By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,656 Members | 1,027 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,656 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Converting Access 2000 to 2003

P: n/a
I work for an organization that is migrating from Access 2000 to Access
2003. About 5 or 6 years ago we migrated from Access 97 to Access 2000 with
no problem. Will I have trouble converting these already converted databases
to Access 2003? We also have 2 mda's, will these convert with no problem in
the mda format. We no longer have the mdb that made the mda. Are there any
other nuances that I need to look out for?

Thanks in advance,
Mark
Mar 20 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
10 Replies


P: n/a
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:19:20 -0400, "NEWSGROUPS" <he******@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Typically the conversion from A2000 MDB to A2003 MDB is very easy. Why
not take a few minutes and try it.

MDA is the old extension for workgroup information files, related to
Access security (.MDW is the more current extension). They were not
created from MDBs. Perhaps you mean MDE? In that case you are in
deep trouble, because you lost the source code of the applications.
That was really not very smart to lose the MDB files.
Fortunately A2000 MDE files run fine in A2003 and A2007, in
compatibility mode. For future versions: your mileage may vary.

-Tom.

>I work for an organization that is migrating from Access 2000 to Access
2003. About 5 or 6 years ago we migrated from Access 97 to Access 2000 with
no problem. Will I have trouble converting these already converted databases
to Access 2003? We also have 2 mda's, will these convert with no problem in
the mda format. We no longer have the mdb that made the mda. Are there any
other nuances that I need to look out for?

Thanks in advance,
Mark
Mar 20 '07 #2

P: n/a
On Mar 19, 6:38 pm, Tom van Stiphout <no.spam.tom7...@cox.netwrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:19:20 -0400, "NEWSGROUPS" <herei...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Typically the conversion from A2000 MDB to A2003 MDB is very easy. Why
not take a few minutes and try it.

MDA is the old extension for workgroup information files, related to
Access security (.MDW is the more current extension). They were not
created from MDBs. Perhaps you mean MDE? In that case you are in
deep trouble, because you lost the source code of the applications.
That was really not very smart to lose the MDB files.
Fortunately A2000 MDE files run fine in A2003 and A2007, in
compatibility mode. For future versions: your mileage may vary.

-Tom.
I work for an organization that is migrating from Access 2000 to Access
2003. About 5 or 6 years ago we migrated from Access 97 to Access 2000 with
no problem. Will I have trouble converting these already converted databases
to Access 2003? We also have 2 mda's, will these convert with no problem in
the mda format. We no longer have the mdb that made the mda. Are there any
other nuances that I need to look out for?
Thanks in advance,
Mark- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
fyi - an mda stands for Access Add-in I believe. Essentially a
library and it is exactly the same as an mdb file in content (that is,
forms, modules, reports, etc).

Mar 20 '07 #3

P: n/a
Actually I did mean mda. I have never created an mda so I was unaware as to
what it was. One of our programmers created 2 mda's and we use them as add
ins(through references). You are right as they do open as normal databases
and we can add code as needed. So that being said, are you telling me that
they will convert when opened in 2003 as long as they compile in Access 2000
error free?

Regards,
Mark


"NEWSGROUPS" <he******@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:B_******************************@comcast.com. ..
>I work for an organization that is migrating from Access 2000 to Access
2003. About 5 or 6 years ago we migrated from Access 97 to Access 2000 with
no problem. Will I have trouble converting these already converted
databases to Access 2003? We also have 2 mda's, will these convert with no
problem in the mda format. We no longer have the mdb that made the mda. Are
there any other nuances that I need to look out for?

Thanks in advance,
Mark

Mar 20 '07 #4

P: n/a
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:59:19 -0400, "NEWSGROUPS" <he******@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Yes.
-Tom.

>Actually I did mean mda. I have never created an mda so I was unaware as to
what it was. One of our programmers created 2 mda's and we use them as add
ins(through references). You are right as they do open as normal databases
and we can add code as needed. So that being said, are you telling me that
they will convert when opened in 2003 as long as they compile in Access 2000
error free?

Regards,
Mark


"NEWSGROUPS" <he******@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:B_******************************@comcast.com ...
>>I work for an organization that is migrating from Access 2000 to Access
2003. About 5 or 6 years ago we migrated from Access 97 to Access 2000 with
no problem. Will I have trouble converting these already converted
databases to Access 2003? We also have 2 mda's, will these convert with no
problem in the mda format. We no longer have the mdb that made the mda. Are
there any other nuances that I need to look out for?

Thanks in advance,
Mark
Mar 20 '07 #5

P: n/a
Tom van Stiphout <no*************@cox.netwrote in
news:2f********************************@4ax.com:
MDA is the old extension for workgroup information files, related
to Access security (.MDW is the more current extension).
No, that's not correct. An MDA is an Access Add-in. In Access 2K,
and Access 2K2, the Utility wizards are still in Utility.MDA (I
don't have 2K3 installed on this PC to check).

It's still a completely valid extension for an Access add-in (though
not required).

