Upgrading to Office 2003

**Bradley** · Nov 12 '05, 10:57 PM

Re: Upgrading to Office 2003

Aidan Tobin wrote:[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> I have to upgrade a number of databases from Access 2.0, Access 97 and
> Access 2000 to work in Office 2003. These databases contain a number
> of Forms coded with VBA as well as a number of Queries/Macros.
>
> The Microsoft web site says that Office 2003 will open databases
> created in these versions.
>
> However i have in the past upgraded databases from access 2.0 to 97
> and have encountered problems with the VBA code, and i have used the
> built in tools for some simple databases to upgrade to 2000 from 97
> but these ones are more complex so i may not have encountered all the
> problems, and i have never upgraded to Office 2003
>
> Does anyone know of any issues with upgrading from these version's to
> Office 2003
>
> Thanks in Advance
>
> Aidan Tobin[/color]

2002/2003 still can use the 2000 file format so why do you need to
convert? :)
--
regards,

Bradley

**Tom van Stiphout** · Nov 12 '05, 10:58 PM

Re: Upgrading to Office 2003

On 21 Apr 2004 11:52:53 -0700, aidantobin@hotm ail.com (Aidan Tobin)
wrote:

From Access 2 to any other version can be a major step, since you're
going from 16-bit to 32-bit. Perhaps it makes sense to settle on the
Access2000 format: it is still supported by the newer versions.

-Tom.

[color=blue]
>Hi,
>
>I have to upgrade a number of databases from Access 2.0, Access 97 and
>Access 2000 to work in Office 2003. These databases contain a number
>of Forms coded with VBA as well as a number of Queries/Macros.
>
>The Microsoft web site says that Office 2003 will open databases
>created in these versions.
>
>However i have in the past upgraded databases from access 2.0 to 97
>and have encountered problems with the VBA code, and i have used the
>built in tools for some simple databases to upgrade to 2000 from 97
>but these ones are more complex so i may not have encountered all the
>problems, and i have never upgraded to Office 2003
>
>Does anyone know of any issues with upgrading from these version's to
>Office 2003
>
>Thanks in Advance
>
>Aidan Tobin[/color]

**Aidan Tobin** · Nov 12 '05, 10:58 PM

Re: Upgrading to Office 2003

Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All
databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...

**Bradley** · Nov 12 '05, 10:58 PM

Re: Upgrading to Office 2003

Aidan Tobin wrote:[color=blue]
> Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All
> databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...[/color]

Hehe, sounds like one of my clients;) God bless 'em.

There shouldn't be any major dramas converting 2000-2003 except the
annoyance of Digital Signatures in 2003.
--
regards,

Bradley

**David W. Fenton** · Nov 12 '05, 11:00 PM

Re: Upgrading to Office 2003

aidantobin@hotm ail.com (Aidan Tobin) wrote in
news:67d75b3a.0 404212340.b5558 9f@posting.goog le.com:
[color=blue]
> Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All
> databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...[/color]

Do they really understand that the Access 2000 format is native to
Access 2003?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

**Trevor Best** · Nov 12 '05, 11:01 PM

Re: Upgrading to Office 2003

David W. Fenton wrote:[color=blue]
> aidantobin@hotm ail.com (Aidan Tobin) wrote in
> news:67d75b3a.0 404212340.b5558 9f@posting.goog le.com:
>
>[color=green]
>>Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All
>>databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...[/color]
>
>
> Do they really understand that the Access 2000 format is native to
> Access 2003?
>[/color]

But he has v2.0 and 97 databases to upgrade as well, and there may be
issues upgrading them.

