Access97 on Office 2003
Hi.
I am trying to package Access97 which should be installed on the sysetm already having Office 2003. When I am capturing Access 97 on a machine already having 2003, I given the installation directory as C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Access97. When I am trying to install packaged Access 97, its throwing Internal Error 2705. Directory checked the log file, saying Error 2705: Invalid table: Directory; Could not be linked as tree. Please help me out to solve this issue.
I am trying to package Access97 which should be installed on the sysetm already having Office 2003. When I am capturing Access 97 on a machine already having 2003, I given the installation directory as C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Access97. When I am trying to install packaged Access 97, its throwing Internal Error 2705. Directory checked the log file, saying Error 2705: Invalid table: Directory; Could not be linked as tree. Please help me out to solve this issue.
0 Comments
[ + ] Show comments
Answers (6)
Please log in to answer
Posted by:
dummypack
14 years ago
I am trying to package Access97 which should be installed on the sysetm already having Office 2003
1) LOL
When I am trying to install packaged Access 97, its throwing Internal Error 2705. Directory checked the log file, saying Error 2705: Invalid table: Directory; Could not be linked as tree.
2) Ever heard of validation? No? Thought not.
Posted by:
ravi223966
14 years ago
Hi,
Did package validation giving ICE03 problem with parent directory. Checked all the entries in Directory table all are looking fine.
Did package validation giving ICE03 problem with parent directory. Checked all the entries in Directory table all are looking fine.
Posted by:
anonymous_9363
14 years ago
If the validation fails, then whether or not it looks "fine" is irrelevant, since it clearly isn't "fine".
Learn what the MSI tables are, how they interact and so on, THEN start packaging.
EDIT:
Which cheap-skate decided not to spring for Office Professional (to get Access 2003) but to try and shoe-horn in Access 97? And PLEASE don't give us the compatibility hoo-ha because I have dealt with more MDBs and MDEs than you can shake a stick at and I have yet to come across one which ran in 97 but not in 2003.
Learn what the MSI tables are, how they interact and so on, THEN start packaging.
EDIT:
Which cheap-skate decided not to spring for Office Professional (to get Access 2003) but to try and shoe-horn in Access 97? And PLEASE don't give us the compatibility hoo-ha because I have dealt with more MDBs and MDEs than you can shake a stick at and I have yet to come across one which ran in 97 but not in 2003.
Posted by:
aogilmor
14 years ago
ORIGINAL: VBScab
If the validation fails, then whether or not it looks "fine" is irrelevant, since it clearly isn't "fine".
Learn what the MSI tables are, how they interact and so on, THEN start packaging.
EDIT:
Which cheap-skate decided not to spring for Office Professional (to get Access 2003) but to try and shoe-horn in Access 97? And PLEASE don't give us the compatibility hoo-ha because I have dealt with more MDBs and MDEs than you can shake a stick at and I have yet to come across one which ran in 97 but not in 2003.
I've seen this scenario several times, often because somebody wrote a home grown access app that a later version breaks.
good point about the MSI tables. I am almost ashamed to say that I packaged for at least a year without even knowing that windows installer is a relational database. It was only when I had to step outside of Wise to do my job that I got to know the database tables fairly well.
Posted by:
anonymous_9363
14 years ago
somebody wrote a home grown access app that a later version breaksCheap-skate call again, then! Too cheap to engage a proper developer.
Posted by:
aogilmor
14 years ago
exactly. the real problems come when the "Access Expert" writes something that becomes popular or "business critical" and folks don't want to give it up. Big headaches getting upgrades done.
Rating comments in this legacy AppDeploy message board thread won't reorder them,so that the conversation will remain readable.