Unreconised database format

[Lord Kelvan]

hi i am encountering a nice error whenever i try to open a database i
created in access 2002

i looked up for some information and i found some info on error 3343
but that dosnt apply as i am using dao components 3.6 and not 3.51

my systen info says i am using jet 4.0 but under the JET core
components i only see 2.x 3.5 and odbc

i converted a databse from 97 format to 2000 format and to 2002 format
and i still get the unreconised database format when opening it

i have found if i open access first then use the file open method to
open the database it opens no problem i only get the problem when i
double click on the icon i need to be able to do that though ebcuase i
have another application opening the file

my vb version is 6.03 i am using windows 2000 and novell

if someone has a solution on how i can resolve this it woudl be much
appricated

Regards
Kelvan

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

There's a good chance that your database is corrupt. I suggest the
following:

First, always work on a copy of the database. Working on the original may
make it impossible for a repair service to fix it.

Download a copy of JetComp.exe:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;273956

Try backing up your forms as text with the undocumented SaveAsText
LoadFromText functions:

http://www.datastrat.com/Code/DocDatabase.txt

Also have a look at the Microsoft KB article:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;209137

Then have a look at Tony Toews' Access Corruption FAQ at:

http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/corruptmdbs.htm

for some suggestions. Unfortunately, some corruption cannot be fixed - you
may need to create a new database, import what can be salvaged, and recreate
the rest.

Although it's a paid service, Peter Miller does an outstanding job of saving
corrupt databases. Try this URL:

http://www.pksolutions.com

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

JET and DAO are not included with Office or Windows any more.. it
makes logical sense- to anyone with an open mind- to move to SQL
Server for better security, performance and availability.

 

[BruceM]

You may be correct that these are not part of Windows, but you know
perfectly well that they are part of a standard Office installation. You
know this, and are telling a deliberate lie.

message
JET and DAO are not included with Office or Windows any more.. it
makes logical sense- to anyone with an open mind- to move to SQL
Server for better security, performance and availability.

 

[Troll Chaser]

message
JET and DAO are not included with Office or Windows any more..

WRONG AGAIN!

Every version of Office since the first 1 has had both DAO and JET

So which is it? Are you a moron or a liar? ... Maybe both?

 

[Please Learn to Read]

JET and DAO are not included with Office or
Windows any more.. it makes logical sense -
to anyone with an open mind- to move to
SQL Server for better security, performance
and availability.

Anyone who is capable of reading the release information, and takes the
trouble to, will know that what you have stated is entirely, completely, and
unarguably FALSE. Now the only question is "why would aaron" make such an
obviously, provably, false statement?

Some possibilities are:

1. Aaron can not, in fact, read well enogh to know that his statement is
FALSE.

2. Aaron's mind is "open" -- so open that all the facts and knowledge
drained right out, and he's limited to a "parrot" role for someone with a
vested interest in doing damage to Access.

3. Aaron is a pathological liar who gets off on, or a psychopath who enjoys,
causing harm to other people.

If your problem is the first of these, there are free reading courses and
clinics provided for the illiterate by local welfare and educational
institutions.

The 2008 Learn To Read Campaign

 

[Lord Kelvan]

regardless i would love to put the back ends of some of my databases
on our sql server and use the odbc but i am not alowd to this pictular
database for your info arron IS an SQL ODBC and i do have to agree
with the halerious statements of the last guy when it comes down to it
sql server is far to expensive for small business no matter how secure
it is but i get the feeling this isnt the first time people have
picked on you ^_^

it seems there was a problem with the convert database to X format

no idea what it was mind you but i basically i imported the database
files into a newly created database and it seems to work fine now so i
am not sure what did it but thank you arvin it seemed only the header
was corrupt which ment i could still open it if i opened access first
the data and database itsself was fine

thanks for your help and to the rest of you if you want to pick on
arron go make your own topic ARRON's FAULTS or ARRON'S STUPID COMMENTS
or something and get out of my topic

thanks

Regards
Kelvan

 

[Larry Linson]

thanks for your help and to the rest of you if you
want to pick on arron go make your own topic
ARRON's FAULTS or ARRON'S STUPID COMMENTS
or something and get out of my topic

I certainly can't speak for the people to whom you are addressing this, but
many believe that you must respond to, and correct, erroneous information
where it is, when it is. Apparently many here are sure than much of what
aaron posts is erroneous information (and I find it hard to argue with
them), and that is why you see corrective posts following aaron's. So, OK,
not all of them are "corrective".