--
Error reading sig - A)bort R)etry I)nfluence with large hammer

**David W. Fenton** · Nov 12 '05, 11:01 PM

Re: Upgrading to Office 2003

Trevor Best <nospam@localho st> wrote in
news:408953cb$0 $25007$afc38c87 @auth.uk.news.e asynet.net:
[color=blue]
> David W. Fenton wrote:[color=green]
>> aidantobin@hotm ail.com (Aidan Tobin) wrote in
>> news:67d75b3a.0 404212340.b5558 9f@posting.goog le.com:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All
>>>databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...[/color]
>>
>> Do they really understand that the Access 2000 format is native
>> to Access 2003?[/color]
>
> But he has v2.0 and 97 databases to upgrade as well, and there may
> be issues upgrading them.[/color]

But upgrading to A2K3 format seems to me to be a mistake. Upgrading
to A2K format maintains backward compatibility with the last three
releases of Access, while losing you nothing but a small handful of
features specific to A2K2 and A2K3.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

**Trevor Best** · Nov 12 '05, 11:01 PM

Re: Upgrading to Office 2003

David W. Fenton wrote:[color=blue]
> Trevor Best <nospam@localho st> wrote in
> news:408953cb$0 $25007$afc38c87 @auth.uk.news.e asynet.net:
>
>[color=green]
>>David W. Fenton wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>aidantobin@h otmail.com (Aidan Tobin) wrote in
>>>news:67d75b3 a.0404212340.b5 5589f@posting.g oogle.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All
>>>>databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...
>>>
>>>Do they really understand that the Access 2000 format is native
>>>to Access 2003?[/color]
>>
>>But he has v2.0 and 97 databases to upgrade as well, and there may
>>be issues upgrading them.[/color]
>
>
> But upgrading to A2K3 format seems to me to be a mistake. Upgrading
> to A2K format maintains backward compatibility with the last three
> releases of Access, while losing you nothing but a small handful of
> features specific to A2K2 and A2K3.
>[/color]

He would still have to upgrade his 2.0 & 97 databases to 2000 format to
avoid all the dialogs and long load times of opening such in either 2K,
2K2 or 2K3.

Maintaining backward compatibility with 2000 would negate the point of
having the latest version although as you say, there's not much more to
it, the only significant things I've seen added to 2K3 are unproductive,
e.g. warnings about macros, etc. they might as well place a warning
within the executable itself that says "warning: this executable file
contains executable code that may damage your computer, are you sure you
want to run it?".

I think MS has gone too far on this one and 2K2 will be the last version
I'll ever use.

--
Error reading sig - A)bort R)etry I)nfluence with large hammer

**David W. Fenton** · Nov 12 '05, 11:02 PM

Re: Upgrading to Office 2003

Trevor Best <nospam@localho st> wrote in
news:40898999$0 $24773$afc38c87 @auth.uk.news.e asynet.net:
[color=blue]
> David W. Fenton wrote:[color=green]
>> Trevor Best <nospam@localho st> wrote in
>> news:408953cb$0 $25007$afc38c87 @auth.uk.news.e asynet.net:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>David W. Fenton wrote:
>>>
>>>>aidantobin@ hotmail.com (Aidan Tobin) wrote in
>>>>news:67d75b 3a.0404212340.b 55589f@posting. google.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All
>>>>>database s have to be upgraded to office 2003...
>>>>
>>>>Do they really understand that the Access 2000 format is native
>>>>to Access 2003?
>>>
>>>But he has v2.0 and 97 databases to upgrade as well, and there
>>>may be issues upgrading them.[/color]
>>
>> But upgrading to A2K3 format seems to me to be a mistake.
>> Upgrading to A2K format maintains backward compatibility with the
>> last three releases of Access, while losing you nothing but a
>> small handful of features specific to A2K2 and A2K3.[/color]
>
> He would still have to upgrade his 2.0 & 97 databases to 2000
> format to avoid all the dialogs and long load times of opening
> such in either 2K, 2K2 or 2K3.[/color]

