Access 2002 vs. 2003

[Neil]

We are running an Access 2000 MDB with a SQL 7 back end. Our network guy is
upgrading to Windows Server 2003 and wants to upgrade Office and SQL Server
at the same time. We're moving to SQL Server 2005, and, since he already has
licenses for Office Pro 2002, he wants to upgrade to that.

I've been saying that we need to upgrade to Access 2003, not 2002, even if
Office is kept at 2002. We are also looking to do a fair amount of
redevelopment of our application, and I want to do it in 2003.

Am I right for insisting on Access 2003 over 2002, or is there not that much
of a difference? If there is a significant difference, what can I say in
support of getting licenses for Access 2003?

Thanks!

Neil

 

[Joe Obergfell]

We are running an Access 2000 MDB with a SQL 7 back end. Our network guy is
upgrading to Windows Server 2003 and wants to upgrade Office and SQL Server
at the same time. We're moving to SQL Server 2005, and, since he already has
licenses for Office Pro 2002, he wants to upgrade to that.

I've been saying that we need to upgrade to Access 2003, not 2002, even if
Office is kept at 2002. We are also looking to do a fair amount of
redevelopment of our application, and I want to do it in 2003.

Am I right for insisting on Access 2003 over 2002, or is there not that much
of a difference? If there is a significant difference, what can I say in
support of getting licenses for Access 2003?

Thanks!

Neil

The 2003 series has provided several fixes over the 2002 version.

 

[Neil]

Thanks, Joe. Do you know, specifically, what those fixes are; or is there a
web site that lists them?

The network guy will say that the fixes should be available as a service
pack to 2002. Do you know if that's true?

Thanks!

Neil

 

[Joe Obergfell]

Thanks, Joe. Do you know, specifically, what those fixes are; or is there a
web site that lists them?

The network guy will say that the fixes should be available as a service
pack to 2002. Do you know if that's true?

Thanks!

Neil

The 2003 series has provided several fixes over the 2002 version.

I am not sure what the fixes are, but they were major fixes. I believe
if you go to Microsoft Office's site and then to Access, you should be
able to search for what the fixes have been. The network guy is right,
These fixes from 2002 to 2003 will be as service packs for 2002, but to
save time, 2003 would be quicker.

It is all a matter of time vs possible price. I am not sure if there is
a difference in price but if there is, you would pay through time, if
not in price.

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

We are also looking to do a fair amount of redevelopment of our

application, and I want to do it in 2003.

I also like 2003. Things like themed controls make the software look a LOT
better. here is some screen shots of what I mean

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal/Articles/Grid.htm

and

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal/Atheme/index.htm

Am I right for insisting on Access 2003 over 2002, or is there not that
much of a difference? If there is a significant difference, what can I say
in support of getting licenses for Access 2003?

No, you are not. I can't see any good reason, or argument to upgrade here.
The only reason would be that you "like" a2003 better.....

There is little, if any changes in terms of support for sql server....so,
no, there is no big real argument here that I can make a case.

However, see below for a2003 features (this is a reposted message)

 

[Pat Hartman\(MVP\)]

I don't see much difference between the two versions. The next version of
Access/Office will be DRAMATICALLY different. You may love it or you may
hate it but everything you think you know about the Office interface you
will need to relearn. So, my feeling is rather than fight to spend the
money for O2003 licenses now, use the O2002 licenses and fight for the
upgrade in next year's budget. Once you get past the interface changes,
there are some awesome new features coming up in Access.

 

[Tony Toews]

We are running an Access 2000 MDB with a SQL 7 back end. Our network guy is
upgrading to Windows Server 2003 and wants to upgrade Office and SQL Server
at the same time. We're moving to SQL Server 2005, and, since he already has
licenses for Office Pro 2002, he wants to upgrade to that.

I've been saying that we need to upgrade to Access 2003, not 2002, even if
Office is kept at 2002. We are also looking to do a fair amount of
redevelopment of our application, and I want to do it in 2003.

Note that most of your users only need the runtime version of Access.
Your power users who create queries will want a full version of
Access. Furthermore you can easily use the new features of Access but
create A2002 MDEs (using A2002) to distribute to your users.

Standard blurb follows.

I'd also strongly suggest your network guy stage his upgrades. This
month Win 2003 Server. Next month or two SQL Server. Later for
Office. Besides those upgrades really don't care about the server.

Hmm, the more I think about this, if he really wants to do all those
upgrades at the same time, he's an utter idiot.

Tony

Been working in A2003 and I really like the smart tags Access pops up
on the controls

For example I added some &s to some unassociated labels. Access
promptly tells me they're unassociated and gives me an option to
associate the label to a control. Nice.

Or if you've renamed fields in the tables the controls based on the
old names are obviously incorrect. Now a little triangle appears in
the corner. Again nice.

I created a report and I see a little flag in that little grey box in
the upper left hand corner of the report. I click on it and see a
"Common Report Error" "Report width is greater than page width" with a
bunch of options.

Someone spent some time on these little touches.

