Access 2003

[Neil Ginsberg]

I have a client who is using Access 2002/2000 (the database itself is
written in 2000), and is considering migrating to Access 2003. Any
recommendations on whether Access 2003 is worth the migrate, or should he
stick with 2002?

Thanks!

Neil

[Wayne Morgan]

Re: Access 2003

If you are going to upgrade, I would go to 2003, not 2002. The help files
are definately better in 2003 than 2000 or 2002. There are some other nice
features added. The 2000 field format is still the default and the 2002 file
format is now the 2002/2003 format. Here is more information on new
features.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;823089&Product=acc2003

--
Wayne Morgan
MS Access MVP


"Neil Ginsberg" <news@nrgconsul t.com> wrote in message
news:NX3uc.1607 2$be.9074@newsr ead2.news.pas.e arthlink.net...[color=blue]
> I have a client who is using Access 2002/2000 (the database itself is
> written in 2000), and is considering migrating to Access 2003. Any
> recommendations on whether Access 2003 is worth the migrate, or should he
> stick with 2002?[/color]

[Larry Linson]

Re: Access 2003

"Wayne Morgan" wrote
[color=blue]
> If you are going to upgrade, I would go to
> 2003, not 2002. The help files are definately
> better in 2003 than 2000 or 2002.[/color]

I respectfully disagree -- the _content_ of the Help files has been somewhat
(but IMNSHO only somewhat) improved, but the user interface to help is an
abomination. The better content is useless if you cannot easily get to it.
[color=blue]
> There are some other nice
> features added.[/color]

My observation is that there were few, very, very few, Access-specific
changes between Access 2002-2003, and that the bulk of the changes were
Office-wide improvements to collaboration features aimed at the corporate
enterprise environment.

If you are not in the corporate enterprise environment (in which case, your
dedicated Microsoft marketing team will be making the case with your IT or
corporate management to upgrade), then I see very little reason to upgrade
from Office 2002 to Office 2003 System. Either would be an improvement over
Access 2000, even if you have all three of Access 2000's Service Packs
installed. (Sadly, I am doing some work for one client on a system using
Access 2000 that only has SP-1 installed; fortunately, it has only possibly
one time "bit me in the tender places", corrupting and losing access to a
Form.)

And, if I understood the original post, the upgrade would be from Access
2002 (Office XP) to Access 2003 (Office 2003 System), so my advice would be,
"Don't waste your time and energy." If all the users have Access 2002, I
don't see any advantage in saving your DB in Access 2000 format.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

[Neil Ginsberg]

Re: Access 2003

> And, if I understood the original post, the upgrade would be from Access[color=blue]
> 2002 (Office XP) to Access 2003 (Office 2003 System), so my advice would[/color]
be,[color=blue]
> "Don't waste your time and energy." If all the users have Access 2002, I
> don't see any advantage in saving your DB in Access 2000 format.[/color]

Hi, Larry.

Actually, about half the users have A2000, and the other half have A2002.
Perhaps more significantly, the db itself is written in A2000, and I'm using
A2000 (as the sole developer). So going to A2003 would be significant in
that it would unify the version (though some may stay at 2002, I suppose)
and would upgrade the development version, itself.

On another note, another client of mine is looking to convert an MDB front
end with ODBC links to SQL Server 7.0 to an ADP file. Any thoughts on that,
both in general, and in regard to A2003?

Thanks,

Neil
By the way, have you tried the new Buffet Grapevine up on W.D. Tate? It
looks like a dive, but it's a pretty decent Chinese buffet.

[Steve Jorgensen]

Re: Access 2003

On Sat, 29 May 2004 20:29:43 GMT, "Neil Ginsberg" <news@nrgconsul t.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> And, if I understood the original post, the upgrade would be from Access
>> 2002 (Office XP) to Access 2003 (Office 2003 System), so my advice would[/color]
>be,[color=green]
>> "Don't waste your time and energy." If all the users have Access 2002, I
>> don't see any advantage in saving your DB in Access 2000 format.[/color]
>
>Hi, Larry.
>
>Actually, about half the users have A2000, and the other half have A2002.
>Perhaps more significantly, the db itself is written in A2000, and I'm using
>A2000 (as the sole developer). So going to A2003 would be significant in
>that it would unify the version (though some may stay at 2002, I suppose)
>and would upgrade the development version, itself.
>
>On another note, another client of mine is looking to convert an MDB front
>end with ODBC links to SQL Server 7.0 to an ADP file. Any thoughts on that,
>both in general, and in regard to A2003?[/color]

You'll get some other opinions that disagree with mine here, but I've been
working on an ADP project for the last year, and I'm thinking it might be
worth the effort to convert the whole thing to an MDB. I -might- consider
starting a new project as an ADP if all the stars were aligned just right, but
I would never in my wildest dreams think I should convert an existing, working
MDB application to an ADP.

