By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,446 Members | 3,019 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,446 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

ASP to Access 97 mdb under MDAC 2.8

P: n/a
MM
If I have a web site using ASP 3.0 and MS Access and hosted on a
server with MDAC 2.7/2.8 installed, does it make any difference
whether the mdb is an Access 97 one or an Access 2000 one? I only have
Access 97. The hosting company intimated that I should seriously
consider converting the mdb to Access 2000. Could I do that with ADO?
I have VB6.

MM
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
6 Replies


P: n/a
MM
On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:58:20 +0100, MM <ky******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If I have a web site using ASP 3.0 and MS Access and hosted on a
server with MDAC 2.7/2.8 installed, does it make any difference
whether the mdb is an Access 97 one or an Access 2000 one? I only have
Access 97. The hosting company intimated that I should seriously
consider converting the mdb to Access 2000. Could I do that with ADO?
I have VB6.


Ah, it looks like Visual Data Manager in VB6 might come to my aid
here. I can create a version 2.0 mdb, then import the Access 97
tables, probably. The mdb stores only tables, no code, no macros, no
queries. It is -just- a database. Has anyone tried converting this
way, using VisData/VB6?

MM
Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
MM
On Wed, 04 May 2005 18:08:35 +0100, MM <ky******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:58:20 +0100, MM <ky******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If I have a web site using ASP 3.0 and MS Access and hosted on a
server with MDAC 2.7/2.8 installed, does it make any difference
whether the mdb is an Access 97 one or an Access 2000 one? I only have
Access 97. The hosting company intimated that I should seriously
consider converting the mdb to Access 2000. Could I do that with ADO?
I have VB6.


Ah, it looks like Visual Data Manager in VB6 might come to my aid
here. I can create a version 2.0 mdb, then import the Access 97
tables, probably. The mdb stores only tables, no code, no macros, no
queries. It is -just- a database. Has anyone tried converting this
way, using VisData/VB6?


Oops! That version 2.0 malarkey, they don't mean Access 2000, do they!
I'd forgotten all about Access 2.0. Oh well, back to the drawing
board. Has anyone written a utility to convert 97 to 2K?

MM
Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
MM
On Wed, 04 May 2005 18:13:02 +0100, MM <ky******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 18:08:35 +0100, MM <ky******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:58:20 +0100, MM <ky******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If I have a web site using ASP 3.0 and MS Access and hosted on a
server with MDAC 2.7/2.8 installed, does it make any difference
whether the mdb is an Access 97 one or an Access 2000 one? I only have
Access 97. The hosting company intimated that I should seriously
consider converting the mdb to Access 2000. Could I do that with ADO?
I have VB6.


Ah, it looks like Visual Data Manager in VB6 might come to my aid
here. I can create a version 2.0 mdb, then import the Access 97
tables, probably. The mdb stores only tables, no code, no macros, no
queries. It is -just- a database. Has anyone tried converting this
way, using VisData/VB6?


Oops! That version 2.0 malarkey, they don't mean Access 2000, do they!
I'd forgotten all about Access 2.0. Oh well, back to the drawing
board. Has anyone written a utility to convert 97 to 2K?


Fixed it! I referred to Larry Rebich's article "DAO 3.60 and Jet 4 -
July 1999 and December 2000" to create an Access 2000 mdb in VB6.
http://www.buygold.net/v02n12/v02n12.html

Then I followed the mods in:
How To Modify the Visual Data Manager (VISDATA) to Work with Access
2000 Databases
KB Q252438

Finally, I recompiled visdata, opened a newly created Access 2000 mdb,
and imported the tables from my Access 97 mdb.

MM
Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a
MM <ky******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:cf********************************@4ax.com:
If I have a web site using ASP 3.0 and MS Access and hosted on a
server with MDAC 2.7/2.8 installed, does it make any difference
whether the mdb is an Access 97 one or an Access 2000 one? I only
have Access 97. The hosting company intimated that I should
seriously consider converting the mdb to Access 2000. Could I do
that with ADO? I have VB6.


Your ISP is run by ignorant people.

If the MDAC installation is Jet 4, it can deal perfectly well with a
Jet 3.5 database (an Access database is a special kind of Jet
database with objects of its own that Jet itself knows nothing
about; on a website using ASP, you're not using any of the Access
properties of the MDB, so you're not really using an "Access"
database at all, just a Jet db).

You don't have any need to convert the db to Jet 3.5.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
MM
On Thu, 05 May 2005 00:41:11 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
MM <ky******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:cf********************************@4ax.com :
If I have a web site using ASP 3.0 and MS Access and hosted on a
server with MDAC 2.7/2.8 installed, does it make any difference
whether the mdb is an Access 97 one or an Access 2000 one? I only
have Access 97. The hosting company intimated that I should
seriously consider converting the mdb to Access 2000. Could I do
that with ADO? I have VB6.


Your ISP is run by ignorant people.

If the MDAC installation is Jet 4, it can deal perfectly well with a
Jet 3.5 database (an Access database is a special kind of Jet
database with objects of its own that Jet itself knows nothing
about; on a website using ASP, you're not using any of the Access
properties of the MDB, so you're not really using an "Access"
database at all, just a Jet db).

You don't have any need to convert the db to Jet 3.5.


Thanks, David. The current Access 97 mdb works fine on Brinkster,
using the Jet.OLEDB.4.0 provider. The bloke reckoned there were 'big
locking issues' with Access 97, but I have used it to build and
maintain many databases for years without any trouble.

MM
Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a
MM <ky******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:n4********************************@4ax.com:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 00:41:11 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
MM <ky******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:cf********************************@4ax.co m:
If I have a web site using ASP 3.0 and MS Access and hosted on a
server with MDAC 2.7/2.8 installed, does it make any difference
whether the mdb is an Access 97 one or an Access 2000 one? I
only have Access 97. The hosting company intimated that I should
seriously consider converting the mdb to Access 2000. Could I do
that with ADO? I have VB6.
Your ISP is run by ignorant people.

If the MDAC installation is Jet 4, it can deal perfectly well with
a Jet 3.5 database (an Access database is a special kind of Jet
database with objects of its own that Jet itself knows nothing
about; on a website using ASP, you're not using any of the Access
properties of the MDB, so you're not really using an "Access"
database at all, just a Jet db).

You don't have any need to convert the db to Jet 3.5.


Thanks, David. The current Access 97 mdb works fine on Brinkster,
using the Jet.OLEDB.4.0 provider. The bloke reckoned there were
'big locking issues' with Access 97, . . .


Why in the world should there be any at all? Jet 4 record locking is
a joke and nobody that I know actually uses it (it adds so much
overhead that it drags everything to a halt).

Jet 4 and Jet 3.5 are really pretty much identical in real-world
usage in regard to record-locking issues, even if Jet 4 is supposed
to be improved in that regard.
. . . but I have used it to build and
maintain many databases for years without any trouble.


ISP's generally know absolutely zilch about Access and Jet. The hard
part is convincing them of their ignorance, something of a
delicately diplomatic task.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #7

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.