Upgrading to Office 2003

[Aidan Tobin]

Hi,

I have to upgrade a number of databases from Access 2.0, Access 97 and
Access 2000 to work in Office 2003. These databases contain a number
of Forms coded with VBA as well as a number of Queries/Macros.

The Microsoft web site says that Office 2003 will open databases
created in these versions.

However i have in the past upgraded databases from access 2.0 to 97
and have encountered problems with the VBA code, and i have used the
built in tools for some simple databases to upgrade to 2000 from 97
but these ones are more complex so i may not have encountered all the
problems, and i have never upgraded to Office 2003

Does anyone know of any issues with upgrading from these version's to
Office 2003

Thanks in Advance

Aidan Tobin

[Trevor Best]

David W. Fenton wrote:

He would still have to upgrade his 2.0 & 97 databases to 2000
format to avoid all the dialogs and long load times of opening
such in either 2K, 2K2 or 2K3.

Naturally. But the question is whether to upgrade to the absolute
latest format or to one that's cross-version compatible. Seems like
a no-brainer to me, especially since upgraded MDBs couldn't possibly
be using any of the features possible only in the post-A2K file
formats.

Seems to me to be his company policy to get everyone on the same version
(Aidan care to comment?). If that's the case then cross platform
compatibility would not be a requirement in this case.
I think the fact that they have settled on a base format that they
support in all versions is a very good thing. It looks like an
advantage that means you could get by without having to upgrade
everyone just because you can no longer purchase new machines with
the version 1 or 2 behind the currently selling ones (assuming you
don't have a site license, of course, as none of my clients do,
since they are all too small to justify it).

Until something as radical as Rushmore or native 64 bit Access comes
along :-)

--
Error reading sig - A)bort R)etry I)nfluence with large hammer

[David W. Fenton]

Trevor Best <nospam@localho st> wrote in
news:40******** *************** @auth.uk.news.e asynet.net:

David W. Fenton wrote:

He would still have to upgrade his 2.0 & 97 databases to 2000
format to avoid all the dialogs and long load times of opening
such in either 2K, 2K2 or 2K3.

Naturally. But the question is whether to upgrade to the absolute
latest format or to one that's cross-version compatible. Seems
like a no-brainer to me, especially since upgraded MDBs couldn't
possibly be using any of the features possible only in the
post-A2K file formats.

Seems to me to be his company policy to get everyone on the same
version (Aidan care to comment?). If that's the case then cross
platform compatibility would not be a requirement in this case.

Well, maybe not everyone is upgrading (perhaps only those who use
Access).

Perhaps there are developers involved who could more easily support
A2K than A2K3.

I just don't see the downside.

I think the fact that they have settled on a base format that
they support in all versions is a very good thing. It looks like
an advantage that means you could get by without having to
upgrade everyone just because you can no longer purchase new
machines with the version 1 or 2 behind the currently selling
ones (assuming you don't have a site license, of course, as none
of my clients do, since they are all too small to justify it).

Until something as radical as Rushmore or native 64 bit Access
comes along :-)

I strongly doubt that a 64-bit Access would provide any advantage
whatsoever over 32-bit Access, just by virtue of being 64-bit.

Yes, naturally, if there's actually something in a new version of
Access that justifies the upgrade, yes, upgrade to that version.

But in this case, the version under consideration is A2K3, which
offers nothing whatsoever over A2K2 in features of use to anyone at
all (except marketing people).

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