On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:57:39 +1000, J Richard Nickel
jrnic...@skymesh.com.au wrote:
I receive the following error message when trying to open an .fdb file
with MS Access:
This database is in an unexpected state; Microsoft Access cant open it.
So does Legacy still work with this database?
--
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 06:16:43 +1000, J Richard Nickel
jrnic...@skymesh.com.au wrote:
Yes, Legacy appears to be working perfectly.
The only thing I can think of trying is to use Legacy to export your
data to a NEW Legacy database. Then try opening that one in Access.
--
Dennis Kowallek
On 6/12/2011 6:28 AM, Dennis M. Kowallek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 06:16:43 +1000, J Richard Nickel
jrnic...@skymesh.com.au wrote:
Yes, Legacy appears to be working perfectly.
The only thing I can think of trying is to use Legacy to export your
data to a NEW Legacy database. Then try
What version of MS Access are you using? You need to have MS Access 2000
or later.
Brian
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
br...@legacyfamilytree.com
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
We are changing the world of genealogy!
When replying to this message, please include all previous
Using Access 2002.
As mentioned in other replies, exporting the fdb to a new file appears
to have fixed the MS Access problem, but now I'm concerned about the
integrity of the original fdb.
Other than the File Management routines, is there any other testing I
can perform to 'prove' the original
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 07:30:18 +1000, J Richard Nickel
jrnic...@skymesh.com.au wrote:
Other than the File Management routines, is there any other testing I
can perform to 'prove' the original fdb?
Do the number of individuals look OK? Maybe, after doing a backup on the
NEW .fdb, run a Legacy
Hmm, interesting. The number of individuals and the number of families
are the same in both files. However, the number of unique surnames is
(old/new) 547/406 (a HUGE discrepancy), and the number of Master Source
entries is (old/new) 82/81.
I will do some more checking.
On 6/12/2011 7:52:59
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:00:33 +1000, J Richard Nickel
jrnic...@skymesh.com.au wrote:
Hmm, interesting. The number of individuals and the number of families
are the same in both files. However, the number of unique surnames is
(old/new) 547/406 (a HUGE discrepancy), and the number of Master
A 'cleanup' of Surnames and Sources has resolved those two discrepancies.
On 6/12/2011 9:00:33 AM, J Richard Nickel (jrnic...@skymesh.com.au) wrote:
Hmm, interesting. The number of individuals and the number of families
are the same in both files. However, the number of unique surnames is
9 matches
Mail list logo
