Access 2002 vs. 2003

[Neil]

You must have miss-read that.

It was a post by John Vinson on 7/16/04 that I found through Google Groups.
In it he wrote that as long as the database is in 2000 format, both 2002 and
2003 can use it. But if it's upgraded to 2003 format, then 2002 can't use
it. Here's the quote:

I have a small network set up using access 2002. I have added another
computer to the network. Do I need to continue with 2002 on the new
computer, can I use 2003 on the new computer and leave 2002 on the rest of
the network or do I need to upgrade all the computers to 2003?

The two versions are quite compatible; in fact both default to using
Access2000 format for their databases. It is possible to upgrade a
..mdb file to 2003 format, making it unusable for 2002 - so just don't
DO that. If you have already done so, use Tools... Convert... To
Previous Version to save the database in 2000/2002 format.

John W. Vinson[MVP]

(http://groups.google.com/group/micr...+2002+vs.+2003"&rnum=8&hl=en#ff638f03bab6ceb6)

Neil

 

[Neil]

One thing that concerns me, though: I've heard that there are potential

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.

Right, except that there might be an issue when I first open it in A2002 for
recompile. But at least that would be before it got to the users. But if you
say you've been doing that without any problems, then that puts me at ease
somewhat. The above mentioned situation was from A2003 to A2000, not to
A2002, so that's different.

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.

Actually, we're using SQL 7. Can that co-exist with SQL 2005?

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.

I dunno. I'm not sure he knows either....

My sympathies.

Thanks. Fortunately the project manager realizes this, so that's helpful.

Thanks,

Neil

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

is possible to upgrade a
..mdb file to 2003 format, making it unusable for 2002

That is no doubt a type-o......

 

[david epsom dot com dot au]

Fixes in the database engine apply to A2002 (because the same database
engine is used)
Fixes in security apply to A2002. (because A2002 is still in support for
security fixes).

Since those are the only fixes that matter, all fixes that matter apply to
A2002.

A2003 SP2 also removed the ability to write
from Access to Excel. Since this is the result
of a Patent dispute, this is a more-or-less
compulsory patch for A2003 users. No similar
patch has been released for A2002.

(david)

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

 

[Neil]

Well, don't mean to harp on it, but I think the context of the question and
of the answer, as well as the statement, "If you have already done so, use
Tools... Convert... To Previous Version to save the database in 2000/2002
format" indicates that he felt that 2000/2002 were the same format, and that
if the database had been converted to 2003 it would need to be converted
back to 2000/2002 format. If that's wrong, then fine; I'm glad that 2002 and
2003 are the same format. Makes the decision to go with 2002 instead of
insisting on 2003 easier. But just wanted to note that.

Neil

 

[Neil]

Thanks for that explanation.

Fixes in the database engine apply to A2002 (because the same database
engine is used)
Fixes in security apply to A2002. (because A2002 is still in support for
security fixes).

Since those are the only fixes that matter, all fixes that matter apply to
A2002.

A2003 SP2 also removed the ability to write
from Access to Excel. Since this is the result
of a Patent dispute, this is a more-or-less
compulsory patch for A2003 users. No similar
patch has been released for A2002.

(david)

 

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

I'm intrigued by this idea of using the A2003 runtime, and have a couple
more questions.

1) Would there be any performance differences between using the A2003
runtime and using the A2003 full version?

2) If A2002 and A2003 share the same file format, and if the db is in that
file format, why would the users need the A2003 runtime? If they have Access
2002 as part of Office Pro, wouldn't they be able to run the file in the
A2002/3 format?

Thanks!

Neil

 

[david epsom dot com dot au]

I spoke too soon. Office XP SP3 Patch includes the
Access/Excel patch, and is required for all
installations of Office XP (unless you want to
wander off into the darkness of unsupported dodgy
software).

That is, the Access/Excel patch applies to both
Access 2002 and Access 2003.

(david)

 

[Brendan Reynolds]

Access 2003 did not introduce any new file format, just a change in
terminology - what used to be called 'Access 2002' format is now known as
'Access 2002/2003' format. There is Access 2000 format, and there is Access
2002/2003 format. There is no '2000/2002' format.

 

[Neil]

OK, thanks for confirming that.

Access 2003 did not introduce any new file format, just a change in
terminology - what used to be called 'Access 2002' format is now known as
'Access 2002/2003' format. There is Access 2000 format, and there is
Access 2002/2003 format. There is no '2000/2002' format.

 

[Neil]

Albert, one other question: if 2002 and 2003 share the same file format,
then one assumes that a 2003 database in that shared format could be used in
2002. But how does one know which 2003 features (such as themed controls)
are available in 2002 if a database developed in 2003 is used in 2002?

Thanks,

Neil

 

[Tony Toews]

Right, except that there might be an issue when I first open it in A2002 for
recompile. But at least that would be before it got to the users. But if you
say you've been doing that without any problems, then that puts me at ease
somewhat. The above mentioned situation was from A2003 to A2000, not to
A2002, so that's different.

