473,320 Members | 1,713 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

upgrade to Access 2002 or 2003?

I've built all of my apps in Access 97, but I think it's time I moved
to some newer technology (a little late to the web app game...) so I'm
considering an upgrade. Any reason not to go straight to 2003 and
skip 2000/2002? Will Access 2003 create issues for clients that are
still running Win98/2000? What else do I need to consider?

Any guidance would be helpful

thanks-
jeff
Nov 12 '05 #1
15 4119
TC
There's been some talk recently that you can not open a 2003 db (containing
VBA) seamlessly, unless you provide a digital certificate!

I for one will not be going within 50 miles of 2003, until I know more about
*that* one.

HTH,
TC
"Jeff Keller" <jk********@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c5**************************@posting.google.c om...
I've built all of my apps in Access 97, but I think it's time I moved
to some newer technology (a little late to the web app game...) so I'm
considering an upgrade. Any reason not to go straight to 2003 and
skip 2000/2002? Will Access 2003 create issues for clients that are
still running Win98/2000? What else do I need to consider?

Any guidance would be helpful

thanks-
jeff

Nov 12 '05 #2
"TC" wrote
There's been some talk recently that
you can not open a 2003 db (containing
VBA) seamlessly, unless you provide a
digital certificate!
You can set macro security (new) to "Low" and you won't be any less secure
than you have been since Access 1.0. Or you can use a "selfcert" to certify
your own databases, if you aren't in the business and need to certify with a
public certificate.

And, if it isn't "signed" and you haven't set macro security to "Low", all
it does is give you a message box telling you that if it has VBA it could do
damage.
I for one will not be going within
50 miles of 2003, until I know more
about *that* one.


But, if you don't need improved collaboration features in a corporate
setting and/or improved XML, then there's little compelling reason to change
from Access 2002. There are some modest improvements for the individual user
and small organization, but nothing earthshaking.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
Nov 12 '05 #3

"Jeff Keller" <jk********@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c5**************************@posting.google.c om...
I've built all of my apps in Access 97, but I think it's time I moved
to some newer technology (a little late to the web app game...) so I'm
considering an upgrade. Any reason not to go straight to 2003 and
skip 2000/2002? Will Access 2003 create issues for clients that are
still running Win98/2000? What else do I need to consider?

Any guidance would be helpful

thanks-
jeff


According to Larry Linson, you should stick with Access 97. None of the
Access 2K series works properly.

Paul
Nov 12 '05 #4
RE/
What else do I need to consider?


I develop in both 97 and 2k.

If I had my druthers, I'd to it all in 97 because 97 is quicker/easier to work
with from moment-to-moment. A2k seems to want to save everything whenever I
change the least little thing.
--
PeteCresswell
Nov 12 '05 #5
fp
I reported quite a while ago that XML and moving to .Net was central to
Access 2003.

As far as XP (2002) goes, you can develop for 97, 2000 and 2002. I like
AccessXP quite a bit as it fixed a lot of problems with 2002.

Now, here is your choice. You can go with 2003 and keep it for quite a
while, probably the same with 2002. If you stick with 97, you can probably
use it for quite a while also. For me, I always go with the latest version
when I purchase. The simple reason is I can always use older versions that I
have but I may run across the client that wants the newer version. If that
happens then I have an advantage that my competition does not.

--
******************************
Fred Parker
Lynn Consulting Group, L.L.C.
http://www.lynnconsultinggroup.com
******************************
Nov 12 '05 #6
TC
Larry, as for the certificates issue, say a user has set the new security
levels (whatever they are) to high. What (in summary) does the developer
need to do to ensure that his db product can be opened without any warnings?
Is that the "self cert" thing? What (roughly) is involved in terms of the
process, cost & complexity?

TIA,
TC
Larry Linson <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote in message
news:dc****************@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"TC" wrote
> There's been some talk recently that
> you can not open a 2003 db (containing
> VBA) seamlessly, unless you provide a
> digital certificate!
You can set macro security (new) to "Low" and you won't be any less secure
than you have been since Access 1.0. Or you can use a "selfcert" to

certify your own databases, if you aren't in the business and need to certify with a public certificate.

And, if it isn't "signed" and you haven't set macro security to "Low", all
it does is give you a message box telling you that if it has VBA it could do damage.
> I for one will not be going within
> 50 miles of 2003, until I know more
> about *that* one.
But, if you don't need improved collaboration features in a corporate
setting and/or improved XML, then there's little compelling reason to

change from Access 2002. There are some modest improvements for the individual user and small organization, but nothing earthshaking.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

Nov 12 '05 #7
et****************@hotmail.com (fp) wrote in
<fP*****************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>:
As far as XP (2002) goes, you can develop for 97, 2000 and 2002. I
like AccessXP quite a bit as it fixed a lot of problems with 2002.


Eh?

The version of Access in Office XP was Access 2002. There is no
such standalone product as Access XP.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #8
I don't think self-cert is sufficient if you are distributing the product. I
think you have to purchase/license from a vendor of that service.

That assuredly means that people are just going to have to live with a
message on the free stuff that I distribute. Unless, of course, some vendor
thought that it'd be such good advertising for me to use their product that
they'd provide it for me free. I'm afraid my lack of "star power" eliminates
that as a possibility.

I don't know what the certification service costs, because I don't do
general distribution. All my "paying work" is either consulting or "bespoke"
systems done for specific clients.

