntax but the time required to change it. Regardless
of how much better the new syntax may be, I happen to think that I should
not be required to upgrade it until me and my client take a decision to do
so, NOT when MS decides I should.
it was updated 10 years ago.
Bullshit. 10 years ago MS had just released Access 2.0. Get your facts
straight.
If you do not think that you need to change code that old then maybe
the old version is the place to stay?


Yes, that's exactly right. The problem is that Microsoft products seem
to update themselves with no permission from the users. The person's
PC on which this problem is occurring tells me there were no upgrades
or new installs at the time the problem began happening. I suspect it
was a result of a background product update sanctioned by their IT
department, who in turn are probably just doing what MS suggests.
--
% Randy Yates % "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and kiss her interface,
%%% 919-577-9882 % til then, I'll leave her alone."
%%%% <ya***@ieee.org> % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Nov 13 '05 #7

P: n/a
Dennis Lee Bieber <wl*****@ix.netcom.com> writes:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:27:13 GMT, Randy Yates <ya***@ieee.org> declaimed
the following in comp.databases.ms-access:

or new installs at the time the problem began happening. I suspect it
was a result of a background product update sanctioned by their IT
department, who in turn are probably just doing what MS suggests.


Then I would say the fault lies with that IT department, for
pushing untested updates into production.


That is a possibility. I think it's more likely that MS *requires*
the update in order to use certain non-Access components of Office,
so my client's IT dept. will be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
ra*********@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124
Nov 13 '05 #8

P: n/a
"Randy Yates" <ya***@ieee.org> wrote...
it was updated 10 years ago.


Bullshit. 10 years ago MS had just released Access 2.0. Get your facts
straight.


No need to swear.

My facts are straight. Access 95 was released at the end of 1995, and that
was the first official release of Jet 3.0 and DAO 3.0. It had previously
been available in Beta and thus developers, book authors, and every one else
had exposure to this update 10 years ago.

1992 was the release of Access 2.0 -- that was 12-13 years asgo.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Windows International Division

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
Nov 13 '05 #9

P: n/a
Sorry to contradict you, however Access 2.0 was released in 1994, Access 1.0
was launched in 1992.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:41******@news.microsoft.com...
"Randy Yates" <ya***@ieee.org> wrote...

1992 was the release of Access 2.0 -- that was 12-13 years asgo.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Windows International Division

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.

Nov 13 '05 #10

P: n/a
Randy Yates <ra*********@sonyericsson.com> wrote:
The use of the Compatibility Library is not supported
anymore since Acess 2000.


A prime reason why I hate Microsoft and why any new developments will not
utilize their products.


FWIW the differences here are largely a matter of correcting any code which doesn't
compile and replace the .s with !s (period with exclamation mark.)

A bit tedious but shouldn't take too long.

There may be other differences but this is the one which caused me the most trouble.

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
Nov 13 '05 #11

P: n/a
Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:g4********************************@4ax.com:
Randy Yates <ra*********@sonyericsson.com> wrote:
The use of the Compatibility Library is not supported
anymore since Acess 2000.
A prime reason why I hate Microsoft and why any new developments
will not utilize their products.


FWIW the differences here are largely a matter of correcting any
code which doesn't compile and replace the .s with !s (period
with exclamation mark.)


Hello? Why would anyone with half the brains god promised a ham
sandwich not have removed any dependencies on the compatibility
library AS SOON AS THE DATABASE WAS CONVERTED FROM ACCESS 2.

That's the only logical thing to do in such a circumstance, is to
upgrade your code to the current version as soon as you convert.
A bit tedious but shouldn't take too long.

There may be other differences but this is the one which caused me
the most trouble.


Sorry, but it looks like pilot error to me to not have removed the
dependencies on the compatibility many years ago when the db was
first converted from Access 2.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #12

P: n/a
Whoops, yes. Of course the original syntax was 1.0 based (so the premise was
true even if I put the wrong number in).
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Windows International Division

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.

"Craig Alexander Morrison" <re***@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:41******@212.67.96.135...
Sorry to contradict you, however Access 2.0 was released in 1994, Access 1.0 was launched in 1992.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:41******@news.microsoft.com...
"Randy Yates" <ya***@ieee.org> wrote...

1992 was the release of Access 2.0 -- that was 12-13 years asgo.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Windows International Division

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.


Nov 13 '05 #13

P: n/a
The interesting thing is that the new syntax started in 1.0/1.1. Access 2.0
actually dupported the old and the new, as did Access 95 and 97 (via the
compatibility typelib).

MichKa

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:41********@news.microsoft.com...
Whoops, yes. Of course the original syntax was 1.0 based (so the premise was true even if I put the wrong number in).
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Windows International Division

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.

"Craig Alexander Morrison" <re***@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:41******@212.67.96.135...
Sorry to contradict you, however Access 2.0 was released in 1994, Access

1.0
was launched in 1992.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:41******@news.microsoft.com...
"Randy Yates" <ya***@ieee.org> wrote...

1992 was the release of Access 2.0 -- that was 12-13 years asgo.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Windows International Division

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.



Nov 13 '05 #14

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
Sorry, but it looks like pilot error to me to not have removed the
dependencies on the compatibility many years ago when the db was
first converted from Access 2.


True, but if you don't know enough to look for those references ...

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
Nov 13 '05 #15

P: n/a
Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net> writes:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
Sorry, but it looks like pilot error to me to not have removed the
dependencies on the compatibility many years ago when the db was
first converted from Access 2.


True, but if you don't know enough to look for those references ...

Tony


I think I smell MS's toilet paper perfume on your breaths.
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
ra*********@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124
Nov 13 '05 #16

P: n/a
Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:ii********************************@4ax.com:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
Sorry, but it looks like pilot error to me to not have removed the
dependencies on the compatibility many years ago when the db was
first converted from Access 2.


True, but if you don't know enough to look for those references
...


.. . . then maybe you shouldn't be getting paid for Access
programming?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #17

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.