Using an MDB as a front-end to SQL Server does require some work-arounds that
are not required in an ADP, but these work-arounds are well known, and well
described in a lot of places. On the other hand, I spend a large part of each
day working on an ADP application working around bugs in the ADP
implementation itself. There is also net performance gain with ADPs since
they make many more requests from the server to handle the excessively tight
integration with the server back-end.

[Steve Jorgensen]

Re: Access 2003

Correction...
[color=blue]
>implementati on itself. There is also net performance gain with ADPs since
>they make many more requests from the server to handle the excessively tight
>integration with the server back-end.[/color]

Should read - "There is also -no- net performance gain ..."

[Salad]

Re: Access 2003

Neil Ginsberg wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>And, if I understood the original post, the upgrade would be from Access
>>2002 (Office XP) to Access 2003 (Office 2003 System), so my advice would[/color]
>
> be,
>[color=green]
>>"Don't waste your time and energy." If all the users have Access 2002, I
>>don't see any advantage in saving your DB in Access 2000 format.[/color]
>
>
> Hi, Larry.
>
> Actually, about half the users have A2000, and the other half have A2002.
> Perhaps more significantly, the db itself is written in A2000, and I'm using
> A2000 (as the sole developer). So going to A2003 would be significant in
> that it would unify the version (though some may stay at 2002, I suppose)
> and would upgrade the development version, itself.[/color]

A2003 requires Win2000 or WinXP OS, does not run on NT or 98. Make sure
all of your users have that OS running before you do a mass migration to it.
[color=blue]
>
> On another note, another client of mine is looking to convert an MDB front
> end with ODBC links to SQL Server 7.0 to an ADP file. Any thoughts on that,
> both in general, and in regard to A2003?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Neil
> By the way, have you tried the new Buffet Grapevine up on W.D. Tate? It
> looks like a dive, but it's a pretty decent Chinese buffet.
>
>[/color]

[Salad]

Re: Access 2003

Larry Linson wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Wayne Morgan" wrote
>[color=green]
> > If you are going to upgrade, I would go to
> > 2003, not 2002. The help files are definately
> > better in 2003 than 2000 or 2002.[/color]
>
> I respectfully disagree -- the _content_ of the Help files has been somewhat
> (but IMNSHO only somewhat) improved, but the user interface to help is an
> abomination. The better content is useless if you cannot easily get to it.[/color]

I wonder if anyone has told MS that their help files are the worst in
the industry or if they sit around and slap each other on that back and
share high-5s for their abomination.

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Access 2003

"Larry Linson" <bouncer@localh ost.not> wrote in
news:3f5uc.7619 $oh7.6798@nwrdd c01.gnilink.net :
[color=blue]
> Sadly, I am doing some work for one client on a system using
> Access 2000 that only has SP-1 installed; fortunately, it has only
> possibly one time "bit me in the tender places", corrupting and
> losing access to a Form.[/color]

I don't have any such issues with A2K running on SR1a.

Because of the Dranconian security patches to Outlook that were
rolled out in SR2 and beyond, I won't apply anything but SR1a.

And no corruption.

So far as my experience with A2K runs, SR1a+ and SP6+ is all that's
required to get a usable version of A2K.

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

[Tom van Stiphout]

Re: Access 2003

On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:44:46 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote:

By the way, if you are in an Exchange environment, you can add this to
the registry:
[HKEY_CURRENT_US ER\Software\Pol icies\Microsoft \Security]
"CheckAdminSett ings"=dword:000 00001

and then use the special security form (soory, the exact name escapes
me now) in the public folder tree to adjust the security checks to
more normal settings.

A client must have a REALLY good reason not to go with the latest
versions from Windows Update. With all variety of machines out there,
the client being able to proscribe (often ill-informed) outdated
platforms is a variable I don't really want to deal with.

-Tom.