Utility.MDA is probably actually an MDE.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Mar 20 '07 #6

P: n/a
en****@ridesoft.com wrote in
news:11**********************@n59g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com:
fyi - an mda stands for Access Add-in I believe. Essentially a
library and it is exactly the same as an mdb file in content (that
is, forms, modules, reports, etc).
Usually you'd use an MDE renamed as MDA for distribution.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Mar 20 '07 #7

P: n/a
"NEWSGROUPS" <he******@yahoo.comwrote in
news:we******************************@comcast.com:
Actually I did mean mda. I have never created an mda so I was
unaware as to what it was. One of our programmers created 2 mda's
and we use them as add ins(through references). You are right as
they do open as normal databases and we can add code as needed. So
that being said, are you telling me that they will convert when
opened in 2003 as long as they compile in Access 2000 error free?
Yes.

But why convert? A2K is a native format for A2K3. It only matters if
you want to use the small handfull of features added in A2K2 and
A2K3. I can't think of much of anything other than the printer
object that would be useful. If you're not needing to use something
that is unsupported in A2K, then I don't see any point in doing any
conversion at all.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Mar 20 '07 #8

P: n/a
I had read in another news group posting that I would not be able to add any
code or forms to an Access 2000 database used in Access 2003 unless
converted. We also have a small subgroup that has already had Access 2003
installed on there workstations and they have reported database corruptions
when accessing an Access 2000 with Access 2003. I have also heard that
Access 2003 is a little more "stable" (fewer corruptions etc...).
Mark
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...
"NEWSGROUPS" <he******@yahoo.comwrote in
news:we******************************@comcast.com:
>Actually I did mean mda. I have never created an mda so I was
unaware as to what it was. One of our programmers created 2 mda's
and we use them as add ins(through references). You are right as
they do open as normal databases and we can add code as needed. So
that being said, are you telling me that they will convert when
opened in 2003 as long as they compile in Access 2000 error free?

Yes.

But why convert? A2K is a native format for A2K3. It only matters if
you want to use the small handfull of features added in A2K2 and
A2K3. I can't think of much of anything other than the printer
object that would be useful. If you're not needing to use something
that is unsupported in A2K, then I don't see any point in doing any
conversion at all.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

Mar 21 '07 #9

P: n/a
On Mar 20, 8:47 pm, "NEWSGROUPS" <herei...@yahoo.comwrote:
I had read in another news group posting that I would not be able to add any
code or forms to an Access 2000 database used in Access 2003 unless
converted. We also have a small subgroup that has already had Access 2003
installed on there workstations and they have reported database corruptions
when accessing an Access 2000 with Access 2003. I have also heard that
Access 2003 is a little more "stable" (fewer corruptions etc...).

Mark

"David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...@dfenton.com.invalidwrote in messagenews:Xn**********************************@1 27.0.0.1...
"NEWSGROUPS" <herei...@yahoo.comwrote in
news:we******************************@comcast.com:
Actually I did mean mda. I have never created an mda so I was
unaware as to what it was. One of our programmers created 2 mda's
and we use them as add ins(through references). You are right as
they do open as normal databases and we can add code as needed. So
that being said, are you telling me that they will convert when
opened in 2003 as long as they compile in Access 2000 error free?
Yes.
But why convert? A2K is a native format for A2K3. It only matters if
you want to use the small handfull of features added in A2K2 and
A2K3. I can't think of much of anything other than the printer
object that would be useful. If you're not needing to use something
that is unsupported in A2K, then I don't see any point in doing any
conversion at all.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Not true that you need to convert, at least in my experience. About
the only thing I've found you can't do is to create an mde file. If
you have Access 2003 and the format of the file is 2000, then you will
not be allowed to create an mde file. I keep around Access 2000
strictly for that purpose.

Mar 21 '07 #10

P: n/a
"NEWSGROUPS" <he******@yahoo.comwrote in
news:fd******************************@comcast.com:
I had read in another news group posting that I would not be able
to add any code or forms to an Access 2000 database used in Access
2003 unless converted.
No, that's not true. A2K is a native file format for A2K3 (and for
A2K7). The reason is because Jet 4 is shared by all versions of
Access from A2K on. This applies to both pure Jet objects and to
Access objects.

You may have misunderstood posts about the limits of MDEs, which can
only be created from the same version MDB as the version of Access
you are running.
We also have a small subgroup that has already had Access 2003
installed on there workstations and they have reported database
corruptions when accessing an Access 2000 with Access 2003.
Data corruptions? Then you likely have problems outside of Access.
Most of my clients are using A2K-format front ends and back ends,
and running them in A2K, A2K2 and A2K3. There have been no
corruptions of any kind, front end or back end, except in a few
cases with A2K-only setups.
I have also heard that
Access 2003 is a little more "stable" (fewer corruptions etc...).
I don't know about that. I don't consider A2K to be problematic in
this regard, though in its original release it was highly
problematic (Jet 4 SP6 and Access SR1 fixed those problems, but that
was years ago, in 2002 or so).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Mar 21 '07 #11

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.