I am supporting both version 97 & 2000 and so have both versions on my NT PC (I know, MS does not recommend this) until I can get all users to upgrade. Whenever I use the 97 version, the next time I use 2000 it tells me it's installing it, which among other things points it to the wrong system.mdw. Is there a way to avoid this reinstall?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TouchToneTommy on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
version 97 & 2000 on same machine 1
- Thread starter elizabeth
- Start date
Does it try to re-install it every time you run it or just the first time?<br>
I noticed that in the setup of 2000, gives you the option to install items when they are used for the first time.<br>
PS I did noticed somewhere that said '97 and 2000 cannot be shared on the same system.<br>
I noticed that in the setup of 2000, gives you the option to install items when they are used for the first time.<br>
PS I did noticed somewhere that said '97 and 2000 cannot be shared on the same system.<br>
- Thread starter
- #3
2000 runs for a minute or so every time I run it after using 97. It says "installing", and it points it back to the system.mdw on the hard drive, so that I have to rerun wrkgadm.exe to point it to the server system.mdw. It's not that big of a deal, just a minor annoyance I may be stuck with for a couple of months...
97 AND 2000 will not coexist on the same operation system. You may want to consider a dual boot system - one for 97 and the other 2000.<br>
<br>
WP <p>Bill Paton<br><a href=mailto:wpaton@neptune400.co.uk>wpaton@neptune400.co.uk</a><br><a href=
<br>
WP <p>Bill Paton<br><a href=mailto:wpaton@neptune400.co.uk>wpaton@neptune400.co.uk</a><br><a href=
-
1
- #5
I have 95, 97 and 2000 all on the same Win95 OS along with practically every other app known to man kind (well, it feels that way). They all run fine except that Outlook is only 2000 cos of the way it works. All other apps are available as each version individually with 2000 set as the default (double click) app set.<br>
<br>
This works on all of the machines I have used 2000 upgrade.
<br>
This works on all of the machines I have used 2000 upgrade.
- Thread starter
- #6
WP, version 2000 wipes out 97 only if you try to install them to the same folder (with the Outlook exception noted). MS publishes specific directions for this in the Knowledge Base.<br>
<br>
Zelandakh, are you using the default location for system.mdw for all versions? This would only be an issue for anyone who using Access user-security AND not using the security db in a non-default location. Guess I shoudl've mentioned this at the beginning because so few people seem to implement user-level security.
<br>
Zelandakh, are you using the default location for system.mdw for all versions? This would only be an issue for anyone who using Access user-security AND not using the security db in a non-default location. Guess I shoudl've mentioned this at the beginning because so few people seem to implement user-level security.
Yes, the main problem is the DLL's. DLL's are written WINDOWS\SYSTEM. ACCESS 97 and 2000 share some DLL's and when 2000 is installed it overwrites the 97 DLL's. The big problem is that the code in the 2000 DLL's doesn't match that of the 97 DLL's.<br>
<br>
WP <p>Bill Paton<br><a href=mailto:wpaton@neptune400.co.uk>wpaton@neptune400.co.uk</a><br><a href=
<br>
WP <p>Bill Paton<br><a href=mailto:wpaton@neptune400.co.uk>wpaton@neptune400.co.uk</a><br><a href=
- Thread starter
- #9
Zelandakh, thanks. I'm getting this problem only when I open each db through the GUI, so the obvious solution to the system.mdw problem is to create a shortcut that uses the command line. Your response also raises another question that I think I'll start a new thread for... Security: multiple vs single system.mdw's<br>
<br>
WP, I think I'll go back and find that KB article again and review. I remember there was at least one DLL name change involved, maybe there's a clue there re: the "installing..." message. Not that I'll be dealing with it much longer but it's one of those handy things to know...
<br>
WP, I think I'll go back and find that KB article again and review. I remember there was at least one DLL name change involved, maybe there's a clue there re: the "installing..." message. Not that I'll be dealing with it much longer but it's one of those handy things to know...
If your installing Access 97 on a machine that has Access 2000, you must do two things before the install:<br>
<br>
1. Find the hatten.ttf font (windows/font folder) and rename it to something else e.g. hatten.old<br>
<br>
2. find the Msaccess.exe file for Access 2000 and rename it to something else as well e.g. msaccess.2k<br>
<br>
you can then safetly install Access 97 (in a different folder of course
!! ) and then rename the 2 files you changed back to their original names. This should avoid the "No licence" issue.<br>
<br>
I think the same thing applies going from 97 to 2k.<br>
<br>
Hope this helps,<br>
<br>
Kevin
<br>
1. Find the hatten.ttf font (windows/font folder) and rename it to something else e.g. hatten.old<br>
<br>
2. find the Msaccess.exe file for Access 2000 and rename it to something else as well e.g. msaccess.2k<br>
<br>
you can then safetly install Access 97 (in a different folder of course
!! ) and then rename the 2 files you changed back to their original names. This should avoid the "No licence" issue.<br><br>
I think the same thing applies going from 97 to 2k.<br>
<br>
Hope this helps,<br>
<br>
Kevin
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Question
- Locked
- Question