>The company I work for has developed a Microsoft Access application.
>Currently, it is distributed with the Microsoft Access 2002 runtime.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>repeated database corruption. We suggested they discontinue their use
>of the Vista computer.

Signature
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
> >The company I work for has developed a Microsoft Access application.
> >Currently, it is distributed with the Microsoft Access 2002 runtime.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems athttp://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
> Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
I have read with total amazement that if an Access2000, 2002, 2003 &
2007 application connects to a database on a computer running Vista
and then another second Vista PC on the network links into the
database it will become corrupted. The corruption is apparently so bad
that the contents of every record in every table are replaced with
#Name? ....brilliant! How on earth can this happen? I could
understand it if a third party database corrupted but an Access
database, well it's totally unbelievable, incompetent even. If I
hadn't read it on Allen Browne's website (which I did whilst looking
for something else) I wouldn't believe it. A complete disaster in the
making, how on earth didn't this show up in testing? This means that
unless fixed Access is single user only. How could an end user manage
this? Most of them can't do attachments. They wouldn't know until
their data was destroyed, it's a nightmare!
William
Wayne - 30 Oct 2007 21:58 GMT
> I have read with total amazement that if an Access2000, 2002, 2003 &
> 2007 application connects to a database on a computer running Vista
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> William- Hide quoted text -
William, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. How could this
have not been picked up in testing? As mentioned above, there is a
hotfix available, but that is only useful if the user/client applies
it. The question that comes to mind is: Has this hotfix been applied
as part of Windows Update or is it incumbent on the user to (a) know
that the problem exists, (b) know that a hotfix exists, (c) submit the
required online request to obtain the hotfix (d) manually apply the
hotfix?
If the latter is the case, I believe that it is negligence on MSs part
in the extreme. Another question that comes to mind is : Why have
they made it more difficult than it needs to be to obtain the hotfix?
Instead of just downloading it, one must first submit an online
request.
Perhaps other forum contributors who are closer to MS may know if the
hotfix is being applied through Windows Update. This seems to be the
only way of being reasonably sure that the patch is applied.