Question Windows 2008 Server and Access 97

[gregoryagu]

I just got a new Windows 2008 Server and got it set up and tried putting Access 97 on it (I know, I know...).

All it does is crash immediately upon opening up a 97 database.

I have tried all the different compatibility modes, all give the same result. The windows error log gives an error message, but no useful data.

Have also tried running as Administrator. Same result.

Now, I know the obvious solution is to upgrade to 2007, but I have a number of utilities that have run for ages on 97 and it would be nice if they just worked.

I will say the new server is smoking fast as far as just holding the backend data and serving it up. No problems there at all. Just in going into the Front End on the server itself.

Any suggestions?

Greg

 

[boblarson]

The frontend should not be on the server to begin with. You will likely need a frontend on WinXP or earlier.

 

[boblarson]

and, if you need the frontend to run processes on the server, I think you will probably need to convert (although I would suggest 2010 instead of 2007 as 2010 fixed a bunch of annoying things from 2007 and also has other functionality (including intellisense for macros and the builder).

 

[gregoryagu]

OK, thanks for the suggestion.

Greg

 

[LarryY]

Hello Greg

I just got server 2008 foundation and place a backend 97 access backend database. When I tried to open the backend databases with my frontends on the workstations - It will only allow one work station to open it at a time - the moment a second front end workstation opens the backend - all the frontend work stations crash. How were you able to get your 2008 server to work with the backend 97 access database? My backend database size is about 400 mb.

Thanks
Larry

 

[gregoryagu]

Hi Larry,

I haven't actually tried having multiple front ends open yet. I am still in the testing stages of rolling out the new server.

I am not at that clients until Monday, but as soon as I get there, I will try this and let you know. I hadn't even thought about the fact that there might be a problem with multiple front ends open.

To you experiance the same problem of not being able to open the database at all on the server? I don't usually need to do that, but sometimes for quick maintence or whatever, I will Remote Desktop to the server and just open up the front end or back end directly on the server. This is when it crashes for me.

If this is a problem for others as well, I am going to open up a ticket at MS and find a resolution as to me, it's unbelieveable that Access 97 crashes immediately.

I have a hunch that it has something to do with code protection services (or whatever it is called) that prevents buffer overrun exploitations. But I need to do further research on that to confirm and resolve. I seem to recall that there is a way to turn this off, but don't remember at the moment.

Greg

 

[boblarson]

it's unbelieveable that Access 97 crashes immediately.

Not unbelievable to me considering it is a 14 year old program attempting to run on a system is was never even closely designed to run on. Good luck in getting MS to do anything as Access 97 is no longer supported.

 

[LarryY]

Hello Greg,

I tried to attach a frontend to the server to test out your problem - I also get the same results as you do - The frontend on the server will not load up - it shuts down immediately with an error message - "Microsoft Access has stopped working - A poblem caused the program to stop working correctly. Windows will close the program and notify you if a solution is available."

As for my problem with multiple users - I suspect the problem may be server 2008 ability to properly handle the .ldb 97 access file. I have even set the sharing folder on the d partition to everyone with read/write ability. All my frontend work stations can get on and do work i.e. add data / records , read, etc - albeit just only one at a time. The moment another work station gets on - they all freeze up. I even checked the folder option to allow maximum number of users to 30 - which is the maximum number available on the drop down option in server 2008.

I also tried with access 97 installed on server 2008 and without installing on server 2008 - same results. So I think the 97 access .ldb file is not handling properly for multiple users.

Larry

 

[gregoryagu]

Thanks Larry. Glad to know I am not alone with this issue.

Bob - Your right of course! But still, it would be nice to resolve this.

Greg

 

[gregoryagu]

OK, well I have submitted this via my MSDN support contract - I will let you know what they come up with.

Greg

 

[boblarson]

OK, well I have submitted this via my MSDN support contract - I will let you know what they come up with.

Greg

Yes, please let us know what they say. I would be surprised if they don't just come back with "Access 97 is no longer supported and therefore the problem is moot." Not the response you'll want to hear but I am almost sure that is what will be the response.

 

[gregoryagu]

OK, so I just got off the phone with MS support. And like Bob suggested, they said that since Access 97 has been out of support for 5 years, that there is nothing they can do. He said that if the same issue occured with Access 2003, then they could look into it.

He did have a suggestion however, of installing a virtual 2003 server on the 2008 Server and then putting the data files there. Server 2008 comes with "Hyper V" which is MS server virtualization technology so there is no extra cost to it.

I think however, that is a bit much for me. For mission critical apps (ya gotta love the buzzwords), I like to go with low tech - which means I think I am going to wipe the 2008 and go back to 2003.

At least I gave it my best shot.

Greg

 

[boblarson]

Yeah, I know that it is disappointing. The real pain is that:

1. You get an app working real well.

2. You hate to try to upgrade it because it is working well.

3. Eventually you'll get to the point where you must upgrade the app and, what is better - to try to do it from quite a number of versions ago to now or to incrementally do it over time as programs upgrade? Tough call, but one that everyone really has to consider because nothing is supported forever and newer hardware eventually won't run the old stuff either.

 

[gregoryagu]

Well, it appears my original fears were unfounded.

I just tested Access 97 Front End running on XP with Access 97 Back End on Server 2008 with 3 concurrent users - and it worked just fine.

The only issue I ran into was a permission issue which was easily fixed.

I also open up Access 97 directly from Remoted Desktop on the Server 2008 and created a new Database and it worked just fine.

My initial fears stemmed from the fact that I could not open the Front End on the Server which is still the case. But the fact that I can open access and create a new test database tells me there is something in particular about the current front end that could be fixed if it were necessary. But I really don't need to run the front end on the server. (I also tried opening the Front End on a Server 2003 and it also crashes, so this is not just a 2008 issue.)

The back end I can open on the server just fine and make data updates just fine.

So Larry and anyone else running into Server 2008 issues, I would try creating a test database and working with that and seeing if that runs. Perhaps it has to do with running VB code in the front end that crashes Server 2008.

Anyhow, just wanted to give you all an update after the tests I did this morning. It looks like everything is going to work just fine with the new server. (And yes we will soon be upgrading the database!)

Greg

 

[gregoryagu]

Let me add something that I found today that seemed to fix the errors with runnning
Access 97 on Server 2003 and Server 2008.

There is a feature called "Data Execution Prevention" When I turned this off, I no longer had any problems running Access 97. In both Windows 2003/8 Server, you can find this at: System - > Properties - > Advanced - > System Performance -> Data Exectution Prevention. You then add Access to the list of programs which are excluded from this feature.

Hope this helps anyone else having this problem.

Greg