But, if I were to expand to address a more general, multi-customer market,
then it appears that I'd be forced to investigate. It would just be a
necessary cost of doing business and like all such costs, would affect my
cost/price/ROI calculations.

Larry Linson

"TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote in message news:1068253295.193449@teuthos...
Larry, as for the certificates issue, say a user has set the new security
levels (whatever they are) to high. What (in summary) does the developer
need to do to ensure that his db product can be opened without any warnings? Is that the "self cert" thing? What (roughly) is involved in terms of the
process, cost & complexity?

TIA,
TC
Larry Linson <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote in message
news:dc****************@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"TC" wrote
> There's been some talk recently that
> you can not open a 2003 db (containing
> VBA) seamlessly, unless you provide a
> digital certificate!
You can set macro security (new) to "Low" and you won't be any less secure than you have been since Access 1.0. Or you can use a "selfcert" to

certify
your own databases, if you aren't in the business and need to certify with a
public certificate.

And, if it isn't "signed" and you haven't set macro security to "Low",
all it does is give you a message box telling you that if it has VBA it

could do
damage.
> I for one will not be going within
> 50 miles of 2003, until I know more
> about *that* one.


But, if you don't need improved collaboration features in a corporate
setting and/or improved XML, then there's little compelling reason to

change
from Access 2002. There are some modest improvements for the individual

user
and small organization, but nothing earthshaking.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP


Nov 12 '05 #9
"Paul Ryan" wrote
According to Larry Linson, you should
stick with Access 97. None of the
Access 2K series works properly.


Paul Ryan = Don P Mellon.

Larry Linson has said no such thing -- in fact, I've said that Access 2002
is a marked improvement over Access 2000, which finally is a lot more stable
after 3 Service Packs (more than any other version of Access, ever), and
Access 2003 does not seem to have suffered the usual
one-good-release-one-bad-release curse.

Larry Linson
Nov 12 '05 #10

"Paul Ryan" <no****@any.net> wrote in message
news:e2******************************@news.teranew s.com...

"Jeff Keller" <jk********@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c5**************************@posting.google.c om...
I've built all of my apps in Access 97, but I think it's time I moved
to some newer technology (a little late to the web app game...) so I'm
considering an upgrade. Any reason not to go straight to 2003 and
skip 2000/2002? Will Access 2003 create issues for clients that are
still running Win98/2000? What else do I need to consider?

Any guidance would be helpful

thanks-
jeff


According to Larry Linson, you should stick with Access 97. None of the
Access 2K series works properly.

Paul

Good one. AFAIK, Larry hasn't built anything in years.

--NML

Nov 12 '05 #11
fp
Sorry, I meant to say AXP fixed some problems in A2K.

--
Nov 12 '05 #12
"Nicolas M. Leary" wrote
Good one.


Patting yourself on the back again, I see, Don.

Nov 12 '05 #13
fp
Hasn't this guy gone away yet?

--
******************************
Fred Parker
Lynn Consulting Group, L.L.C.
http://www.lynnconsultinggroup.com
******************************
Nov 12 '05 #14

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote in message
news:ZB*****************@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Nicolas M. Leary" wrote
> Good one.


Patting yourself on the back again, I see, Don.

???
Nov 12 '05 #15
"Don P Mellon" <8b****@earthlink.com> wrote
???


!!!
Nov 12 '05 #16

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

2
by: Tappy Tibbons | last post by:
Have many of you upgraded to VS 2003? We have been using Visual Studio 2002, and are somewhat satisfied, except for the following areas: Speed - VS2002 apps are dead dog slow to start up, and...
1
by: Ray | last post by:
I bought/installed the upgrade to Visual Studio .Net Professional 2003 (from 2002). I was surprised that it did not appear to uninstall (or overlay) my old version (2002) of Visual Studio .Net...
2
by: DonLi | last post by:
Hi, I have a copy of Access 97 while my client uses Access 2000 which supports Unicode. My client has ordered a copy of Access 2000 upgrade for me, but the middleman, atomicpark.com is totally...
20
by: Stephan Golux | last post by:
It seems I have run afoul of an unfixable and acknowledged bug in my beloved access 97 which has no workaround other than to upgrade. Current supported upgrades are 2002 and 2003. 2003 appears...
47
by: ship | last post by:
Hi We need some advice: We are thinking of upgrading our Access database from Access 2000 to Access 2004. How stable is MS Office 2003? (particularly Access 2003). We are just a small...
36
by: Tim | last post by:
Is there a way to upgrade from Visual C++ Net 2002 to Visual C++ Net 2003? The 2002 version does not provide a Windows Forms Designer. I can't find any upgrade package on Microsoft's website. ...
2
by: Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] | last post by:
Hello, There are often questions in this newsgroup posted by VS.NET 2002 users. VS.NET 2002 is "out of date", its successor is VS.NET 2003. There is a special ("cheap") upgrade offer available...
4
by: MadCrazyNewbie | last post by:
Hey Group, I have a VB6 Project im trying to use with VB.Net, It lets me open it and the Upgrade Wizard Launches I click next Select EXE and Click Next Again, the it errors with: "Upgrade...
9
by: Don | last post by:
I've continued to use Access 97 all these years because (1) it does everything I need quickly and (2) most of what I've read online indicates that it's still the most bug-free version of Access. ...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.