Oh, I'm developing in A2003. But the users will be given an A2000
MDE. So long as I use no new features I should be fine with that.

Very nice. I can see how this would help the newbie/itinerant Access
users.

I also see lots of flags for the label controls in the headers of new
reports. They're a bit of a pain but they are also easily ignored.
They won't appear once you close and reopen the report.
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

 

[Neil]

If the 2003 fixes are available as 2002 service packs, I'm sure they'd go
with the SPs. It seems that there are no license packs for upgrades, so the
price to upgrade office is steep -- $410 a pop for Office Pro 2003 and $185
a pop for Access 2003 alone (that, in contrast to the fact that the Access
2003 off-the-shelf upgrade can be gotten for about $85 a box). So at 35
seats, it's a chunk of change to upgrade to Access 2003, which I'm sure
they'd avoid with SPs, if they're the same.

Neil

 

[Neil]

Thanks. Since we are looking to rework our app, I think whatever version we
go to will be it for a while. I like the idea of going with 2002/2003, since
it will require less reworking of code than the next version of Access will
require. So, if there's not that much of a difference between 2002/3, then I
guess 2002 is it!

Thanks again.

Neil

 

[Neil]

Thanks for this, Albert. I'll review it in detail.

One thing I'm wondering, though: Access 2003 uses a new file format (with
the ability to still use the Access 2000/2002 format). So that seems like a
major change to me. Or is that not a big deal?

Thanks,

Neil

 

[Neil]

FYI, found this link:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HA010714971033.aspx . Has the
same info, but with some nice screen shots.

N

 

[Neil]

Thanks for the samples regarding themed controls. Not sure what the
difference would be between using themed controls and just applying a
particular background shading manually. The only differences I saw were the
background shading and the rounded corners on buttons. Is there something
else.

(By the way, the second set of screen shots DO look much better. Very nice!)

Neil

 

[CDMAPoster]

I don't see much difference between the two versions. The next version of
Access/Office will be DRAMATICALLY different. You may love it or you may
hate it but everything you think you know about the Office interface you
will need to relearn. So, my feeling is rather than fight to spend the
money for O2003 licenses now, use the O2002 licenses and fight for the
upgrade in next year's budget. Once you get past the interface changes,
there are some awesome new features coming up in Access.

I hate to say this before I've finished downloading the PDC 05 material
made available by MS (thanks!), but I plan on viewing all of them if
possible. In spite of the great feelings generated by Samba under
Linux, managers and users here are leaning toward Microsoft. I feel
that ignoring either MS or open source would be a serious mistake. So
I'm looking at recommending a bunch of new 64 bit machines running MS
OS with the first version of Access that works after Access 12 (SP 2?)
along with some Linux boxes running OpenOffice in about a year from
now. I think that the sooner the conversion is made to 64 bit the
better given past experience. How well the new workflow paradigm will
fit in with future plans is also a consideration. Microsoft is in a
good position given the massive effort they've made to try to stay
relevant (provided MS doesn't mess up Samba compatibility with their
new servers). Six months ago the venture capitalists that were
formerly employed by MS were putting more money into open source. I
don't know if that's still the case. I'll know more about where I
should be headed after I've viewed all the PDC 05 presentations.

James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Neil]

Note that most of your users only need the runtime version of Access.

Your power users who create queries will want a full version of
Access.

I don't even think I have any users who create queries. Most users just use
the app, perhaps doing some sorting or filtering, but that's about it.

I used the Access 97 runtime, but haven't used it since. I remember that
being problematic. Has it gotten better?

Also, they run Office anyway, since they use Word and Excel. If we ran the
Access 2003 runtime, that would be on top of Office Pro 2002. Sounds like
that might be problematic.

Furthermore you can easily use the new features of Access but
create A2002 MDEs (using A2002) to distribute to your users.

Yes, that's true, and that's a great idea. Since I connect through
PCAnywhere to an admin machine for my use, I was thinking that I could
upload the A2003 MDB; open it in A2002 on the admin machine, and then
recompile it in A2002 for distribution. I guess that's the same concept only
with an MDB.

One thing that concerns me, though: I've heard that there are potential
corruption issues when the db is developed and compiled in 2003 and then
opened in an earlier version (even with it being in 2000/2 format). I have
another client who is running Access 2003 and he would modify some forms and
reports in the MDB and then send it back to me (MDB was kept in 2000
format). I would open it in A2000 and frequently one of the forms or reports
that he modified was corrupted (could not open the code module for that
object). We stopped having him modify the MDB directly, but just send me
modified versions of the objects he changed, and the problem went away. So
I'm concerned about using A2003 but recompiling and distributing in A2002.

I'd also strongly suggest your network guy stage his upgrades. This
month Win 2003 Server. Next month or two SQL Server. Later for
Office. Besides those upgrades really don't care about the server.

Hmm, the more I think about this, if he really wants to do all those
upgrades at the same time, he's an utter idiot.