Naturally. But the question is whether to upgrade to the absolute
latest format or to one that's cross-version compatible. Seems like
a no-brainer to me, especially since upgraded MDBs couldn't possibly
be using any of the features possible only in the post-A2K file
formats.
[color=blue]
> Maintaining backward compatibility with 2000 would negate the
> point of having the latest version although as you say, there's
> not much more to it, the only significant things I've seen added
> to 2K3 are unproductive, e.g. warnings about macros, etc. they
> might as well place a warning within the executable itself that
> says "warning: this executable file contains executable code that
> may damage your computer, are you sure you want to run it?".
>
> I think MS has gone too far on this one and 2K2 will be the last
> version I'll ever use.[/color]

I think the fact that they have settled on a base format that they
support in all versions is a very good thing. It looks like an
advantage that means you could get by without having to upgrade
everyone just because you can no longer purchase new machines with
the version 1 or 2 behind the currently selling ones (assuming you
don't have a site license, of course, as none of my clients do,
since they are all too small to justify it).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

**Trevor Best** · Nov 12 '05, 11:02 PM

Re: Upgrading to Office 2003

David W. Fenton wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>He would still have to upgrade his 2.0 & 97 databases to 2000
>>format to avoid all the dialogs and long load times of opening
>>such in either 2K, 2K2 or 2K3.[/color]
>
>
> Naturally. But the question is whether to upgrade to the absolute
> latest format or to one that's cross-version compatible. Seems like
> a no-brainer to me, especially since upgraded MDBs couldn't possibly
> be using any of the features possible only in the post-A2K file
> formats.[/color]

Seems to me to be his company policy to get everyone on the same version
(Aidan care to comment?). If that's the case then cross platform
compatibility would not be a requirement in this case.
[color=blue]
> I think the fact that they have settled on a base format that they
> support in all versions is a very good thing. It looks like an
> advantage that means you could get by without having to upgrade
> everyone just because you can no longer purchase new machines with
> the version 1 or 2 behind the currently selling ones (assuming you
> don't have a site license, of course, as none of my clients do,
> since they are all too small to justify it).[/color]

Until something as radical as Rushmore or native 64 bit Access comes
along :-)

--
Error reading sig - A)bort R)etry I)nfluence with large hammer

**David W. Fenton** · Nov 12 '05, 11:03 PM

Re: Upgrading to Office 2003

Trevor Best <nospam@localho st> wrote in
news:408a5f61$0 $25500$afc38c87 @auth.uk.news.e asynet.net:
[color=blue]
> David W. Fenton wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>He would still have to upgrade his 2.0 & 97 databases to 2000
>>>format to avoid all the dialogs and long load times of opening
>>>such in either 2K, 2K2 or 2K3.[/color]
>>
>> Naturally. But the question is whether to upgrade to the absolute
>> latest format or to one that's cross-version compatible. Seems
>> like a no-brainer to me, especially since upgraded MDBs couldn't
>> possibly be using any of the features possible only in the
>> post-A2K file formats.[/color]
>
> Seems to me to be his company policy to get everyone on the same
> version (Aidan care to comment?). If that's the case then cross
> platform compatibility would not be a requirement in this case.[/color]

Well, maybe not everyone is upgrading (perhaps only those who use
Access).

Perhaps there are developers involved who could more easily support
A2K than A2K3.

I just don't see the downside.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I think the fact that they have settled on a base format that
>> they support in all versions is a very good thing. It looks like
>> an advantage that means you could get by without having to
>> upgrade everyone just because you can no longer purchase new
>> machines with the version 1 or 2 behind the currently selling
>> ones (assuming you don't have a site license, of course, as none
>> of my clients do, since they are all too small to justify it).[/color]
>
> Until something as radical as Rushmore or native 64 bit Access
> comes along :-)[/color]

I strongly doubt that a 64-bit Access would provide any advantage
whatsoever over 32-bit Access, just by virtue of being 64-bit.

Yes, naturally, if there's actually something in a new version of
Access that justifies the upgrade, yes, upgrade to that version.

But in this case, the version under consideration is A2K3, which
offers nothing whatsoever over A2K2 in features of use to anyone at
all (except marketing people).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Upgrading to Office 2003

Upgrading to Office 2003

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment