Access 2002 vs. 2003

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

Neil wrote:[color=blue]
> 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
>
>[/color]
The 2003 series has provided several fixes over the 2002 version.

--
Joe Obergfell
Web Developer

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" <Obergfellja@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23YYry7BLGHA.2416@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Neil wrote:[color=green]
>> 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[/color]
> The 2003 series has provided several fixes over the 2002 version.
>
> --
> Joe Obergfell
> Web Developer[/color]

Neil wrote:[color=blue]
> 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" <Obergfellja@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23YYry7BLGHA.2416@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Neil wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> 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[/color]
>> The 2003 series has provided several fixes over the 2002 version.
>>
>> --
>> Joe Obergfell
>> Web Developer[/color]
>
>[/color]
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.

--
Joe Obergfell
Web Developer

>We are also looking to do a fair amount of redevelopment of our[color=blue]
>application, and I want to do it in 2003.[/color]

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/AlbertKal...icles/Grid.htm

and

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKal...heme/index.htm
[color=blue]
>
> 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?[/color]

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)
[color=blue]
>
> Also, here is a fabulous post by MVP John Viescas on this
> very subject late last year.[/color]
[color=blue]
> (This was comparing Access 2003 to 2002).
>
>
> They didn't make any major changes. Here's a summary:
>
> View information on object dependencies
>
> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can view information
> on dependencies between database objects. Viewing a list
> of objects that use a specific object helps maintain a
> database over time and avoid errors related to missing
> record sources. For example, the Quarterly Orders query in
> the Sales database is no longer needed, but before
> deleting it, you might want to find out which other
> objects in the database use the query. Then, you could
> either change the record source of the dependent objects,
> or delete them, before deleting the Quarterly Orders
> query. Viewing a complete list of dependent objects helps
> you save time and minimize errors.
>
> In addition to viewing the list of objects that are bound
> to a selected object, you can also view the objects that
> are being used by the selected object.
>
> Macros, modules, and data access pages are not searched
> for dependencies. Access projects do not support this
> feature.
>
> Error checking in forms and reports
>
> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can enable automatic
> error checking for common errors in forms and reports.
> Error checking points out errors, such as two controls
> using the same keyboard shortcut, and the width of a report
> being greater than the page it will be printed on.
> Enabling error checking helps you identify errors and
> correct them.
>
> Propagating field properties
>
> In previous versions of Microsoft Access, whenever you
> modified a field's inherited property, you had to manually
> modify the property of the corresponding control in each
> of the forms and reports. Now, when you modify an
> inherited field property in Table design view, Access
> displays an option to update the property of all or some
> controls that are bound to the field.
>
> Smart tags
>
> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can use the SmartTags
> property to add a smart tag to any field in a table,
> query, form, report, or data access page in a database.
>
> Back up a database or project
>
> You can back up the current database or project before
> making major changes to it. The backup will be saved in
> the default backup location, or in the current folder.
>
> To restore a database, go to the location of the backup,
> rename the file, and open it in Access.
>
> Windows XP theme support
>
> The Microsoft Windows XP operating system offers you
> several themes. If you have chosen a theme other than the
> default, Access will apply the chosen theme to views,
> dialog boxes, and controls. You can prevent form controls
> from inheriting themes from the operating system by
> setting an option on the database or project.
>
> Improved sorting in controls
>
> You can now specify the ascending or descending sort order
> of up to four fields in the List Box and Combo Box Wizards
> in forms and reports, and the Lookup Wizard in an Access
> database. The sort page added to these wizards looks and
> behaves like the sort page in the Report Wizard.
>
> Autocorrect options
>
> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you have more control
> over the behavior of the AutoCorrect feature. The
> AutoCorrect Options button appears near text that was
> automatically corrected. If you find on occasion that you
> don't want text to be corrected, you can undo a correction
> or turn AutoCorrect options on or off by clicking the
> button and making a selection.
>
> Enhanced font capabilities in SQL views
>
> In the SQL and query Design views of a query in both a
> Microsoft Access database and Microsoft Access project,
> you can now change the font and font size of the text by
> using the Query design font option added to the
> Tables/Queries tab of the Options dialog box under the
> Tools menu. These settings apply to all databases and work
> with the high-contrast and other accessibility settings of
> your computer.
>
> Context-based Help in SQL view
>
> In the SQL view of a query in a Microsoft Access database,
> you can now get help specific to Jet SQL keywords, VBA
> functions, and Access functions. Simply press F1 to bring
> up the help that corresponds to the text near the cursor.
> You can also search the Jet SQL and VBA function reference
> topics.
>
> Importing, exporting, and linking
>
> Importing, exporting, and linking to a Microsoft Windows
> SharePoint Services list from Access
>
> You can perform the following operations with a Windows
> SharePoint Services list:
>
> ?Export the contents of a table or a query to a list.
>
> ?Import the contents of a list into a table.
>
> ?Link a table to a list.
>
> Exporting and linking to Access data from Windows
> SharePoint Services
>
> You can now export a list in its Datasheet view from
> Windows SharePoint Services to a static table or to a
> linked table in Access. When you export to a static table,
> you create a table in Access. You can then view and make
> changes to the table independent of the original list in
> Windows SharePoint Services. Similarly, you can change the
> list in Windows SharePoint Services, and that will not
> affect the table in Access.
>
> When you export to a linked table, you create a table in
> Access and establish a dynamic link between the table and
> the list such that changes to the table are reflected in
> the list, and changes to the list are reflected in the
> table as well.
>
> Make a local table from a linked table
>
> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can make a local copy
> of the structure or data and structure contained in a
> linked table.
>
> XML support
>
> With the enhanced XML support in Microsoft Office Access
> 2003, you can specify a transform file when you import
> data from or export data to XML. The transform is then
> applied automatically. When you import XML data, the
> transform is applied to the data as soon as the data is
> imported, before any new table is created or an existing
> one is appended to. When you export data to XML, the
> transform is applied following the export operation.
>
> Often times a database contains lookup values that are
> stored in another database. You can now include these
> related tables when exporting. You can also include any
> predefined filter or sort order for an object when
> exporting the object.
>
> Security enhancements
>
> Macro Security Microsoft Office Access 2003 allows you to
> protect against potentially unsafe Visual Basic for
> Applications (VBA) code by setting the macro security
> level. You can set the security level so that you are
> prompted every time that you open a database containing
> VBA code, or you can automatically block databases that
> are from unknown sources.
>
> Additionally, Access uses Microsoft Authenticode
> technology to enable you to digitally sign a macro project
> by using a digital certificate. The certificate used to
> create this signature confirms that the macro originated
> from the signer, and the signature confirms that it has
> not been altered. When you set the macro security level,
> you can run macros based on whether they are digitally
> signed by a developer on your list of trusted sources.
>
> Block Potentially Unsafe Functions Access utilizes the
> Microsoft Jet Expression Service enhanced sandbox mode to
> block potentially unsafe functions from being used in
> expressions.
>[/color]

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.

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4H6Gf.5827$5E3.3483@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...[color=blue]
> 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
>[/color]

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

"Joe Obergfell" <Obergfellja@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uqYW%23$BLGHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Neil wrote:[color=green]
>> 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" <Obergfellja@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23YYry7BLGHA.2416@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Neil wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joe Obergfell
>>> Web Developer[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
> 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.
>
> --
> Joe Obergfell
> Web Developer[/color]

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>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.[/color]

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

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

"Pat Hartman(MVP)" <patsky@NoSpam.optonline.net> wrote in message
news:OBNVSOCLGHA.916@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>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.
>
> "Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:4H6Gf.5827$5E3.3483@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...[color=green]
>> 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
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

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

"Albert D.Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in message
news:u0YtOICLGHA.1424@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
> >We are also looking to do a fair amount of redevelopment of our
>>application, and I want to do it in 2003.[/color]
>
> 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/AlbertKal...icles/Grid.htm
>
> and
>
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKal...heme/index.htm
>[color=green]
>>
>> 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?[/color]
>
> 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)
>[color=green]
>>
>> Also, here is a fabulous post by MVP John Viescas on this
>> very subject late last year.[/color]
>[color=green]
>> (This was comparing Access 2003 to 2002).
>>
>>
>> They didn't make any major changes. Here's a summary:
>>
>> View information on object dependencies
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can view information
>> on dependencies between database objects. Viewing a list
>> of objects that use a specific object helps maintain a
>> database over time and avoid errors related to missing
>> record sources. For example, the Quarterly Orders query in
>> the Sales database is no longer needed, but before
>> deleting it, you might want to find out which other
>> objects in the database use the query. Then, you could
>> either change the record source of the dependent objects,
>> or delete them, before deleting the Quarterly Orders
>> query. Viewing a complete list of dependent objects helps
>> you save time and minimize errors.
>>
>> In addition to viewing the list of objects that are bound
>> to a selected object, you can also view the objects that
>> are being used by the selected object.
>>
>> Macros, modules, and data access pages are not searched
>> for dependencies. Access projects do not support this
>> feature.
>>
>> Error checking in forms and reports
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can enable automatic
>> error checking for common errors in forms and reports.
>> Error checking points out errors, such as two controls
>> using the same keyboard shortcut, and the width of a report
>> being greater than the page it will be printed on.
>> Enabling error checking helps you identify errors and
>> correct them.
>>
>> Propagating field properties
>>
>> In previous versions of Microsoft Access, whenever you
>> modified a field's inherited property, you had to manually
>> modify the property of the corresponding control in each
>> of the forms and reports. Now, when you modify an
>> inherited field property in Table design view, Access
>> displays an option to update the property of all or some
>> controls that are bound to the field.
>>
>> Smart tags
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can use the SmartTags
>> property to add a smart tag to any field in a table,
>> query, form, report, or data access page in a database.
>>
>> Back up a database or project
>>
>> You can back up the current database or project before
>> making major changes to it. The backup will be saved in
>> the default backup location, or in the current folder.
>>
>> To restore a database, go to the location of the backup,
>> rename the file, and open it in Access.
>>
>> Windows XP theme support
>>
>> The Microsoft Windows XP operating system offers you
>> several themes. If you have chosen a theme other than the
>> default, Access will apply the chosen theme to views,
>> dialog boxes, and controls. You can prevent form controls
>> from inheriting themes from the operating system by
>> setting an option on the database or project.
>>
>> Improved sorting in controls
>>
>> You can now specify the ascending or descending sort order
>> of up to four fields in the List Box and Combo Box Wizards
>> in forms and reports, and the Lookup Wizard in an Access
>> database. The sort page added to these wizards looks and
>> behaves like the sort page in the Report Wizard.
>>
>> Autocorrect options
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you have more control
>> over the behavior of the AutoCorrect feature. The
>> AutoCorrect Options button appears near text that was
>> automatically corrected. If you find on occasion that you
>> don't want text to be corrected, you can undo a correction
>> or turn AutoCorrect options on or off by clicking the
>> button and making a selection.
>>
>> Enhanced font capabilities in SQL views
>>
>> In the SQL and query Design views of a query in both a
>> Microsoft Access database and Microsoft Access project,
>> you can now change the font and font size of the text by
>> using the Query design font option added to the
>> Tables/Queries tab of the Options dialog box under the
>> Tools menu. These settings apply to all databases and work
>> with the high-contrast and other accessibility settings of
>> your computer.
>>
>> Context-based Help in SQL view
>>
>> In the SQL view of a query in a Microsoft Access database,
>> you can now get help specific to Jet SQL keywords, VBA
>> functions, and Access functions. Simply press F1 to bring
>> up the help that corresponds to the text near the cursor.
>> You can also search the Jet SQL and VBA function reference
>> topics.
>>
>> Importing, exporting, and linking
>>
>> Importing, exporting, and linking to a Microsoft Windows
>> SharePoint Services list from Access
>>
>> You can perform the following operations with a Windows
>> SharePoint Services list:
>>
>> ?Export the contents of a table or a query to a list.
>>
>> ?Import the contents of a list into a table.
>>
>> ?Link a table to a list.
>>
>> Exporting and linking to Access data from Windows
>> SharePoint Services
>>
>> You can now export a list in its Datasheet view from
>> Windows SharePoint Services to a static table or to a
>> linked table in Access. When you export to a static table,
>> you create a table in Access. You can then view and make
>> changes to the table independent of the original list in
>> Windows SharePoint Services. Similarly, you can change the
>> list in Windows SharePoint Services, and that will not
>> affect the table in Access.
>>
>> When you export to a linked table, you create a table in
>> Access and establish a dynamic link between the table and
>> the list such that changes to the table are reflected in
>> the list, and changes to the list are reflected in the
>> table as well.
>>
>> Make a local table from a linked table
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can make a local copy
>> of the structure or data and structure contained in a
>> linked table.
>>
>> XML support
>>
>> With the enhanced XML support in Microsoft Office Access
>> 2003, you can specify a transform file when you import
>> data from or export data to XML. The transform is then
>> applied automatically. When you import XML data, the
>> transform is applied to the data as soon as the data is
>> imported, before any new table is created or an existing
>> one is appended to. When you export data to XML, the
>> transform is applied following the export operation.
>>
>> Often times a database contains lookup values that are
>> stored in another database. You can now include these
>> related tables when exporting. You can also include any
>> predefined filter or sort order for an object when
>> exporting the object.
>>
>> Security enhancements
>>
>> Macro Security Microsoft Office Access 2003 allows you to
>> protect against potentially unsafe Visual Basic for
>> Applications (VBA) code by setting the macro security
>> level. You can set the security level so that you are
>> prompted every time that you open a database containing
>> VBA code, or you can automatically block databases that
>> are from unknown sources.
>>
>> Additionally, Access uses Microsoft Authenticode
>> technology to enable you to digitally sign a macro project
>> by using a digital certificate. The certificate used to
>> create this signature confirms that the macro originated
>> from the signer, and the signature confirms that it has
>> not been altered. When you set the macro security level,
>> you can run macros based on whether they are digitally
>> signed by a developer on your list of trusted sources.
>>
>> Block Potentially Unsafe Functions Access utilizes the
>> Microsoft Jet Expression Service enhanced sandbox mode to
>> block potentially unsafe functions from being used in
>> expressions.
>>[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

FYI, found this link:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...714971033.aspx . Has the
same info, but with some nice screen shots.

N

"Albert D.Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in message
news:u0YtOICLGHA.1424@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
> >We are also looking to do a fair amount of redevelopment of our
>>application, and I want to do it in 2003.[/color]
>
> 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/AlbertKal...icles/Grid.htm
>
> and
>
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKal...heme/index.htm
>[color=green]
>>
>> 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?[/color]
>
> 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)
>[color=green]
>>
>> Also, here is a fabulous post by MVP John Viescas on this
>> very subject late last year.[/color]
>[color=green]
>> (This was comparing Access 2003 to 2002).
>>
>>
>> They didn't make any major changes. Here's a summary:
>>
>> View information on object dependencies
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can view information
>> on dependencies between database objects. Viewing a list
>> of objects that use a specific object helps maintain a
>> database over time and avoid errors related to missing
>> record sources. For example, the Quarterly Orders query in
>> the Sales database is no longer needed, but before
>> deleting it, you might want to find out which other
>> objects in the database use the query. Then, you could
>> either change the record source of the dependent objects,
>> or delete them, before deleting the Quarterly Orders
>> query. Viewing a complete list of dependent objects helps
>> you save time and minimize errors.
>>
>> In addition to viewing the list of objects that are bound
>> to a selected object, you can also view the objects that
>> are being used by the selected object.
>>
>> Macros, modules, and data access pages are not searched
>> for dependencies. Access projects do not support this
>> feature.
>>
>> Error checking in forms and reports
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can enable automatic
>> error checking for common errors in forms and reports.
>> Error checking points out errors, such as two controls
>> using the same keyboard shortcut, and the width of a report
>> being greater than the page it will be printed on.
>> Enabling error checking helps you identify errors and
>> correct them.
>>
>> Propagating field properties
>>
>> In previous versions of Microsoft Access, whenever you
>> modified a field's inherited property, you had to manually
>> modify the property of the corresponding control in each
>> of the forms and reports. Now, when you modify an
>> inherited field property in Table design view, Access
>> displays an option to update the property of all or some
>> controls that are bound to the field.
>>
>> Smart tags
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can use the SmartTags
>> property to add a smart tag to any field in a table,
>> query, form, report, or data access page in a database.
>>
>> Back up a database or project
>>
>> You can back up the current database or project before
>> making major changes to it. The backup will be saved in
>> the default backup location, or in the current folder.
>>
>> To restore a database, go to the location of the backup,
>> rename the file, and open it in Access.
>>
>> Windows XP theme support
>>
>> The Microsoft Windows XP operating system offers you
>> several themes. If you have chosen a theme other than the
>> default, Access will apply the chosen theme to views,
>> dialog boxes, and controls. You can prevent form controls
>> from inheriting themes from the operating system by
>> setting an option on the database or project.
>>
>> Improved sorting in controls
>>
>> You can now specify the ascending or descending sort order
>> of up to four fields in the List Box and Combo Box Wizards
>> in forms and reports, and the Lookup Wizard in an Access
>> database. The sort page added to these wizards looks and
>> behaves like the sort page in the Report Wizard.
>>
>> Autocorrect options
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you have more control
>> over the behavior of the AutoCorrect feature. The
>> AutoCorrect Options button appears near text that was
>> automatically corrected. If you find on occasion that you
>> don't want text to be corrected, you can undo a correction
>> or turn AutoCorrect options on or off by clicking the
>> button and making a selection.
>>
>> Enhanced font capabilities in SQL views
>>
>> In the SQL and query Design views of a query in both a
>> Microsoft Access database and Microsoft Access project,
>> you can now change the font and font size of the text by
>> using the Query design font option added to the
>> Tables/Queries tab of the Options dialog box under the
>> Tools menu. These settings apply to all databases and work
>> with the high-contrast and other accessibility settings of
>> your computer.
>>
>> Context-based Help in SQL view
>>
>> In the SQL view of a query in a Microsoft Access database,
>> you can now get help specific to Jet SQL keywords, VBA
>> functions, and Access functions. Simply press F1 to bring
>> up the help that corresponds to the text near the cursor.
>> You can also search the Jet SQL and VBA function reference
>> topics.
>>
>> Importing, exporting, and linking
>>
>> Importing, exporting, and linking to a Microsoft Windows
>> SharePoint Services list from Access
>>
>> You can perform the following operations with a Windows
>> SharePoint Services list:
>>
>> ?Export the contents of a table or a query to a list.
>>
>> ?Import the contents of a list into a table.
>>
>> ?Link a table to a list.
>>
>> Exporting and linking to Access data from Windows
>> SharePoint Services
>>
>> You can now export a list in its Datasheet view from
>> Windows SharePoint Services to a static table or to a
>> linked table in Access. When you export to a static table,
>> you create a table in Access. You can then view and make
>> changes to the table independent of the original list in
>> Windows SharePoint Services. Similarly, you can change the
>> list in Windows SharePoint Services, and that will not
>> affect the table in Access.
>>
>> When you export to a linked table, you create a table in
>> Access and establish a dynamic link between the table and
>> the list such that changes to the table are reflected in
>> the list, and changes to the list are reflected in the
>> table as well.
>>
>> Make a local table from a linked table
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can make a local copy
>> of the structure or data and structure contained in a
>> linked table.
>>
>> XML support
>>
>> With the enhanced XML support in Microsoft Office Access
>> 2003, you can specify a transform file when you import
>> data from or export data to XML. The transform is then
>> applied automatically. When you import XML data, the
>> transform is applied to the data as soon as the data is
>> imported, before any new table is created or an existing
>> one is appended to. When you export data to XML, the
>> transform is applied following the export operation.
>>
>> Often times a database contains lookup values that are
>> stored in another database. You can now include these
>> related tables when exporting. You can also include any
>> predefined filter or sort order for an object when
>> exporting the object.
>>
>> Security enhancements
>>
>> Macro Security Microsoft Office Access 2003 allows you to
>> protect against potentially unsafe Visual Basic for
>> Applications (VBA) code by setting the macro security
>> level. You can set the security level so that you are
>> prompted every time that you open a database containing
>> VBA code, or you can automatically block databases that
>> are from unknown sources.
>>
>> Additionally, Access uses Microsoft Authenticode
>> technology to enable you to digitally sign a macro project
>> by using a digital certificate. The certificate used to
>> create this signature confirms that the macro originated
>> from the signer, and the signature confirms that it has
>> not been altered. When you set the macro security level,
>> you can run macros based on whether they are digitally
>> signed by a developer on your list of trusted sources.
>>
>> Block Potentially Unsafe Functions Access utilizes the
>> Microsoft Jet Expression Service enhanced sandbox mode to
>> block potentially unsafe functions from being used in
>> expressions.
>>[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

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

"Albert D.Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in message
news:u0YtOICLGHA.1424@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
> >We are also looking to do a fair amount of redevelopment of our
>>application, and I want to do it in 2003.[/color]
>
> 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/AlbertKal...icles/Grid.htm
>
> and
>
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKal...heme/index.htm
>[color=green]
>>
>> 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?[/color]
>
> 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)
>[color=green]
>>
>> Also, here is a fabulous post by MVP John Viescas on this
>> very subject late last year.[/color]
>[color=green]
>> (This was comparing Access 2003 to 2002).
>>
>>
>> They didn't make any major changes. Here's a summary:
>>
>> View information on object dependencies
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can view information
>> on dependencies between database objects. Viewing a list
>> of objects that use a specific object helps maintain a
>> database over time and avoid errors related to missing
>> record sources. For example, the Quarterly Orders query in
>> the Sales database is no longer needed, but before
>> deleting it, you might want to find out which other
>> objects in the database use the query. Then, you could
>> either change the record source of the dependent objects,
>> or delete them, before deleting the Quarterly Orders
>> query. Viewing a complete list of dependent objects helps
>> you save time and minimize errors.
>>
>> In addition to viewing the list of objects that are bound
>> to a selected object, you can also view the objects that
>> are being used by the selected object.
>>
>> Macros, modules, and data access pages are not searched
>> for dependencies. Access projects do not support this
>> feature.
>>
>> Error checking in forms and reports
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can enable automatic
>> error checking for common errors in forms and reports.
>> Error checking points out errors, such as two controls
>> using the same keyboard shortcut, and the width of a report
>> being greater than the page it will be printed on.
>> Enabling error checking helps you identify errors and
>> correct them.
>>
>> Propagating field properties
>>
>> In previous versions of Microsoft Access, whenever you
>> modified a field's inherited property, you had to manually
>> modify the property of the corresponding control in each
>> of the forms and reports. Now, when you modify an
>> inherited field property in Table design view, Access
>> displays an option to update the property of all or some
>> controls that are bound to the field.
>>
>> Smart tags
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can use the SmartTags
>> property to add a smart tag to any field in a table,
>> query, form, report, or data access page in a database.
>>
>> Back up a database or project
>>
>> You can back up the current database or project before
>> making major changes to it. The backup will be saved in
>> the default backup location, or in the current folder.
>>
>> To restore a database, go to the location of the backup,
>> rename the file, and open it in Access.
>>
>> Windows XP theme support
>>
>> The Microsoft Windows XP operating system offers you
>> several themes. If you have chosen a theme other than the
>> default, Access will apply the chosen theme to views,
>> dialog boxes, and controls. You can prevent form controls
>> from inheriting themes from the operating system by
>> setting an option on the database or project.
>>
>> Improved sorting in controls
>>
>> You can now specify the ascending or descending sort order
>> of up to four fields in the List Box and Combo Box Wizards
>> in forms and reports, and the Lookup Wizard in an Access
>> database. The sort page added to these wizards looks and
>> behaves like the sort page in the Report Wizard.
>>
>> Autocorrect options
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you have more control
>> over the behavior of the AutoCorrect feature. The
>> AutoCorrect Options button appears near text that was
>> automatically corrected. If you find on occasion that you
>> don't want text to be corrected, you can undo a correction
>> or turn AutoCorrect options on or off by clicking the
>> button and making a selection.
>>
>> Enhanced font capabilities in SQL views
>>
>> In the SQL and query Design views of a query in both a
>> Microsoft Access database and Microsoft Access project,
>> you can now change the font and font size of the text by
>> using the Query design font option added to the
>> Tables/Queries tab of the Options dialog box under the
>> Tools menu. These settings apply to all databases and work
>> with the high-contrast and other accessibility settings of
>> your computer.
>>
>> Context-based Help in SQL view
>>
>> In the SQL view of a query in a Microsoft Access database,
>> you can now get help specific to Jet SQL keywords, VBA
>> functions, and Access functions. Simply press F1 to bring
>> up the help that corresponds to the text near the cursor.
>> You can also search the Jet SQL and VBA function reference
>> topics.
>>
>> Importing, exporting, and linking
>>
>> Importing, exporting, and linking to a Microsoft Windows
>> SharePoint Services list from Access
>>
>> You can perform the following operations with a Windows
>> SharePoint Services list:
>>
>> ?Export the contents of a table or a query to a list.
>>
>> ?Import the contents of a list into a table.
>>
>> ?Link a table to a list.
>>
>> Exporting and linking to Access data from Windows
>> SharePoint Services
>>
>> You can now export a list in its Datasheet view from
>> Windows SharePoint Services to a static table or to a
>> linked table in Access. When you export to a static table,
>> you create a table in Access. You can then view and make
>> changes to the table independent of the original list in
>> Windows SharePoint Services. Similarly, you can change the
>> list in Windows SharePoint Services, and that will not
>> affect the table in Access.
>>
>> When you export to a linked table, you create a table in
>> Access and establish a dynamic link between the table and
>> the list such that changes to the table are reflected in
>> the list, and changes to the list are reflected in the
>> table as well.
>>
>> Make a local table from a linked table
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can make a local copy
>> of the structure or data and structure contained in a
>> linked table.
>>
>> XML support
>>
>> With the enhanced XML support in Microsoft Office Access
>> 2003, you can specify a transform file when you import
>> data from or export data to XML. The transform is then
>> applied automatically. When you import XML data, the
>> transform is applied to the data as soon as the data is
>> imported, before any new table is created or an existing
>> one is appended to. When you export data to XML, the
>> transform is applied following the export operation.
>>
>> Often times a database contains lookup values that are
>> stored in another database. You can now include these
>> related tables when exporting. You can also include any
>> predefined filter or sort order for an object when
>> exporting the object.
>>
>> Security enhancements
>>
>> Macro Security Microsoft Office Access 2003 allows you to
>> protect against potentially unsafe Visual Basic for
>> Applications (VBA) code by setting the macro security
>> level. You can set the security level so that you are
>> prompted every time that you open a database containing
>> VBA code, or you can automatically block databases that
>> are from unknown sources.
>>
>> Additionally, Access uses Microsoft Authenticode
>> technology to enable you to digitally sign a macro project
>> by using a digital certificate. The certificate used to
>> create this signature confirms that the macro originated
>> from the signer, and the signature confirms that it has
>> not been altered. When you set the macro security level,
>> you can run macros based on whether they are digitally
>> signed by a developer on your list of trusted sources.
>>
>> Block Potentially Unsafe Functions Access utilizes the
>> Microsoft Jet Expression Service enhanced sandbox mode to
>> block potentially unsafe functions from being used in
>> expressions.
>>[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

Pat Hartman(MVP) wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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
CDMAPoster@FortuneJames.com

> Note that most of your users only need the runtime version of Access.[color=blue]
> Your power users who create queries will want a full version of
> Access.[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> Furthermore you can easily use the new features of Access but
> create A2002 MDEs (using A2002) to distribute to your users.[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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

>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...

[color=blue]
>Access 2003 uses a new file format (with[/color]
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...

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

"Albert D.Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in message
news:exb8u8CLGHA.344@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
> >The only differences I saw were the[/color]
> 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...[/color]

Yes, indeed!

N

>>Access 2003 uses a new file format (with[color=blue]
> 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...[/color]

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.

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
[color=blue]
> 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.
>
> --
> Joe Obergfell
> Web Developer[/color]

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
>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?[/color]

Troublesome, yes. But in an environment where you control the OS and
software installs then they aren't usually a problem.
[color=blue]
>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.[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Furthermore you can easily use the new features of Access but
>> create A2002 MDEs (using A2002) to distribute to your users.[/color]
>
>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.[/color]

Ayup.
[color=blue]
>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.[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
>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.[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
>And, re.
>upgrading Office, it was because he "had to touch each PC anyway" (his
>words).[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
>And, yes, he is an utter idiot.[/color]

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

> I'm a bit confused. Somewhere else I read someone give advice that if a db[color=blue]
> was developed in A2003 using A2003 format, that it couldn't be used in
> A2002;[/color]

You must have miss-read that.
[color=blue]
>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?[/color]

You can use a 03 with a 02....they are the same format.
[color=blue]
>since A2000 and A2002 share the same format[/color]

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).

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

"Albert D.Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23v5BfTDLGHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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;[/color]
>
> You must have miss-read that.[/color]

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:

<anonym...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>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?[/color]

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/micro...638f03bab6ceb6)

Neil

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>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?[/color]
>
> You can use a 03 with a 02....they are the same format.
>[color=green]
>>since A2000 and A2002 share the same format[/color]
>
> 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).
>
> --
> Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
> pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal
>[/color]

>>One thing that concerns me, though: I've heard that there are potential[color=blue][color=green]
>>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.[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>>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.[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

Actually, we're using SQL 7. Can that co-exist with SQL 2005?
[color=blue][color=green]
>>And, re.
>>upgrading Office, it was because he "had to touch each PC anyway" (his
>>words).[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

I dunno. I'm not sure he knows either....
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>And, yes, he is an utter idiot.[/color]
>
> My sympathies.[/color]

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

Thanks,

Neil

[color=blue]
>
> 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[/color]

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

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

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

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" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5R8Gf.5858$5E3.1640@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...[color=blue]
> 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
>[color=green]
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Joe Obergfell
>> Web Developer[/color]
>
>[/color]

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

"Albert D.Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in message
news:OGZ2GrELGHA.1312@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> is possible to upgrade a[/color]
> .mdb file to 2003 format, making it unusable for 2002
>
> That is no doubt a type-o......
>
>
>
> --
> Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
> pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal
>[/color]

Thanks for that explanation.

"david epsom dot com dot au" <david@epsomdotcomdotau> wrote in message
news:43e951a6$0$91452$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...[color=blue]
> 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" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:5R8Gf.5858$5E3.1640@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...[color=green]
>> 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
>>[color=darkred]
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joe Obergfell
>>> Web Developer[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

> Note that most of your users only need the runtime version of Access.[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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

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)

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:V4eGf.2486$UF1.2025@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...[color=blue]
> Thanks for that explanation.
>
> "david epsom dot com dot au" <david@epsomdotcomdotau> wrote in message
> news:43e951a6$0$91452$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...[color=green]
>> 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" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:5R8Gf.5858$5E3.1640@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...[color=darkred]
>>> 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
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joe Obergfell
>>>> Web Developer
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

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.

--
Brendan Reynolds
Access MVP

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:X3eGf.2485$UF1.252@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...[color=blue]
> 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
>
>
> "Albert D.Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:OGZ2GrELGHA.1312@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> is possible to upgrade a[/color]
>> .mdb file to 2003 format, making it unusable for 2002
>>
>> That is no doubt a type-o......
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
>> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
>> pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
>> http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

OK, thanks for confirming that.

"Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23L1y5sJLGHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> 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.
>
> --
> Brendan Reynolds
> Access MVP
>
> "Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:X3eGf.2485$UF1.252@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...[color=green]
>> 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
>>
>>
>> "Albert D.Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:OGZ2GrELGHA.1312@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>>> is possible to upgrade a
>>> .mdb file to 2003 format, making it unusable for 2002
>>>
>>> That is no doubt a type-o......
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
>>> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
>>> pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
>>> http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

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

"Albert D.Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in message
news:u0YtOICLGHA.1424@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
> >We are also looking to do a fair amount of redevelopment of our
>>application, and I want to do it in 2003.[/color]
>
> 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/AlbertKal...icles/Grid.htm
>
> and
>
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKal...heme/index.htm
>[color=green]
>>
>> 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?[/color]
>
> 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)
>[color=green]
>>
>> Also, here is a fabulous post by MVP John Viescas on this
>> very subject late last year.[/color]
>[color=green]
>> (This was comparing Access 2003 to 2002).
>>
>>
>> They didn't make any major changes. Here's a summary:
>>
>> View information on object dependencies
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can view information
>> on dependencies between database objects. Viewing a list
>> of objects that use a specific object helps maintain a
>> database over time and avoid errors related to missing
>> record sources. For example, the Quarterly Orders query in
>> the Sales database is no longer needed, but before
>> deleting it, you might want to find out which other
>> objects in the database use the query. Then, you could
>> either change the record source of the dependent objects,
>> or delete them, before deleting the Quarterly Orders
>> query. Viewing a complete list of dependent objects helps
>> you save time and minimize errors.
>>
>> In addition to viewing the list of objects that are bound
>> to a selected object, you can also view the objects that
>> are being used by the selected object.
>>
>> Macros, modules, and data access pages are not searched
>> for dependencies. Access projects do not support this
>> feature.
>>
>> Error checking in forms and reports
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can enable automatic
>> error checking for common errors in forms and reports.
>> Error checking points out errors, such as two controls
>> using the same keyboard shortcut, and the width of a report
>> being greater than the page it will be printed on.
>> Enabling error checking helps you identify errors and
>> correct them.
>>
>> Propagating field properties
>>
>> In previous versions of Microsoft Access, whenever you
>> modified a field's inherited property, you had to manually
>> modify the property of the corresponding control in each
>> of the forms and reports. Now, when you modify an
>> inherited field property in Table design view, Access
>> displays an option to update the property of all or some
>> controls that are bound to the field.
>>
>> Smart tags
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can use the SmartTags
>> property to add a smart tag to any field in a table,
>> query, form, report, or data access page in a database.
>>
>> Back up a database or project
>>
>> You can back up the current database or project before
>> making major changes to it. The backup will be saved in
>> the default backup location, or in the current folder.
>>
>> To restore a database, go to the location of the backup,
>> rename the file, and open it in Access.
>>
>> Windows XP theme support
>>
>> The Microsoft Windows XP operating system offers you
>> several themes. If you have chosen a theme other than the
>> default, Access will apply the chosen theme to views,
>> dialog boxes, and controls. You can prevent form controls
>> from inheriting themes from the operating system by
>> setting an option on the database or project.
>>
>> Improved sorting in controls
>>
>> You can now specify the ascending or descending sort order
>> of up to four fields in the List Box and Combo Box Wizards
>> in forms and reports, and the Lookup Wizard in an Access
>> database. The sort page added to these wizards looks and
>> behaves like the sort page in the Report Wizard.
>>
>> Autocorrect options
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you have more control
>> over the behavior of the AutoCorrect feature. The
>> AutoCorrect Options button appears near text that was
>> automatically corrected. If you find on occasion that you
>> don't want text to be corrected, you can undo a correction
>> or turn AutoCorrect options on or off by clicking the
>> button and making a selection.
>>
>> Enhanced font capabilities in SQL views
>>
>> In the SQL and query Design views of a query in both a
>> Microsoft Access database and Microsoft Access project,
>> you can now change the font and font size of the text by
>> using the Query design font option added to the
>> Tables/Queries tab of the Options dialog box under the
>> Tools menu. These settings apply to all databases and work
>> with the high-contrast and other accessibility settings of
>> your computer.
>>
>> Context-based Help in SQL view
>>
>> In the SQL view of a query in a Microsoft Access database,
>> you can now get help specific to Jet SQL keywords, VBA
>> functions, and Access functions. Simply press F1 to bring
>> up the help that corresponds to the text near the cursor.
>> You can also search the Jet SQL and VBA function reference
>> topics.
>>
>> Importing, exporting, and linking
>>
>> Importing, exporting, and linking to a Microsoft Windows
>> SharePoint Services list from Access
>>
>> You can perform the following operations with a Windows
>> SharePoint Services list:
>>
>> ?Export the contents of a table or a query to a list.
>>
>> ?Import the contents of a list into a table.
>>
>> ?Link a table to a list.
>>
>> Exporting and linking to Access data from Windows
>> SharePoint Services
>>
>> You can now export a list in its Datasheet view from
>> Windows SharePoint Services to a static table or to a
>> linked table in Access. When you export to a static table,
>> you create a table in Access. You can then view and make
>> changes to the table independent of the original list in
>> Windows SharePoint Services. Similarly, you can change the
>> list in Windows SharePoint Services, and that will not
>> affect the table in Access.
>>
>> When you export to a linked table, you create a table in
>> Access and establish a dynamic link between the table and
>> the list such that changes to the table are reflected in
>> the list, and changes to the list are reflected in the
>> table as well.
>>
>> Make a local table from a linked table
>>
>> In Microsoft Office Access 2003, you can make a local copy
>> of the structure or data and structure contained in a
>> linked table.
>>
>> XML support
>>
>> With the enhanced XML support in Microsoft Office Access
>> 2003, you can specify a transform file when you import
>> data from or export data to XML. The transform is then
>> applied automatically. When you import XML data, the
>> transform is applied to the data as soon as the data is
>> imported, before any new table is created or an existing
>> one is appended to. When you export data to XML, the
>> transform is applied following the export operation.
>>
>> Often times a database contains lookup values that are
>> stored in another database. You can now include these
>> related tables when exporting. You can also include any
>> predefined filter or sort order for an object when
>> exporting the object.
>>
>> Security enhancements
>>
>> Macro Security Microsoft Office Access 2003 allows you to
>> protect against potentially unsafe Visual Basic for
>> Applications (VBA) code by setting the macro security
>> level. You can set the security level so that you are
>> prompted every time that you open a database containing
>> VBA code, or you can automatically block databases that
>> are from unknown sources.
>>
>> Additionally, Access uses Microsoft Authenticode
>> technology to enable you to digitally sign a macro project
>> by using a digital certificate. The certificate used to
>> create this signature confirms that the macro originated
>> from the signer, and the signature confirms that it has
>> not been altered. When you set the macro security level,
>> you can run macros based on whether they are digitally
>> signed by a developer on your list of trusted sources.
>>
>> Block Potentially Unsafe Functions Access utilizes the
>> Microsoft Jet Expression Service enhanced sandbox mode to
>> block potentially unsafe functions from being used in
>> expressions.
>>[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>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.[/color]
>>
>> 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.[/color]
>
>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.[/color]

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
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> 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.[/color]
>
>Actually, we're using SQL 7. Can that co-exist with SQL 2005?[/color]

I'm pretty sure it can. I'm also pretty sure SQL 7 doesn't support
named instances.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>And, yes, he is an utter idiot.[/color]
>> My sympathies.[/color]
>Thanks. Fortunately the project manager realizes this, so that's helpful.[/color]

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

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
>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?[/color]

No.
[color=blue]
>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?[/color]

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

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>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.[/color]

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

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

> .....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,
--
George Nicholson

Remove 'Junk' from return address.

"GH" <borgcollective1b@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139423447.052057.152350@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...[color=blue]
> 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
>[/color]

>>> FWIW SQL Server 2000 and 2005 can coexist quite nicely. See "named[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>>Actually, we're using SQL 7. Can that co-exist with SQL 2005?[/color]
>
> I'm pretty sure it can. I'm also pretty sure SQL 7 doesn't support
> named instances.[/color]

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.)
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>And, yes, he is an utter idiot.
>>> My sympathies.[/color]
>>Thanks. Fortunately the project manager realizes this, so that's helpful.[/color]
>
> Let us hope he doesn't monitor Google groups <smile>[/color]

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

N

>>2) If A2002 and A2003 share the same file format, and if the db is in that[color=blue][color=green]
>>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?[/color]
>
> 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.
>[/color]

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

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> 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?[/color]
>>
>> I'm pretty sure it can. I'm also pretty sure SQL 7 doesn't support
>> named instances.[/color]
>
>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.)[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>And, yes, he is an utter idiot.
>>>> My sympathies.
>>>Thanks. Fortunately the project manager realizes this, so that's helpful.[/color]
>>
>> Let us hope he doesn't monitor Google groups <smile>[/color]
>
>Eh, it wouldn't be anything he doesn't already know. ;-)[/color]

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

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>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.[/color]

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

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:v1mGf.2620$UF1.1591@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...[color=blue]
> 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?[/color]

For the most part, it does not come into play. I suppose trying to turn on
themes in a2002 would cause a trappable error.

Further, in a multi version environment and a multi-user environment, I
would still deploy a mde file to each user. This thus assumes a split
database.....

