Access 97 vs. Access 2003

[Kat]

Can anyone give me a list of advantages of 2003 over 97 (or a web address
that lists specific advantages/disads)? We are running a front end app using
97 that communicates with an MS SQL server(6.5) as the backend. My
department is upgrading the SQL server to 2000, and is considering upgrading
access to 2003 -- is this necessary? the 97 front end is pretty sturdy and
other that to just 'keep up with the times', i dont want to fix something
that isn't broken.

one of our biggest problems with using 97 as a front end is that records
sometimes get locked when working with linked tables, and multiple users;
but, this happens too in 2003, right?

thanks for your help
kat

 

[Alex White MCDBA MCSE]

Hi Kat,

I think you should test your access 97 front-end with SQL 2000, I think your
right 'if it is not broken don't fix it' you can get the access 97 mdb to
run with access 2000 and most likely 2003, it requires a few registry hacks
(or it did the last time I did it) to get the right version of jet running,
why re-invent the wheel if what you have got is working.

 

[Kat]

I think your

right 'if it is not broken don't fix it' you can get the access 97 mdb to
run with access 2000 and most likely 2003, it requires a few registry hacks....

i dont understand at all what this means; i dont want access 97 to run WITH
access 2000, or access 2003;it also did not answer my question.

i am searching for a list, if one exists, of advs/diadvs to using access
2003 rather than access 97 -- i've searched microsoft's site, and other
places, and could not find anything...

kat

 

[Rick Brandt]

i dont understand at all what this means; i dont want access 97 to
run WITH access 2000, or access 2003;it also did not answer my
question.

i am searching for a list, if one exists, of advs/diadvs to using
access 2003 rather than access 97 -- i've searched microsoft's site,
and other places, and could not find anything...

Microsoft's site should have a "What's New" page for Office 2003. They used
to also have these for the previous versions so you would have to read them
for 2003, 2002, and 2000 to see everything added since Access 97. If you
are looking for some real "killer" new things that were added, you won't
find them in my opinion, but I can't predict what features you would find
worthwhile that I don't.

Also see Allen Browne's page ...

http://allenbrowne.com/ser-48.html

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Afraid I'm not aware of such a page, but I though I'd point out that one of
the arguments to convert is the fact that MS no longer supports Access 97.
Now, I still use 97 almost exclusively, but the lack of support can be an
issue to some corporations.

 

[Jesse Aviles]

I'm not sure about this, but I don't think that Access 97 will run with MSSQL 2000 because Access
97 wont recognize MSSQL 2000.

 

[Rick Brandt]

I'm not sure about this, but I don't think that Access 97 will run with MSSQL
2000 because Access 97 wont recognize MSSQL 2000.

I have around 200 users running an Access 97 front end to an SS 2000 back end.

Works just peachy.

 

[Brendan Reynolds]

Versions of Access and of Jet released since Access 97 and Jet 3.5 have
introduced advances in the areas of replication, internationalization
(Unicode support), XML support, and integration with SharePoint. New
features include Pivot Tables, Pivot Charts, and conditional formatting.
Access 2000 also introduced ADPs (Access Data Projects) which connect more
directly to SQL Server, by-passing ODBC.

Simply upgrading to a later version without modifying the application will
not bring any very tangible benefits, you'd have to modify the application
to take advantage of the new features.

 

[Tony Toews]

Can anyone give me a list of advantages of 2003 over 97 (or a web address
that lists specific advantages/disads)? We are running a front end app using
97 that communicates with an MS SQL server(6.5) as the backend. My
department is upgrading the SQL server to 2000, and is considering upgrading
access to 2003 -- is this necessary? the 97 front end is pretty sturdy and
other that to just 'keep up with the times', i dont want to fix something
that isn't broken.

A2000 and newer will work better with SQL Server 2000 than A97 as they
were designed to work with some of the new features. Trouble is I
don't recall exactly what those are.

A2003 has a few nice features for the developers that I quite like.
Also you can purchase the runtime for it so you're cost of upgrading
won't be that high. However A2003 only runs on Win 2000 SP3 or newer
and Windows XP. If you're still running NT 4.0 or Win 98/ME that
won't work.

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.
They're a bit of a pain but they are also easily ignored.

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