VB6/Access 2003/Win95

  • Thread starter Thread starter Georges Bessis
  • Start date Start date
G

Georges Bessis

Hi,

I understand that Access 2003 is not available for Win95 users.
I still want to convert an Access 97 database to Access 2003 format, and use
it via a VB 6.0 application, in DAO.
Conversion will be done on a Win XP system. so it should work.

But my VB app is to be deployed on systems like Win 95, win 98, Win 2000
(while my database will still reside on an XP system, and accessed via our
LAN). Will it work on all 3 cases?

Please note that I dont need Acces 2003 on the client systems, just the Jet
library, and probably an updated MDAC. By the way, what library should I
install opn my client stations?

Thanks in advance

Georges Bessis
 
If all you're using the MDB for is data storage, why bother with Access
2003? Access 2000, 2002 and 2003 all use the same Jet engine (4.0)
 
VB 6 is about the same age with JET 3.5 (the dafault database engine for
A97) so it may be better to use JET 3.5 rather. In this case, the correct
DAO version is 3.51.

A2K, A2K2 and A2K3 all use JET 4 and DAO 3.6 but I don't know whether the
later version would make any difference for you since you use VB6 to develop
the Front-End.

Both JET 3.5 and JET 4 should work fine on the OSs you mentioned.

Some of the later versions of MDAC do not include JET. I think the last one
that includes JET 4 is either MDAC version 4 or MDAC version 5.
 
If all you're using the MDB for is data
storage, why bother with Access
2003? Access 2000, 2002 and 2003
all use the same Jet engine (4.0)
Click to expand...

And, if Georges simply wants to use Access 2003 to create the database, for
"comfort level" if nothing else, he can choose the default "Save as Access
2000 file format".
 
Douglas J. Steele said:
If all you're using the MDB for is data storage, why bother with Access
2003? Access 2000, 2002 and 2003 all use the same Jet engine (4.0)
Click to expand...

Because with Access 97, the base size is limited to 1GB and we need more
(and dont want to bother spliting our base in 2, with on set of tables
attached. We had a try and had some problems with the relationships between
tables).
Of course we could pick up any of Access 2000, 2002 or 2003, but as we dont
have any of them already, I jut feel better to use the latest...except if it
does not work in pour case. This was our question. What is your answer if
you have an idea?

Thanks for your support

Georges Bessis
 
You wrote :
"A2K, A2K2 and A2K3 all use JET 4 and DAO 3.6 "
"Both JET 3.5 and JET 4 should work fine on the OSs you mentioned"

This for me means the my VB app can handle an A2K3 base even if running on
a Win 95 system. (The base itself is on a Win XP file server). Am I right?

Thanks

Georges Bessis
 
Georges Bessis said:
Because with Access 97, the base size is limited to 1GB and we need more
(and dont want to bother spliting our base in 2, with on set of tables
attached. We had a try and had some problems with the relationships between
tables).
Of course we could pick up any of Access 2000, 2002 or 2003, but as we dont
have any of them already, I jut feel better to use the latest...except if it
does not work in pour case. This was our question. What is your answer if
you have an idea?

Thanks for your support

Georges Bessis
Click to expand...

Why is it so large? Are you storing graphics in it? Recognize that while Jet
4.0 does support MDB files of up to 2 GB, it's not a doubling from Jet 3.5x.
Jet 4.0 uses Unicode, so text fields now require 2 bytes per character.
There is Unicode compression allowed, but that still adds some overhead. You
might consider using MSDE (Microsoft Data Environment) instead of Jet. Think
of MSDE as "SQL Server Lite" (although it too has a 2 GB limit)

While the 3 versions of Access use the same Jet engine, I'm not sure that
means they'll work with Win95. I know that Access 2002 and Access 2003 won't
work with Win95 (afraid I can't remember whether Access 2000 did, although I
believe it did). I don't know whether that means that there could be
problems using the Access 2003 format even through you're strictly going
through the Jet engine.

And at the risk of sounding rude, I find it hard to reconcile an attitude of
"I just fell better to use the latest" with staying on Win95!
 
You'll be better off in Access 2000 format. If you're not using the
database for anything other than data storage, it won't matter. 2000 format
is compatible with Access 2000, 2002, and 2003 and uses Jet 4.0. Whereas,
2003 would prevent you or your user from open the database with anything
other than Access 2003
 
In theory, yes. The reason is that you only use a JET database to store
data and you DON'T use the Access component at all. In fact, it is more
correct to say that you use a JET MDB file, NOT an Access MDB file to store
data.

In practice, ??? since if you create the Tables using Access 2003, Access
2003 may flag the MDB as an Access MDB file which may make it unreadable by
your VB application. You need to do some simple tests to make sure. A few
small VB applications I have had for a few years, I leave them as JET 3.5
since JET 3.5 is very stable.
 