[color=blue]
>"Larry Linson" <bouncer@localh ost.not> wrote in
>news:3f5uc.761 9$oh7.6798@nwrd dc01.gnilink.ne t:
>[color=green]
>> Sadly, I am doing some work for one client on a system using
>> Access 2000 that only has SP-1 installed; fortunately, it has only
>> possibly one time "bit me in the tender places", corrupting and
>> losing access to a Form.[/color]
>
>I don't have any such issues with A2K running on SR1a.
>
>Because of the Dranconian security patches to Outlook that were
>rolled out in SR2 and beyond, I won't apply anything but SR1a.
>
>And no corruption.
>
>So far as my experience with A2K runs, SR1a+ and SP6+ is all that's
>required to get a usable version of A2K.[/color]

[Larry Linson]

Re: Access 2003

If I had the option in your/your client's case, I might grit my teeth and
move everyone to Access 2003 -- but, IF and ONLY IF, all users had an
always-on high-speed Internet connection. The default for Access 2003 Help,
the first place they take you, is Online Help. Since they could not index
every bit of Access-help-type information at the Microsoft site, the very
useful Index tab in Help is no longer there.

I have no complaints about the software itself... it's as good as, or a
miniscule bit better than, Access 2002. And, I am told, the Help content has
been improved (but I am not certain they weren't just talking about "the
vast amount of help information available online" -- and, even with a
high-speed, always-on Internet connection, I have trouble finding things
that were easy to find in the past).

There was so little Access-specific enhancement that it can be ignored. I'd
have to have a client with specific needs for corporate, enterprise
collaboration features to get excited about Access 2003.

On this notebook computer that I use for personal and business, I have
Access 97, Access 2002, and Access 2003. Access 97 is there because some
clients don't want to move beyond it (and I wouldn't try to convince them
otherwise, as 97 handles their needs very nicely -- it's out of support, but
they haven't needed any Microsoft support in a long, long time) and for the
excellent WinHelp interface; Access 2002 is the one I am using most often
now, just because its HTML Help is so much easier to use than Access 2003's
"new help", and I have yet to have any problems because some
feature/function is missing that would be in Access 2003.

Yes, I have tried it and thought it OK... but my long-time favorite is a
much smaller, very friendly Chinese buffet, now called Tai-Pan, in the
shopping center behind it. If you give it a try, tell Eric that Larry Linson
sent you.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Access 2003

Tom van Stiphout <tom7744@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in
news:pt9ib096g4 icorse724qf0k6g qn5muoqb5@4ax.c om:
[color=blue]
> A client must have a REALLY good reason not to go with the latest
> versions from Windows Update. With all variety of machines out
> there, the client being able to proscribe (often ill-informed)
> outdated platforms is a variable I don't really want to deal with.[/color]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I've made many 100s of dollars rescuing systems from Windows Update
fiascos, so I won't let my clients use Windows Update unsupervised.

Of course, for the clients where I have a say in the matter, they
don't use Outlook as email client, in any case, since I consider it
by far the worst email client I've ever encountered.

But I don't have a say for many of them, and in those cases, I will
not be recommending a service release level that will be changing
other applications in ways that are not easily recovered from.

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

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Access 2003

Salad <oil@vinegar.co m> wrote in
news:Yq7uc.1508 5$Tn6.2747@news read1.news.pas. earthlink.net:
[color=blue]
> I wonder if anyone has told MS that their help files are the worst
> in the industry or if they sit around and slap each other on that
> back and share high-5s for their abomination.[/color]

The ridiculous thing about it is that the Access 97 help files are
by far the best help files I've used in any application, bar none.

And the content of the A2K help files is virtually identical.

The problems are entirely in the new UI, not in the actual content.

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

[Neil Ginsberg]

Re: Access 2003

That's very interesting. I was not aware of the bugs in the ADP file, nor
that there were no net performance gains. I thought the opposite would be
the case, especially since ADO has been around for a while now and has had a
chance to mature (but I guess it hasn't?).

The MDB that I set up is for the most part working fine. Where pass-throughs
and stored procedures are used, there are no problems (though sometimes it
requires a bit of a workaround, since pass-throughs aren't editable).

The main problems we've been having have been with the bound forms that we
use for viewing and editing, which use ODBC linked tables. I set up a
standard view/edit configuration, where the form opens in "view mode" bound
to a pass-through query, and then the user clicks Edit and they get an
editable recordset based on a linked table. This has worked OK; but we have
a lot of locking issues. Sometimes a table gets locked and can't be updated,
even though the only place where another user could be accessing the record
is in the list portion of a combo box! So it's been somewhat perplexing and
difficult to track down the source of this locking problem (though,
forturnately, it doesn't happen frequently, and not with all tables).

So it's a series of little problems such as this that got us leaning towards
an ADP, thinking that would resolve the problem. But the db is pretty solid
otherwise. So maybe it's best to leave well enough alone.....

Any other thoughts?

