Linked table problem between Access 2010 64bit and SQL server 2012

I'm curious if something is unique about those 4 tables - for example, do they have BLOB fields, or something of that nature?

Also, why use Access 64 bit? There's no real benefit, and it's definitely still "in the works".

There is nothing different about those four tables.
They all just have combinations of nvarchar, float and integer columns.
No memos or blobs.  I already had Excel 64bit so I had no choice but to install 64bit version.
Otherwise I have to uninstall both and install as 32bit.

Check your driver, either in your DSN or in your connection string if you are DSN-less.  If it was working before with SQL 2000, you may still be using the old {SQL Server} driver.  Instead, try {SQL Server Native Client 10.0} or {SQL Server Native Client 11.0} to see if that helps.

I am using DSN connections and was just using the SQL Server standard driver. I created a new DSN using the Native Client 11.0 and I got the same results. I can change to the DSN pointing to my SQL server 2000 server and the table is fine.  That DSN connection also uses the same driver - SQL Standard driver as the sql server 2012 connection .

Have you tried deleting and recreating the linked tables with the DSN using the Native Client 11.0?

Yes I have tried that with same results.  I tried with both the V11 and the std SQL server driver - same problem. What I have found is that these tables have two timestamp fields in each table.  Apparently when you copy the table from a 2000 Server to a 2012 SQL server it will not allow two timestamps in the same table. I wonder if that rule apples in the ODBC driver?  You would think the ODBC error message would explain this more clearly.  I do not know.  I know when I put the table on the 2012 server with only one timestamp field then the linked table in Access 2010 works just fine.
Not sure if that is the answer but I guess it is a workaround. As long as you do not need both Timestamps on the copied table.  Probably a workaround somewhere out there but I can live with this restriction.

Well it was a view in the original SQL 2000 database and this view combined two tables, each had it's own timestamp field so the view included both.
I need to determine if either timestamp field is needed in the new SQL 2012 database view as the interface software that connects to the SQL 2000 DB is not going to be used in the SQL 2012 interface.

If you would like a quick overview of whether to use Timestamp (now RowVersion), check out my Best of Both Worlds slide deck at JStreettech.com/downloads.

I've requested that this question be deleted for the following reason:

Resolved the problem on my own

djpierce54,

Would you mind sharing your solution so other may benefit?

Thank  you for supporting Experts Exchange by posting your solution.

The solution was that the SQL 2000 view was composed of two tables and each table had it's own timestamp column.  For some reason the view was created with both timestamps.
It was determined that you cannot have two timestamps in a table or view in SQL Server 2012 as I was unable to copy that view into a table on the sql 2012.  I removed one of the timestamps from the view definition and then I was able to copy to a table on sql 2012.  It appears that Access 2010 follows the same rules.  I just had to change the view to only accept one of the timestamps and Access had no problem reading the data.  When the view had both timestamps then Access was unable to read the data and put up the error message = "The field is too small to accept the amount of data you attempted to add.  Try inserting or pasting less data."