I do speak about splitting in the following article on how to run ms-access
in a multi-user environment.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKal...plit/index.htm

I should also note that even when I develop, or work on a clients database
in a2000 format (and they are using a2000), I STRONGLY recommend that you
decompile the mdb file BEFORE deploying to the clients machine..and then
re-compile on their machine (there is some compile binary differences...and
thus you need to still take MUCH care as to deploying on target computers).

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

> 2) If A2002 and A2003 share the same file format, and if the db is in that[color=blue]
> 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?[/color]

because you can ONLY create a MDE file in with the version of ms-access that
you have.

So, a2002 can ONLY create a mde for 2002, and a2000 can only create a mde
for a2000.

Apparently, people have noted that a 2002, or 2003 mde will work with the
a2003 runtime system...(but, I have not verified this myself).

You don't *have* to use a mde with the runtime..but as general development
approach, you should always distribute a mde file to the end users.

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

"Albert D.Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>because you can ONLY create a MDE file in with the version of ms-access that
>you have.
>
>So, a2002 can ONLY create a mde for 2002, and a2000 can only create a mde
>for a2000.[/color]

Someone, somewhere is selling a $15 utility which can do this. I
suspect they've managed to figure out the syscmds function all.
[color=blue]
>Apparently, people have noted that a 2002, or 2003 mde will work with the
>a2003 runtime system...(but, I have not verified this myself).[/color]

As should an A2000 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

We are distributing an A2000 mde to A2003 installations.
It works well now, but it didn't seem to work at first.

Either we were just unlucky at first, (possible) or else
subsequent service packs have harmonised the A2000 and
A2003 PC's.

(david)

"Albert D.Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com> wrote in message
news:OOPpGBbLGHA.208@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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?[/color]
>
> because you can ONLY create a MDE file in with the version of ms-access
> that you have.
>
> So, a2002 can ONLY create a mde for 2002, and a2000 can only create a mde
> for a2000.
>
> Apparently, people have noted that a 2002, or 2003 mde will work with the
> a2003 runtime system...(but, I have not verified this myself).
>
> You don't *have* to use a mde with the runtime..but as general
> development approach, you should always distribute a mde file to the end
> users.
>
> --
> Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
> pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal
>
>[/color]

> Is a gross overstatement.

....It's possible that I just had an unrelated failure. it
stopped working for me when I installed the patch, and
it worked again when I repaired the registry entry.

Can you confirm that this works for you? (using any existing
table at the end of the string)

codedb.execute "select * into [Excel 8.0;DATABASE=c:\tmp.xls].[fred] from
myTable"

(david)

"George Nicholson" <JunkGeorgeN@msn.com> wrote in message
news:un$HF9OLGHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> .....Access cannot write to Excel?[/color]
> 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,
> --
> George Nicholson
>
> Remove 'Junk' from return address.
>
>
> "GH" <borgcollective1b@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139423447.052057.152350@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...[color=green]
>> 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
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

> SQL Server 7 will install in parallel with SQL Server 2000 and 2005 on[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

OK, good to know. Thanks.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>>And, yes, he is an utter idiot.
>>>>> My sympathies.
>>>>Thanks. Fortunately the project manager realizes this, so that's
>>>>helpful.
>>>
>>> Let us hope he doesn't monitor Google groups <smile>[/color]
>>
>>Eh, it wouldn't be anything he doesn't already know. ;-)[/color]
>
> By he I meant the IT person not the project manager.[/color]

Yes, that's who I meant too. I'm sure he already knows he's an utter idiot.
:-)

N

OK, thanks.

"Tony Toews" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:cn0nu1t8q6ohspfidpcgl6b9akdajpd4tr@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> "Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>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.[/color]
>
> 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[/color]

George,

Thanks for the additional information. Linked Excel versus exporting
or writing to Excel in general are not quite the same thing, so I guess
my projects are good for now. We build all kinds of Excel
spreadsheets, but we don't use linked Excel "tables" to do so. I also
appreciate the links to Microsoft's articles on the changes.

- GH

I have been asked about this at work. I'm a little confused. Some
places say that only linking to an excel spreadsheet causes the
problem, but elsewhere it says specially linked to a named range in an
spreadsheet.

My Access version is SP3, Version 10.6501.6626. I created an excel
spreadsheet with a named range, linked to it from Access 2002 (Access
2000 file format) and was able to update the information in the named
range no problem.

What am I missing I wonder?

Joel

George Nicholson wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > .....Access cannot write to Excel?[/color]
> 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,
> --
> George Nicholson
>
> Remove 'Junk' from return address.[/color]

What you would appear to be missing is KB904018, as mentioned in the article
to which George pointed you.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)

<GiveMeChocolate@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140114587.737817.200400@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...[color=blue]
> I have been asked about this at work. I'm a little confused. Some
> places say that only linking to an excel spreadsheet causes the
> problem, but elsewhere it says specially linked to a named range in an
> spreadsheet.
>
> My Access version is SP3, Version 10.6501.6626. I created an excel
> spreadsheet with a named range, linked to it from Access 2002 (Access
> 2000 file format) and was able to update the information in the named
> range no problem.
>
> What am I missing I wonder?
>
> Joel
>
>
> George Nicholson wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > .....Access cannot write to Excel?[/color]
> > Is a gross overstatement. It only involves the updating of spreadsheets[/color][/color]
that[color=blue][color=green]
> > are set up as linked tables within Access, and even then the limitation[/color][/color]
is[color=blue][color=green]
> > 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[/color][/color]
make[color=blue][color=green]
> > 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[/color][/color]
27[color=blue][color=green]
> > 2005)
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/904018/ Access 2002/XP update (dated[/color][/color]
Oct 18[color=blue][color=green]
> > 2005)
> >
> > Anyone with Automatic Updates activated has been living with this for
> > several months.
> >
> > HTH,
> > --
> > George Nicholson
> >
> > Remove 'Junk' from return address.[/color]
>[/color]

Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

re: Access 2002 vs. 2003

Similar Microsoft Access / VBA bytes

/bytes/development

/bytes/it

/bytes/about