4 ms·

> Modern versions of Access refuse to open databases that were created with old versions, so I dusted off an old copy of Office 97. Goodness gracious, Microsof

> Modern versions of Access refuse to open databases that were created with old versions, so I dusted off an old copy of Office 97. Goodness gracious, Microsoft - why?

alberth 6y ago
Microsoft is notorious in the efforts they make to allow backward compatibility. But in this one case, they don't and are the villain? I can still run programs targeted at 16bit Microsoft Windows 3.x from 30 years ago. Apple breaks background compatibility nearly every year on their products, yet they get a pass?
- detritus 6y ago
  I'm not sure I implied that, and I've been a PC since '97. This just seemed like a particularly pointless restriction. It's database. How hard can it be to support and convert?
  - toyg 6y ago
    Access is not just a database, it allows for custom VBA code and controls. I can see why supporting old versions would be a burden (are you really going to ship all VBA engines ever shipped for 20 years, with all the inevitable security holes they likely still have...?)
    - detritus 6y ago
      Good point, I hadn't considered that. But the example here seems to be literally a spreadsheet's worth of content, in a database format. At least ignore the code and allow importation of the content? Anyway, I don't much care and am being downvoted to heck (!) - I just thought it an odd restriction.
- blowski 6y ago
  I didn't see anyone giving Apple a pass, but yeah I'm OK with backwards compatiblity not being a thing for 20 year old desktop software.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  I’m pretty sure you can’t run 16 bit programs on 64 bit Windows. You can easily emulate a 16 bit computer though.
- simcop2387 6y ago
  Not directly or natively, but WineVDM is a thing and will usualky let you run old 16bit programs while looking like it's nearly native
- userbinator 6y ago
  Apple breaks background compatibility nearly every year on their products, yet they get a pass? That's why those who value backwards compatibility don't choose Apple or Google, they choose Microsoft. Unfortunately these days Microsoft seems to wish it were and is starting to act more like the former two, but the difference is still there.
banana_giraffe 6y ago
The Wikipedia article on Jet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Jet_Database_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Jet_Database_Engine ) talks a bit about the backwards compat strategy. This is case where they broke backwards compatibility. At the time, they had an upgrade strategy, though I wouldn't be surprised to learn the tools that handle the upgrade are no longer supported at this point. My understanding from the outside is it was an attempt to bring Jet Red (the desktop database, what Access used) and Jet Blue (the server database, used by things like Exchange) closer to be compatible with each other on some level, along with making Jet Red less of a "toy" database.
yuhong 6y ago
Because ACER2X.DLL (for Jet 2.x databases which Bob likely used) was removed in Access 2010. (Trivia: reading form, reports, macros, modules etc from Access 2.x databases required another 16-bit program that MS stopped shipping with Access 2003) Edit: Actually, this also reminds me that I believe a compatibility pack was needed to use Access 2.x databases in VB3 which only supported Access 1.1 databases by default!

> Modern versions of Access refuse to open databases that were created with old versions, so I dusted off an old copy of Office 97. Goodness gracious, Microsoft - why?

alberth 6y ago

Microsoft is notorious in the efforts they make to allow backward compatibility. But in this one case, they don't and are the villain? I can still run programs targeted at 16bit Microsoft Windows 3.x from 30 years ago. Apple breaks background compatibility nearly every year on their products, yet they get a pass?

detritus 6y ago
I'm not sure I implied that, and I've been a PC since '97. This just seemed like a particularly pointless restriction. It's database. How hard can it be to support and convert?
- toyg 6y ago
  Access is not just a database, it allows for custom VBA code and controls. I can see why supporting old versions would be a burden (are you really going to ship all VBA engines ever shipped for 20 years, with all the inevitable security holes they likely still have...?)
  - detritus 6y ago
    Good point, I hadn't considered that. But the example here seems to be literally a spreadsheet's worth of content, in a database format. At least ignore the code and allow importation of the content? Anyway, I don't much care and am being downvoted to heck (!) - I just thought it an odd restriction.
blowski 6y ago
I didn't see anyone giving Apple a pass, but yeah I'm OK with backwards compatiblity not being a thing for 20 year old desktop software.
tinus_hn 6y ago
I’m pretty sure you can’t run 16 bit programs on 64 bit Windows. You can easily emulate a 16 bit computer though.
simcop2387 6y ago
Not directly or natively, but WineVDM is a thing and will usualky let you run old 16bit programs while looking like it's nearly native
userbinator 6y ago
Apple breaks background compatibility nearly every year on their products, yet they get a pass? That's why those who value backwards compatibility don't choose Apple or Google, they choose Microsoft. Unfortunately these days Microsoft seems to wish it were and is starting to act more like the former two, but the difference is still there.

banana_giraffe 6y ago

The Wikipedia article on Jet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Jet_Database_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Jet_Database_Engine ) talks a bit about the backwards compat strategy. This is case where they broke backwards compatibility. At the time, they had an upgrade strategy, though I wouldn't be surprised to learn the tools that handle the upgrade are no longer supported at this point. My understanding from the outside is it was an attempt to bring Jet Red (the desktop database, what Access used) and Jet Blue (the server database, used by things like Exchange) closer to be compatible with each other on some level, along with making Jet Red less of a "toy" database.

yuhong 6y ago

Because ACER2X.DLL (for Jet 2.x databases which Bob likely used) was removed in Access 2010. (Trivia: reading form, reports, macros, modules etc from Access 2.x databases required another 16-bit program that MS stopped shipping with Access 2003) Edit: Actually, this also reminds me that I believe a compatibility pack was needed to use Access 2.x databases in VB3 which only supported Access 1.1 databases by default!