<Why is it so large? >
I dont get the point : Its just THAT large (actually under 1GB but growing
as normally active base). I don feel its a huge base, its just big for
Access 97.

<while Jet 4.0 does support MDB files of up to 2 GB, it's not a doubling
from Jet 3.5x.>
Inb fact in my case, converting to Jet 4.0 format (thru Access 2000) even
reduces (slightly of course) the size. So no questio of doubling here. I was
expecting this possible problem and I tryed. No problem here.

<You might consider using MSDE >
It will involve to much work on the application, which use MS Jet functions
which are not all compatible with MSDN. No budget to do that.

< While the 3 versions of Access use the same Jet engine, I'm not sure that
means they'll work with Win95. I know that Access 2002 and Access 2003 won't
work with Win95 . >
I dont need Access itself to run on Win 95. I just need the app, using MSJet
4.0, to run on W95.

< I don't know whether that means that there could be problems using the
Access 2003 format even through you're strictly going through the Jet
engine.>
THAT was my question. No problem if you dont know. It just needs to be
tryed for. But I was trying to gain some effort and time by asking somebody
who has already tryed.

<And at the risk of sounding rude, I find it hard to reconcile an attitude
of "I just fell better to use the latest" with staying on Win95!>
Its not the problem of being "rude", its just that you did not understand
that we dont do exactly what we like all the time. My customer's
configuration includes some Win95 system, with too little ressources to run
Win XP for exemple (which I made him introduce in all new systems and that I
would like to generalize). So I have to accept this constraint (not renewing
the corresponding computers) and still propose an "up-to-date" solution for
all new introductions in the config, so they can make some progress, at
least at their own pace. Today, we have to solve this size problem and thats
all I am allowed to work at, with very little budget.
 
Note that the latest version of Jet 4.0 is not available for
Win98 or Win95. Are they out of support now (5 years?). Until
this is resolved, I will be a little wary about specifying
Jet 4.0 for Win98.

Also, we gave up on using Win95 to connect to an Access (Jet 3.5)
database on a Win2000 server. Perhaps they have fixed the problems
we had, but we did not have a happy experience.

Also, our primary application has a dozen data files, and we
get by without relationships between the tables: perhaps you
should reconsider that approach.

Also, as far as VB 6.0 can see, An Access 2003 database is a
Jet 4.0 database. Access stores some Access Application information
in the database, which is different for each version of Access, but
if you just use 'create database' in VB, you don't get any of that
anyway.

(david)
 
I have a client with A2K on W95 OSs without any problem. A2K (original and
SPs applied) seemed to be OK on W95 so I think JET 4 should be OK on W95.
 
Access 2003 doesn't introduce any new file format, Georges. It can use
either Access 2000 format, or Access 2002 format (now referred to in the
documentation as 'Access 2002/2003 format'). As an experiment, I converted
an MDB to Access 2002/2003 format, and had a colleague running Access 2000
attempt to access the data. Access 2000 could not link the tables, but we
had no difficulty accessing the data programmatically using DAO in Access
2000. If it can be accessed via DAO in Access 2000, then I would be
reasonably confident that it can be accessed using DAO in VB6, provided SP5
is installed. I would be less confident about accessing the data via UI
features, such as the data control wizard. The problems VB6 initially had
with Access 2000 format were fixed in SP5, but as far as I know there has
not been, and probably never will be now, any service pack to resolve any
problems that VB6 may have with Access 2002/2003.
 
The problem we had was on a mixed network with Win95 and
Win2K workstations on a Win2K server. The Win95 workstations
worked ok, and the Win2K workstations worked ok, but if the
client used a Win95 workstation to access the database, and
a Win2K workstation to access the database at the same time,
they got a windows memory fault or database corruption.

Win95 and Win2K use slightly different network protocols,
and Win2K server was supposed to be intelligent enough to
deal with that, but obviously wasn't.

Or at least, Access is notoriously sensitive to network
faults, and that version of Win2K couldn't handle a mixed
network well enough so that Jet 3.5 shared file could be
used.

(david)
 
That is the set-up in one of my clients: W95 / W2K and WinXP work-stations
with A2K (SP1) with Front-End on each workstation and Back-End on SBS (Small
Business Server), i.e. W2K Server.

The client has been using this set up for about 2 years (WXP work-station
added 6 months ago) and have not had any problems with corruptions. I
Repair & Compact the Back-End every second week or so as well as backing-up.

You got me worried now. I think I'll recommend the client to update the
single W95 work-station.
 
In fairness, this was Win2K in Year 2K, at a corporate location,
so they probably were not fully patched even then.

(david)
 
Back
Top