Access 2.0 and Windows XP home edition

[looking4clues]

Hi,
I would like to know if Access 2.0 can be made to operate on Windows
XP. I have used Access 2.0 and my database on a Windows 98 machine for some
while, and decided to upgrade to a new computer, which had Windows XP on it.
After I copied all required files from my Windows 98 computer, I opened the
database, and it opened fine, with one exception. I cannot enter additional
information, due to the fact that it will not recognize any date (year)
after 1999. It treats the year date (04) as 1904. I remember the fix back
in 1999 for this problem, from Microsoft, but was wondering if there is a
patch for Windows XP. Thanks.

[Douglas J. Steele]

Try going to the Regional and Language Options on the Control Panel. On the
Regional Options tab, there should be a Customize button. Click on it, and
select the Date tab. At the top of that tab, you can change how XP
interprets 2 digit year input.

Of course, you should be using 4 digit years. Perhaps you missed the big
fuss that was raised a few years back, something called Y2K?

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)

"looking4clues" <no*****@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:v7*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Hi,
I would like to know if Access 2.0 can be made to operate on Windows
XP. I have used Access 2.0 and my database on a Windows 98 machine for some while, and decided to upgrade to a new computer, which had Windows XP on it. After I copied all required files from my Windows 98 computer, I opened the database, and it opened fine, with one exception. I cannot enter additional information, due to the fact that it will not recognize any date (year)
after 1999. It treats the year date (04) as 1904. I remember the fix back in 1999 for this problem, from Microsoft, but was wondering if there is a
patch for Windows XP. Thanks.

[Larry Linson]

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote

Of course, you should be using 4
digit years. Perhaps you missed the big
fuss that was raised a few years back,
something called Y2K?

A deviation from Microsoft's standard policies allowed a patch for the
long-out-of-support Access 2.0 for Y2K. Be sure it is installed. We are
still in the time-window for which the Y2K corrections are likely to be
needed, so using a four digit year is a good, but not mandatory, approach if
the assumptions for date-handling in the patch are satisfactory.

It will be, after all, unlikely that any applications we deal with today
will be running to cause a Y3K problem.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

[looking4clues]

Hi,
Thanks for the help, I do appreciate it.

[Trevor Best]

Larry Linson wrote:

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote

> Of course, you should be using 4
> digit years. Perhaps you missed the big
> fuss that was raised a few years back,
> something called Y2K?

A deviation from Microsoft's standard policies allowed a patch for the
long-out-of-support Access 2.0 for Y2K. Be sure it is installed. We are
still in the time-window for which the Y2K corrections are likely to be
needed, so using a four digit year is a good, but not mandatory, approach if
the assumptions for date-handling in the patch are satisfactory.

It will be, after all, unlikely that any applications we deal with today
will be running to cause a Y3K problem.

I'm unaware of any problem associated with Y3K, Y4K maybe as it's not
yet decided if this year will be leap or not.

I'm still recovering from the change from BST to GMT, my car's clock
keeps telling me I'm late for work.