Reasons to convert from Access 2000 to XP or 2003?

[Richard W Collens]

Hi Folks,

Just wondering if there is any real need to convert an application from 2000
or XP to 2003, if the application is not going to grow or change. Ive had a
couple people ask about it (converting to 2003) but I can't see a reason
they should other than their IT manager want's to buy new stuff.

Any help or opinion would be great

Thanks!
Rick

[Rick Brandt]

Richard W Collens wrote:

Hi Folks,

Just wondering if there is any real need to convert an application
from 2000 or XP to 2003, if the application is not going to grow or
change. Ive had a couple people ask about it (converting to 2003)
but I can't see a reason they should other than their IT manager
want's to buy new stuff.

You would have to look at the "What's New?" page for both of those versions and
see if anything looks compelling. My guess is you won't find anything.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Allen Browne]

If your application is doing what you need, there is no need to change for
the sake of change.

If you are still developing applications, you would find A2003 more stable
and it is easier to find things in help. You also lose some things by moving
to A2003, e.g. it won't run on Win98 machines.

It is important that you have SP3 for Office 2000 and SP8 for JET 4. Both
are available from support.microso ft.com. Other than that, there is no
reason to change unless you need some of the new stuff such as XML support.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Richard W Collens" <rc************ **@hemmingway.c om> wrote in message
news:WTLXd.6233 71$8l.154789@pd 7tw1no...

Just wondering if there is any real need to convert an application from
2000 or XP to 2003, if the application is not going to grow or change.
Ive had a couple people ask about it (converting to 2003) but I can't see
a reason they should other than their IT manager want's to buy new stuff.

[David W. Fenton]

"Allen Browne" <Al*********@Se eSig.Invalid> wrote in
news:42******** *************** @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au :

It is important that you have SP3 for Office 2000 and SP8 for JET
4. Both are available from support.microso ft.com. Other than that,
there is no reason to change unless you need some of the new stuff
such as XML support.

I would say that you need at least SR1 of Office 2K for Access to be
stable -- you don't need anything later, and SP3 includes the
Draconian email fix for Outlook, that disables most common file
attachments. I've found that many of my clients don't want that and
therefore won't install SP3, so I never recommend it, only SR1 or
highter.

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

[J. Clay]

The one new feature that I have used quite a bit in A2k2 and 2k3 is the
Application.Pri nters functionality. I use this to change printers to our
pdf printer in order to send reports via email as a pdf.

Jim
"Richard W Collens" <rc************ **@hemmingway.c om> wrote in message
news:WTLXd.6233 71$8l.154789@pd 7tw1no...

Hi Folks,

Just wondering if there is any real need to convert an application from 2000 or XP to 2003, if the application is not going to grow or change. Ive had a couple people ask about it (converting to 2003) but I can't see a reason
they should other than their IT manager want's to buy new stuff.

Any help or opinion would be great

Thanks!
Rick

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[pietlinden]

J. Clay wrote:

The one new feature that I have used quite a bit in A2k2 and 2k3 is the Application.Pri nters functionality. I use this to change printers to our pdf printer in order to send reports via email as a pdf.

Jim

but if you have a copy of the Access Developer's Handbook, there's code
in there that handles the printers for you. I *think* it's on Tony
Toews's website as well, though.

[Bri]

pi********@hotm ail.com wrote:

J. Clay wrote:

The one new feature that I have used quite a bit in A2k2 and 2k3 is
the Application.Pri nters functionality. I use this to change
printers to our pdf printer in order to send reports via email as a
pdf.

Jim

but if you have a copy of the Access Developer's Handbook, there's
code in there that handles the printers for you. I *think* it's on
Tony Toews's website as well, though.

The code required to 'handle' printers prior to Application.Pri nters is
large cumbersome and complicated. I have used this code and it is very
problematic. One of the biggest problems is that it doesn't actually
allow you to assign a specific printer to print to. What it actually
does is to change the Default Printer to your alternate printer, then
you print your Report, then change the Default Printer back to what it
was originally. If anything goes wrong in here, you can be left with the
Default Printer set to the alternate printer, or in some cases (don't
know how it happened, but it did) with no Default Printer set.

Bottom line, Application.Pri nters and Conditional Formatting are the
only things I find compelling about any of the post AC97 versions. I
just wish that they didn't also come with all of the other problems they
have that AC97 doesn't have (list to long and OT to list here).

--
Bri

[Tony Toews]

"Richard W Collens" <rc************ **@hemmingway.c om> wrote:

Just wondering if there is any real need to convert an application from 2000
or XP to 2003, if the application is not going to grow or change. Ive had a
couple people ask about it (converting to 2003) but I can't see a reason
they should other than their IT manager want's to buy new stuff.

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.

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

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

I also see lots of flags for the label controls in the headers. They're a bit of a
pain but they are also easily ignored.

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

[Allen Browne]

Tony, you probably know you can configure A2003 to ignore old unassociated
labels via:
Tools | Options | Error Checking
Set:
Unassociated label and controls unchecked
New unassociated labels checked

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Tony Toews" <tt****@teluspl anet.net> wrote in message
news:ih******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

"Richard W Collens" <rc************ **@hemmingway.c om> wrote:

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.

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

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

I also see lots of flags for the label controls in the headers. They're
a bit of a
pain but they are also easily ignored.

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

[Tony Toews]

"Allen Browne" <Al*********@Se eSig.Invalid> wrote:

Tony, you probably know you can configure A2003 to ignore old unassociated
labels via:
Tools | Options | Error Checking
Set:
Unassociated label and controls unchecked
New unassociated labels checked

Oh sure. But frequently I do want to see them. And it's not like the tiny black
triangle in the corner of the label is troublesome.

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