Yes, I and a client IT person have been working A2003 for the past six
months and creating A2002 MDEs. Yes, A2000 is different but I don't
anticipate many problems

Actually, we're using SQL 7. Can that co-exist with SQL 2005?

I'm pretty sure it can. I'm also pretty sure SQL 7 doesn't support
named instances.

Thanks. Fortunately the project manager realizes this, so that's helpful.

Let us hope he doesn't monitor Google groups <smile>

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

 

[Tony Toews]

I'm intrigued by this idea of using the A2003 runtime, and have a couple
more questions.

1) Would there be any performance differences between using the A2003
runtime and using the A2003 full version?
No.

2) If A2002 and A2003 share the same file format, and if the db is in that
file format, why would the users need the A2003 runtime? If they have Access
2002 as part of Office Pro, wouldn't they be able to run the file in the
A2002/3 format?

Yes. but.

1) You'd likely want to give the users an MDE so make sure you create
it in A2002.

2) I was thinking in terms of saving your organization licensing fees
if you wanted to go to A2003 or Access ver next. Why buy 100
licenses of A2003 if all you need is a few for yourself, a few others
in the IT department and the power users and the ODE/MOD/ADE/runtime.

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

 

[Tony Toews]

Well, don't mean to harp on it, but I think the context of the question and
of the answer, as well as the statement, "If you have already done so, use
Tools... Convert... To Previous Version to save the database in 2000/2002
format" indicates that he felt that 2000/2002 were the same format, and that
if the database had been converted to 2003 it would need to be converted
back to 2000/2002 format. If that's wrong, then fine; I'm glad that 2002 and
2003 are the same format. Makes the decision to go with 2002 instead of
insisting on 2003 easier. But just wanted to note that.

But note that A2002 can't run an A2003 created MDE.

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

 

[GH]

Can you provide a link to where you found that Access cannot write to
Excel? I looked for this on Microsoft's site, and I could not find a
specific reference to it. This is an important issue for some of my
work, so please provide a link. Thanks!

- GH

 

[George Nicholson]

.....Access cannot write to Excel?
Is a gross overstatement. It only involves the updating of spreadsheets that
are set up as linked tables within Access, and even then the limitation is
one-way.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/904953/

Describes the issues and workarounds.

"...Because of legal issues, Microsoft has disabled the functionality in
Access 2003 and in Access 2002 that let users change the data in linked
tables that point to a range in an Excel workbook. However, when you make
changes directly in the Excel workbook, the changes appear in the linked
table in Access....."

Article includes links to:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/887616/ Office 2003 SP2 (released Sep 27
2005)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/904018/ Access 2002/XP update (dated Oct 18
2005)

Anyone with Automatic Updates activated has been living with this for
several months.

HTH,

 

[Neil]

FWIW SQL Server 2000 and 2005 can coexist quite nicely. See "named

I'm pretty sure it can. I'm also pretty sure SQL 7 doesn't support
named instances.

If SQL 7 doesn't support named instances, any tricks I should know to get it
to run simultaneously with SQL 2005? (Or if it's too much of a hassle, we
could just wait with the 2005 upgrade and just reinstall SQL 7 on the new
server.)

Let us hope he doesn't monitor Google groups <smile>

Eh, it wouldn't be anything he doesn't already know. ;-)

N

 

[Neil]

2) If A2002 and A2003 share the same file format, and if the db is in that

Yes. but.

1) You'd likely want to give the users an MDE so make sure you create
it in A2002.

2) I was thinking in terms of saving your organization licensing fees
if you wanted to go to A2003 or Access ver next. Why buy 100
licenses of A2003 if all you need is a few for yourself, a few others
in the IT department and the power users and the ODE/MOD/ADE/runtime.

Yes, definitely. That is a good idea. What I'm still not clear on is why
A2002 can't run an A2003 MDB if they both share the same file format.

Thanks,

Neil

 

[Tony Toews]

If SQL 7 doesn't support named instances, any tricks I should know to get it
to run simultaneously with SQL 2005? (Or if it's too much of a hassle, we
could just wait with the 2005 upgrade and just reinstall SQL 7 on the new
server.)

SQL Server 7 will install in parallel with SQL Server 2000 and 2005 on
the same system. (Note that I haven't done this personally but I've
read it works and I have great faith in the SQL Server team and MVPs
that this works as advertised. <smile>)

So my mentioning that SQL Server 7 doesn't support named instances is
misleading in our discussion.

Eh, it wouldn't be anything he doesn't already know. ;-)

By he I meant the IT person not the project manager.

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

 

[Tony Toews]

Yes, definitely. That is a good idea. What I'm still not clear on is why
A2002 can't run an A2003 MDB if they both share the same file format.

A2002 can run an A2003 MDB. A2002 would have to recompile the MDB
first though. Or it might be in a partially compiled state.

Many people though only distribute MDEs to the users so the users
can't muck with things or take the MDB home as it is the intellectual
property of the corp.

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