I have an Access 2007 database that I need to use with Access 97. I actually
upgraded it (copy) to Access 2007 thinking I could do a SaveAs, but 97 is not
a choice.

In MS's KB they say to convert it to 2003, then use 2003 to convert it to
97. Now that would infer you have access to three different version of
Access, which I don't.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Deb

You options are pretty much convert it to 2003 and find someone who has 2003
who can take it back t0 97 for you or since you have 2007, just run it in
2007.

Is there any specific reason you have to run it under 97?
If you are concerned about users not having 2007 installed, you can download
the 2007 developers extensions and runtime free from Microsoft. They no
longer charge for it.
--
Dave Hargis, Microsoft Access MVP


"Deb" wrote:

> I have an Access 2007 database that I need to use with Access 97. I actually
> upgraded it (copy) to Access 2007 thinking I could do a SaveAs, but 97 is not
> a choice.
>
> In MS's KB they say to convert it to 2003, then use 2003 to convert it to
> 97. Now that would infer you have access to three different version of
> Access, which I don't.
>
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> Deb

If you upgraded a copy why not go back to it. Did you make changes? Always
develope in oldest version your going to use. Maybe you can find a friend
or old copy of 2003 to convert it back, but I suspect you will have problems
with it. Might be able to buy a version of 2003 on Ebay or something.

"Deb" <Deb@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B29DD82-DCA5-4F67-87B8-CBEF3C53C468@microsoft.com...
>I have an Access 2007 database that I need to use with Access 97. I
>actually
> upgraded it (copy) to Access 2007 thinking I could do a SaveAs, but 97 is
> not
> a choice.
>
> In MS's KB they say to convert it to 2003, then use 2003 to convert it to
> 97. Now that would infer you have access to three different version of
> Access, which I don't.
>
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> Deb

Pete D. wrote:
> So now, I and everyone else knows, you have one sql datafile it has
> one record and you have never had a power outage or hardware failure
> since 2002. No wonder you can't understand the home/workgroup user
> problems. Everyone, quick spend thousands now and buy SQL for you
> office. Don't forget to put two shifts of database managers on for
> your 20 people and a few thousand records. a a r o n says your crazy
> if you don't! Apparently his u key is stuck again also.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to disagree with Aaron and it would
be best to stay with those.

SQL Server is expensive and requires dedicated administrators is NOT a
legitimate point of argument because neither is necessarily true. You are
arguing about the difference between a smallish Jet database and a large
enterprise level SQL Server setup. That is not apples to apples.

A database with a scope where Jet could even be considered can be set up and
run with one of the free editions of SQL Server on a machine no more
powerful than the file server one would use for Jet and would require no
more expense nor maintenance than the Jet back end would.

To clarify, I am not saying that such databases always should be moved to
SQL Server. I am just saying that doing so does not require large
expeditures nor the hiring of admin personnel.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:N6ntk.20537$89.7293@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:

> To clarify, I am not saying that such databases always should be
> moved to SQL Server. I am just saying that doing so does not
> require large expeditures nor the hiring of admin personnel.

I don't want to have to maintain multiple workstations running SQL
Server (i.e., laptops, for instance). That's a good reason not to
upsize.

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

And I agree with what your saying except the questions he (a dude) responds
to are not those from people that this would be a easy legitimate move. As
you say not necessarily true depending on needs and skills. I never said it
should never be moved, just in this occasion I thought the requester, by
the request, would require proffessional help.

"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:N6ntk.20537$89.7293@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Pete D. wrote:
>> So now, I and everyone else knows, you have one sql datafile it has
>> one record and you have never had a power outage or hardware failure
>> since 2002. No wonder you can't understand the home/workgroup user
>> problems. Everyone, quick spend thousands now and buy SQL for you
>> office. Don't forget to put two shifts of database managers on for
>> your 20 people and a few thousand records. a a r o n says your crazy
>> if you don't! Apparently his u key is stuck again also.
>
> There are plenty of legitimate reasons to disagree with Aaron and it would
> be best to stay with those.
>
> SQL Server is expensive and requires dedicated administrators is NOT a
> legitimate point of argument because neither is necessarily true. You are
> arguing about the difference between a smallish Jet database and a large
> enterprise level SQL Server setup. That is not apples to apples.
>
> A database with a scope where Jet could even be considered can be set up
> and run with one of the free editions of SQL Server on a machine no more
> powerful than the file server one would use for Jet and would require no
> more expense nor maintenance than the Jet back end would.
>
> To clarify, I am not saying that such databases always should be moved to
> SQL Server. I am just saying that doing so does not require large
> expeditures nor the hiring of admin personnel.
>
> --
> Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
> Email (as appropriate) to...
> RBrandt at Hunter dot com
>