And, the way newsgroups work is you post a question, and people respond, but
neither you nor they "own" the topic or thread.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Office Access MVP

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

I've never posted a single wrong thing.
NEVER

Stick a cork in it, crybaby

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

again-- name one thing that I've ever said that is wrong.

all I know is that JET fucking sucks and if you're having problems--
keeping it up-- it would make sense to a lot of logical people-- to
upsize to a trouble-free database

 

[Lord Kelvan]

logics maybe but money is a fickle thing in the world

 

[Larry Linson]

again-- name one thing that I've ever said that is wrong.

all I know is that JET fucking sucks and if you're having problems--
keeping it up-- it would make sense to a lot of logical people-- to
upsize to a trouble-free database


Mr. Kempf, I go out of my way not to "engage" in argument with you, and my
discussion with the original poster dealt with "why people post immediately
following aaron's posts". In that discussion, it mattered not whether you
were, in fact, wrong -- it only mattered that the posters perceived you were
wrong, and that is why they posted immediately following your posts.

In fact, I have tried, on a number of occasions, to be helpful to you. When
you were unable to find the link to search for a Microsoft Certified
Professional, I provided that link for you. It is not my fault that no one,
including yourself, was able to find you there. Had you been able to do so,
or provide another link to an official site, it would have proved your point
about certification.

But, in response to your challenge: On occasion, I have thought you stated
something so egregiously erroneous that I have felt obligated to post the
correct information, and, it is in those posts that you can find (a few more
than) one thing that you have posted that I knew was wrong.

Quite a number of people have provided explicit rebuttal to much that you
have posted, and that all one has to do is to scan and read posts in
response to you to see what those posters have said was wrong.

In this very post, you denigrated Jet, which despite your claims elsewhere,
is the most widely-used database engine in computerdom. Jet is a solid and
stable database engine, well-suited for a large class of applications. That
large class of applications includes Access-client applications to server
databases, the Access team's currently-recommended configuration for that
environment. Thus, you gave an example of what you complained about in the
very post where you were complaining.

Microsoft SQL Server is _also_ a solid and stable database engine,
well-suited for a large class of applications. Neither SQL Server nor
Jet/ACE is suitable for every application, as you seem convinced that SQL
Server is.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Office Access MVP

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

Larry;

I've never posted anything wrong. Just because you disagree (AND I AM
THE CERTIFIED ONE) does not make you right and me wrong.
I don't need to prove anything to you. Because of the _FACTS_ that
say that I have 100 people stalkign me-- in a MUCH more dangerous
manner than ANYTHNIG i've ever been accused of-- I reserve the RIGHT
to not publish my private information.

Because dipshit stalkers like you write letters to my boss.

Jet / ACE is not suited to keep track of the # of computers that I
have in my basement.
SQL Server is _NOT_ any more complex than Jet. SQL Server just
works-- you don't have to compact it-- you don't have to create a new
container and import everything in.

Jet is a piece of shit database. SORRY-- but I will not put up with
your misinformation.


-Aaron

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

Jet is not the worlds most popular database.

www.microsoft.com/sql

Jet cannot reliably hold a hundred records nor a half dozen users.
anything else is just based off of lies.

I've jsut seen too many Jet CryBabies over the years-- that are stuck
in the back room, making $12/hour.. just because of people like you
that give misinformation.
JET isn't reliable enough for development usage.
JET isn't reliable enough for testing usage.
JET isn't reliable enough for production usage.