Thanks,

Neil


"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam. nospam> wrote in message
news:prthb0tt8s 6ns2uuetlpeas33 m4vbtkf7l@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 20:29:43 GMT, "Neil Ginsberg" <news@nrgconsul t.com>[/color]
wrote:[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> And, if I understood the original post, the upgrade would be from[/color][/color][/color]
Access[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> 2002 (Office XP) to Access 2003 (Office 2003 System), so my advice[/color][/color][/color]
would[color=blue][color=green]
> >be,[color=darkred]
> >> "Don't waste your time and energy." If all the users have Access 2002,[/color][/color][/color]
I[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> don't see any advantage in saving your DB in Access 2000 format.[/color]
> >
> >Hi, Larry.
> >
> >Actually, about half the users have A2000, and the other half have A2002.
> >Perhaps more significantly, the db itself is written in A2000, and I'm[/color][/color]
using[color=blue][color=green]
> >A2000 (as the sole developer). So going to A2003 would be significant in
> >that it would unify the version (though some may stay at 2002, I suppose)
> >and would upgrade the development version, itself.
> >
> >On another note, another client of mine is looking to convert an MDB[/color][/color]
front[color=blue][color=green]
> >end with ODBC links to SQL Server 7.0 to an ADP file. Any thoughts on[/color][/color]
that,[color=blue][color=green]
> >both in general, and in regard to A2003?[/color]
>
> You'll get some other opinions that disagree with mine here, but I've been
> working on an ADP project for the last year, and I'm thinking it might be
> worth the effort to convert the whole thing to an MDB. I -might- consider
> starting a new project as an ADP if all the stars were aligned just right,[/color]
but[color=blue]
> I would never in my wildest dreams think I should convert an existing,[/color]
working[color=blue]
> MDB application to an ADP.
>
> Using an MDB as a front-end to SQL Server does require some work-arounds[/color]
that[color=blue]
> are not required in an ADP, but these work-arounds are well known, and[/color]
well[color=blue]
> described in a lot of places. On the other hand, I spend a large part of[/color]
each[color=blue]
> day working on an ADP application working around bugs in the ADP
> implementation itself. There is also net performance gain with ADPs since
> they make many more requests from the server to handle the excessively[/color]
tight[color=blue]
> integration with the server back-end.[/color]

[Neil Ginsberg]

Re: Access 2003

Sounds like it would be best to leave well-enough alone, but maybe move the
2000 users (as well as the development version) to 2002 (though maybe that's
not even necessary).

I looked up Tai-Pan at Yahoo Yellow Pages, and didn't see anything. What was
their old name? I don't recall seeing another Chinese place in the
Target/Starbuck's/Jason's Deli shopping center (I presume that's the one
you're referring to).

Neil

"Larry Linson" <bouncer@localh ost.not> wrote in message
news:Wvduc.9385 $oh7.5584@nwrdd c01.gnilink.net ...[color=blue]
> If I had the option in your/your client's case, I might grit my teeth and
> move everyone to Access 2003 -- but, IF and ONLY IF, all users had an
> always-on high-speed Internet connection. The default for Access 2003[/color]
Help,[color=blue]
> the first place they take you, is Online Help. Since they could not index
> every bit of Access-help-type information at the Microsoft site, the very
> useful Index tab in Help is no longer there.
>
> I have no complaints about the software itself... it's as good as, or a
> miniscule bit better than, Access 2002. And, I am told, the Help content[/color]
has[color=blue]
> been improved (but I am not certain they weren't just talking about "the
> vast amount of help information available online" -- and, even with a
> high-speed, always-on Internet connection, I have trouble finding things
> that were easy to find in the past).
>
> There was so little Access-specific enhancement that it can be ignored.[/color]
I'd[color=blue]
> have to have a client with specific needs for corporate, enterprise
> collaboration features to get excited about Access 2003.
>
> On this notebook computer that I use for personal and business, I have
> Access 97, Access 2002, and Access 2003. Access 97 is there because some
> clients don't want to move beyond it (and I wouldn't try to convince them
> otherwise, as 97 handles their needs very nicely -- it's out of support,[/color]
but[color=blue]
> they haven't needed any Microsoft support in a long, long time) and for[/color]
the[color=blue]
> excellent WinHelp interface; Access 2002 is the one I am using most often
> now, just because its HTML Help is so much easier to use than Access[/color]
2003's[color=blue]
> "new help", and I have yet to have any problems because some
> feature/function is missing that would be in Access 2003.
>
> Yes, I have tried it and thought it OK... but my long-time favorite is a
> much smaller, very friendly Chinese buffet, now called Tai-Pan, in the
> shopping center behind it. If you give it a try, tell Eric that Larry[/color]
Linson[color=blue]
> sent you.
>
> Larry Linson
> Microsoft Access MVP
>
>[/color]