P.S. Okay Rick, I'll stop, your right, I might be a little Irritable .
"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:N6ntk.20537$89.7293@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Pete D. wrote:
>> So now, I and everyone else knows, you have one sql datafile it has
>> one record and you have never had a power outage or hardware failure
>> since 2002. No wonder you can't understand the home/workgroup user
>> problems. Everyone, quick spend thousands now and buy SQL for you
>> office. Don't forget to put two shifts of database managers on for
>> your 20 people and a few thousand records. a a r o n says your crazy
>> if you don't! Apparently his u key is stuck again also.
>
> There are plenty of legitimate reasons to disagree with Aaron and it would
> be best to stay with those.
>
> SQL Server is expensive and requires dedicated administrators is NOT a
> legitimate point of argument because neither is necessarily true. You are
> arguing about the difference between a smallish Jet database and a large
> enterprise level SQL Server setup. That is not apples to apples.
>
> A database with a scope where Jet could even be considered can be set up
> and run with one of the free editions of SQL Server on a machine no more
> powerful than the file server one would use for Jet and would require no
> more expense nor maintenance than the Jet back end would.
>
> To clarify, I am not saying that such databases always should be moved to
> SQL Server. I am just saying that doing so does not require large
> expeditures nor the hiring of admin personnel.
>
> --
> Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
> Email (as appropriate) to...
> RBrandt at Hunter dot com
>

"Pete D." <pduffy211AT@coxDOT.net> wrote

> P.S. Okay Rick, I'll stop, your right, I might be a little Irritable .

Pete, I've had a private discussion with Rick, and, as I told him, I see
nothingt wrong with using outrageous exaggeration in response to a poster
who routinely exaggerates outrageously. It seemed appropriately satirical to
me... I didn't take it seriously, any more than I take aaron seriously, as
applying to small-to-modest databases. I don't think Rick agrees with me
about the posts in this threa, but I did make this point... no matter how
modest the database, with it in MS SQL Server, some "adminstration" is
required to create it, handle the logs, and give it TLC. With Access/Jet
and Access/ACE, an occasional Compact, which one doesn't even have to be a
power user to accomplish, is all the administration required.

Larry Linson

Satirical, good word, Thanks Pete

"Larry Linson" <bouncer@localhost.not> wrote in message
news:g9a28r$n00$1@aioe.org...
> "Pete D." <pduffy211AT@coxDOT.net> wrote
>
> > P.S. Okay Rick, I'll stop, your right, I might be a little Irritable .
>
> Pete, I've had a private discussion with Rick, and, as I told him, I see
> nothingt wrong with using outrageous exaggeration in response to a poster
> who routinely exaggerates outrageously. It seemed appropriately satirical
> to me... I didn't take it seriously, any more than I take aaron seriously,
> as applying to small-to-modest databases. I don't think Rick agrees with
> me about the posts in this threa, but I did make this point... no matter
> how modest the database, with it in MS SQL Server, some "adminstration" is
> required to create it, handle the logs, and give it TLC. With Access/Jet
> and Access/ACE, an occasional Compact, which one doesn't even have to be a
> power user to accomplish, is all the administration required.
>
> Larry Linson
>

"Larry Linson" <bouncer@localhost.not> wrote in message
news:g9a28r$n00$1@aioe.org...
> "Pete D." <pduffy211AT@coxDOT.net> wrote
>
> > P.S. Okay Rick, I'll stop, your right, I might be a little Irritable .
>
> Pete, I've had a private discussion with Rick, and, as I told him, I see
> nothingt wrong with using outrageous exaggeration in response to a poster
> who routinely exaggerates outrageously. It seemed appropriately satirical
> to me... I didn't take it seriously, any more than I take aaron seriously,
> as applying to small-to-modest databases. I don't think Rick agrees with
> me about the posts in this threa, but I did make this point... no matter
> how modest the database, with it in MS SQL Server, some "adminstration" is
> required to create it, handle the logs, and give it TLC. With Access/Jet
> and Access/ACE, an occasional Compact, which one doesn't even have to be a
> power user to accomplish, is all the administration required.
>
> Larry Linson
>

Sorry Larry, much as I hate to be appearing to agree with Kempf, what you
say about SQL Server is simply not true.

Sure it takes a bit of time to install and set up for minimal maintenance
(about 15-30 minutes should cover it), but once it's done then *no* TLC (or
"handling of logs") is required.

I can't remember when I last built an mdb back-end for a customer (it
probably wasn't this century!), I always use SQL Server as the back-end, and
so I've got lots of Access/SQL Server applications out in the wild (some
ODBC, some ADP). Not a single one of my customers employs a DBA, and
support problems attributable to the database engine are vanishingly rare
(i.e. *never* for most sites). I even provide them with menu-based options
to restore the database if they have to, not that a single one of them has
ever needed to do so.