Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Oracle, ODBC, and MS Access 2.0

Re: Oracle, ODBC, and MS Access 2.0

From: Allan Gould <allang_at_sco.remove_me.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:04:04 +0000
Message-ID: <36D082D4.F76A4764@sco.remove_me.com>


Anthony Nicholls wrote:
> Could anyone help me with a problem?
>
> I have an Access 2.0 database that has links to tables in an Oracle
> version 7.1 database. There is also a front-end application written in
> Delphi 1 than uses the Access database, and all works fine using Windows
> 3.11.
>
> However, I am trying to get the same application running on Windows 98.
> I have installed the required Oracle TCP/IP adapter and SQLNet 2.
> Because the Access database is a version 2 database, I need the 16bit
> version of the ODBC drivers for Oracle - the Microsoft version does not
> seem to work. Does anyone know where I can find the Oracle ODBC drivers
> to download, or purchase?

You must put a 32-bit ODBC driver onto a 32-bit environment like Windows98. The app (Access 2) makes a 16-bit ODBC call to the ODBC driver manager, and the ODBC driver manager will put this onto the 32-bit driver.
I wouldn't advise trying to put a 16-bit ODBC driver onto Windows98: it will not be very happy (more like shizophrenic as it won't know whether it's coming or going).

If you want a 32-bit ODBC driver for Windows98 to connect to Oracle 7 (on several types of UNIX), you could try ours: SCO SQL-Retriever. Take a look at http://www.sco.com/vision/products/sqlretriever/ for more information and a downloadable eval. You'll need to latest version for Windows98 which is SQL-Retriever 4.17 (which comes as part of Vision2K) and can be found at: http://www.sco.com/vision/eval2k/software.html.

Allan Gould
SCO CID Support, Leeds, UK
(allang at sco dot com)
(Please remove anti-spam measures if replying)

(BTW, your reply address looks to have a comma in it where it should have a full stop: I had to change it: unless, of course, that's a deliberate anti-spamming measure .... :-) !) Received on Sun Feb 21 1999 - 16:04:04 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US