I think he was thinking that he would have to reinstall SQL Server after the
Windows upgrade, so he might as well install the new version. And, re.
upgrading Office, it was because he "had to touch each PC anyway" (his
words).

And, yes, he is an utter idiot.

Neil

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

The only differences I saw were the
background shading and the rounded corners on buttons. Is there something
else.

no...nothing else. However, the rounded colors..and the xp theme do look
quite a bit better. In that grid list..you can see one screen in the old
format..and the rest are new...quite a nice improvement...

Access 2003 uses a new file format (with

the ability to still use the Access 2000/2002 format

Actually, all 3 versions default to a2000 format.

And, a2002 and a2003 share the same format...

This was done to allow all 3 versions to work with each other....

So, the default format is a2000..and in for 02 and 03..they share the same
format...

 

[Neil]

background shading and the rounded corners on buttons. Is there something
else.

no...nothing else. However, the rounded colors..and the xp theme do look
quite a bit better. In that grid list..you can see one screen in the old
format..and the rest are new...quite a nice improvement...

Yes, indeed!

N

 

[Neil]

Access 2003 uses a new file format (with

the ability to still use the Access 2000/2002 format

Actually, all 3 versions default to a2000 format.

And, a2002 and a2003 share the same format...

This was done to allow all 3 versions to work with each other....

So, the default format is a2000..and in for 02 and 03..they share the same
format...

I'm a bit confused. Somewhere else I read someone give advice that if a db
was developed in A2003 using A2003 format, that it couldn't be used in
A2002; but if it was developed in A2003 using A2000 format, then it could be
used with A2002, since A2000 and A2002 share the same format. If A2002 and
A2003 use the same format, then why couldn't an A2003 database in A2003
format be used with A2002?

Thanks.

 

[Neil]

Also, I noticed that Access 2003 has SP2. I wonder if fixes in the new 2003
SPs would be propagated down to 2002 SPs. Probably not, would be my guess
(but, then again, perhaps they don't need to be).

N

 

[Tony Toews]

I don't even think I have any users who create queries. Most users just use
the app, perhaps doing some sorting or filtering, but that's about it.

I used the Access 97 runtime, but haven't used it since. I remember that
being problematic. Has it gotten better?

Troublesome, yes. But in an environment where you control the OS and
software installs then they aren't usually a problem.

Also, they run Office anyway, since they use Word and Excel. If we ran the
Access 2003 runtime, that would be on top of Office Pro 2002. Sounds like
that might be problematic.

Slightly yes. But then uninstall the Access 2002 component of Office
Pro. IOW there was no need to spend the extra $ on the Pro portion of
Office Pro other than for those doing work on the MDBs such as you.

Yes, that's true, and that's a great idea. Since I connect through
PCAnywhere to an admin machine for my use, I was thinking that I could
upload the A2003 MDB; open it in A2002 on the admin machine, and then
recompile it in A2002 for distribution. I guess that's the same concept only
with an MDB.
Ayup.

One thing that concerns me, though: I've heard that there are potential
corruption issues when the db is developed and compiled in 2003 and then
opened in an earlier version (even with it being in 2000/2 format). I have
another client who is running Access 2003 and he would modify some forms and
reports in the MDB and then send it back to me (MDB was kept in 2000
format). I would open it in A2000 and frequently one of the forms or reports
that he modified was corrupted (could not open the code module for that
object). We stopped having him modify the MDB directly, but just send me
modified versions of the objects he changed, and the problem went away. So
I'm concerned about using A2003 but recompiling and distributing in A2002.

That's possible. I've been working in a similar environment recently
without any such issues.

But if you only use A2002 to create the MDE then that will reduce such
issues.

I think he was thinking that he would have to reinstall SQL Server after the
Windows upgrade, so he might as well install the new version.

FWIW SQL Server 2000 and 2005 can coexist quite nicely. See "named
instance" in the SQL BOL for more info. Essentially each named
instance it's own install of SQL Server right down to the DLLs. Very
nice for testing SP and patches, among other things. So let him
install SQL Server 2005 now on his current server. Big deal.

No, you really, really don't want to do too many upgrades at the same
time.

And, re.
upgrading Office, it was because he "had to touch each PC anyway" (his
words).

Why does he even need to touch each PC for a server upgrade? Touch
each users profile sure to setup the new server shares. Mind you
I'm not at all familiar with what is required in a corp environment.
Maybe that is indeed required.

And, yes, he is an utter idiot.

My sympathies.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

I'm a bit confused. Somewhere else I read someone give advice that if a db

was developed in A2003 using A2003 format, that it couldn't be used in
A2002;

You must have miss-read that.

but if it was developed in A2003 using A2000 format, then it could be used
with A2002, since A2000 and A2002 share the same format. If A2002 and A2003
use the same format, then why couldn't an A2003 database in A2003 format be
used with A2002?

You can use a 03 with a 02....they are the same format.

since A2000 and A2002 share the same format

No, they are different formats for 00 and 02. It is actually 02 and 03 that
share the same format. (but, all 3 default to using the a2000 format).