Sorry.

-Aaron

 

[a a r o n _ k e m p f]

A large class of applications?

So I'm assuming that you're not including _ANY_ application that can
have _ANY_ growth in usage or recordsets.
because designing soemthing for a hundred records; and then expecting
it to 'just work' for 1000 records-- is where JET fails.

you cannot build databases -- that fail when you get another single
user- and get away with it.
you're going to lose customers, you're going to lose your sanity.

I've worked on more Jet databases than ANYONE ELSE IN THIS GROUP.
And I've had enough crap from it-- that a decade ago-- I lost the
training wheels.

When I was working on a large enterprise-level system a decade ago..
and Jet didn't have enough columns for my database?
I GAVE UP.

When I was working on a large enterprise-level system 3 years ago..
and Jet couldn't reliably print reports at 3am with a single user--
I GAVE UP.

Jet isn't fit for anyone to use for any reason.
Yes-- it is better than Excel.

Of course, so is Heroin.

If I had my choice between Heroin and Jet and Excel? I'd try Heroin.
I've never done Heroin before-- but Jet and Excel are a worse
addiction than Heroin.
Because it has _ZERO_ migration capabilities.

If Jet _SEAMLESSLY_ upgraded to SQL Server-- I might give it another
chance.
But until then-- it makes sense to build everything in SQL Server.

Sorry-- but if I've got the choice to 'do it nice or do it twice' I
choose SQL Server.

 

[Lord Kelvan]

What you don’t seem to understand is that jet is good for the small
time user setting up a sql server db is beyond the capability of most
users but then to build an interface on top of the db is another thing
all together rather than think of in minor relation thing on a larger
scope sure jet may not be as good as sql server that is just logical
but that doesn’t mean it is useless depending on the operation you are
attempting should determine the necessary scope of the database you
need your examples of failure are or large scale operations but most
people that use it use it for low to medium scope purposes as for our
company we use both our sql server for our large scale operations and
jet for the low and medium scale operations each have their own
purpose and own functionality

Then there is the usability issue it is easier to teach a user to use
the query builder in access than to teach them how to write sql code
for queries in sql server remember users are mindless and simple
anything over 2 syllables is beyond them

 

[a a r o n _ k e m p f]

no it's not.

it's yes, yes, next yes.

is it _REALLY_ that hard to figure out?
i think that a homeless person off the street could do it right the
first time

-Aaron

 

[BruceM]

"remember users are mindless and simple
anything over 2 syllables is beyond them"

This from a person who doesn't seem to know about punctuation or
capitalization, or how to spell "unrecognized".

What you don’t seem to understand is that jet is good for the small
time user setting up a sql server db is beyond the capability of most
users but then to build an interface on top of the db is another thing
all together rather than think of in minor relation thing on a larger
scope sure jet may not be as good as sql server that is just logical
but that doesn’t mean it is useless depending on the operation you are
attempting should determine the necessary scope of the database you
need your examples of failure are or large scale operations but most
people that use it use it for low to medium scope purposes as for our
company we use both our sql server for our large scale operations and
jet for the low and medium scale operations each have their own
purpose and own functionality

Then there is the usability issue it is easier to teach a user to use
the query builder in access than to teach them how to write sql code
for queries in sql server remember users are mindless and simple
anything over 2 syllables is beyond them

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

whatever BWUCE

go and take a class at your local Community College-- any college with
a brain only teaches SQL Server--
if you don't know how to hit 'yes, yes, next, yes' then you need to
stop drinking the 'jet koolaid' and catch a clue.

SQL Server won the war. That is why SQL Server is the worlds most
popular database.

-Aaron

 

[BruceM]

lol

message
whatever BWUCE

go and take a class at your local Community College-- any college with
a brain only teaches SQL Server--
if you don't know how to hit 'yes, yes, next, yes' then you need to
stop drinking the 'jet koolaid' and catch a clue.

SQL Server won the war. That is why SQL Server is the worlds most
popular database.

-Aaron