By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,473 Members | 3,504 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,473 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Reasons for upgrading to Access 2003??? Backwards compatibility with 2002?

P: n/a
When I ordered my new laptop, Sony didn't offer Access 2003 in its bundles.
Recently, I have begun to design Access databases using an copy of Access
2002 from my previous laptop. It works fine, but I would like to have all
the office apps on the same version. So I have a few questions:
1) Is the file format the same as 2002? Can 2002 users read 2003 files?

2) What are the major reasons for upgrading to 2002 ?
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
13 Replies


P: n/a
On 06 Feb 2004 16:51:42 EST in comp.databases.ms-access, "Noesis
Strategy" <no****@nomail.com> wrote:
When I ordered my new laptop, Sony didn't offer Access 2003 in its bundles.
Recently, I have begun to design Access databases using an copy of Access
2002 from my previous laptop. It works fine, but I would like to have all
the office apps on the same version. So I have a few questions:
1) Is the file format the same as 2002? Can 2002 users read 2003 files?
I'm not sure, I have 2003 somewhere but no time to look at it, I would
assume at least the same level of backward compatability as 2002 gives
in that you can at least save as an earlier version. MS did promise
that Jet 4.0 and later would not change file format so all versions
could read all versions but alas 2000 can't open a 2002 format file.
2) What are the major reasons for upgrading to 2002 ?


Do you mean 2002 or 2003?

A lot of people I know will choose the version "MS -1" so that
whatever MS has as the current version, they use the one before it,
this is to give the latest version time to mature and stabilize in the
hands of others, there's an old saying "The pioneers are the ones with
arrows in their backs". I also know of consultancy companies that
stick to this rule 100%, I wouldn't want them to consult for me as
this shows a lack of knowledge of product quality and IMHO consultancy
in general, any fool could give that level of consultancy, you could
buy the book that they read for less than their fees and get the same
level of advice.

There has been in the past, a pattern to some MS products where a
release cycle went bad-good-bad-good, e.g. Windows 95 releases, the
base was bad, a was better, b not so good, c was better, interestingly
the Knight Rider style boot screen went in different directions on
each release, perhaps leaning toward the good or the bad :-)

The same sort of thing happened with Access:

1 bad so I hear (I didn't start until 2)
2 - good - brilliant compared to 1 - introduced rushmore as well.
95 bad -wouldn't pee on it if it was on fire - never improved
97 good - considered the bugfix for 95
2000 bad -started really bad but improved a bit
2002 good -I would consider a bugfix for 2000

2003? Following the pattern, should be bad, the MS -1 philosophy works
for this version, the same wouldn't for some previous ones. Personally
I would hang around here and see who ends up like the areforementioned
pioneers, there was a time when I always wanted to use the latest and
greatest, etc but experience has taught me otherwise.

I backed off 95 before it was too late, I wish I could say the same
for 2000, got burnt on that one.

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.
Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
I did in fact mean upgrading to 2003.

The user interface looks very dated on 2002. While this may seem minor,
getting users to adopt our new knowledge management procedures entails
having a user interface that draws them to the system. I was hoping 2003
had an improved appearance.
"Trevor Best" <bouncer@localhost> wrote in message
news:rp********************************@4ax.com...
On 06 Feb 2004 16:51:42 EST in comp.databases.ms-access, "Noesis
Strategy" <no****@nomail.com> wrote:
When I ordered my new laptop, Sony didn't offer Access 2003 in its bundles.Recently, I have begun to design Access databases using an copy of Access
2002 from my previous laptop. It works fine, but I would like to have allthe office apps on the same version. So I have a few questions:
1) Is the file format the same as 2002? Can 2002 users read 2003 files?


I'm not sure, I have 2003 somewhere but no time to look at it, I would
assume at least the same level of backward compatability as 2002 gives
in that you can at least save as an earlier version. MS did promise
that Jet 4.0 and later would not change file format so all versions
could read all versions but alas 2000 can't open a 2002 format file.
2) What are the major reasons for upgrading to 2002 ?


Do you mean 2002 or 2003?

A lot of people I know will choose the version "MS -1" so that
whatever MS has as the current version, they use the one before it,
this is to give the latest version time to mature and stabilize in the
hands of others, there's an old saying "The pioneers are the ones with
arrows in their backs". I also know of consultancy companies that
stick to this rule 100%, I wouldn't want them to consult for me as
this shows a lack of knowledge of product quality and IMHO consultancy
in general, any fool could give that level of consultancy, you could
buy the book that they read for less than their fees and get the same
level of advice.

There has been in the past, a pattern to some MS products where a
release cycle went bad-good-bad-good, e.g. Windows 95 releases, the
base was bad, a was better, b not so good, c was better, interestingly
the Knight Rider style boot screen went in different directions on
each release, perhaps leaning toward the good or the bad :-)

The same sort of thing happened with Access:

1 bad so I hear (I didn't start until 2)
2 - good - brilliant compared to 1 - introduced rushmore as well.
95 bad -wouldn't pee on it if it was on fire - never improved
97 good - considered the bugfix for 95
2000 bad -started really bad but improved a bit
2002 good -I would consider a bugfix for 2000

2003? Following the pattern, should be bad, the MS -1 philosophy works
for this version, the same wouldn't for some previous ones. Personally
I would hang around here and see who ends up like the areforementioned
pioneers, there was a time when I always wanted to use the latest and
greatest, etc but experience has taught me otherwise.

I backed off 95 before it was too late, I wish I could say the same
for 2000, got burnt on that one.

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.

Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
The Help interface of Access 2003 is not nearly as user-friendly as in
Access 2002. The "improvements in security" have proven to be more of an
irritant than an actual improvement in security (does it really help you to
have to click to open every database that isn't "electronically signed",
even your own, because "this database may contain code that can do
damage"?). Other than that, there are some improvments, most of them
office-wide, not Access-specific, to collaboration, and corporate and
enterprise tools (e.g., the interface to SharePoint).

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
"Noesis Strategy" <no**@none.com> wrote in message
news:40***********************@news.rcn.com...
I did in fact mean upgrading to 2003.

The user interface looks very dated on 2002. While this may seem minor,
getting users to adopt our new knowledge management procedures entails
having a user interface that draws them to the system. I was hoping 2003
had an improved appearance.
"Trevor Best" <bouncer@localhost> wrote in message
news:rp********************************@4ax.com...
On 06 Feb 2004 16:51:42 EST in comp.databases.ms-access, "Noesis
Strategy" <no****@nomail.com> wrote:
When I ordered my new laptop, Sony didn't offer Access 2003 in its bundles.Recently, I have begun to design Access databases using an copy of Access2002 from my previous laptop. It works fine, but I would like to have allthe office apps on the same version. So I have a few questions:
1) Is the file format the same as 2002? Can 2002 users read 2003
files?
I'm not sure, I have 2003 somewhere but no time to look at it, I would
assume at least the same level of backward compatability as 2002 gives
in that you can at least save as an earlier version. MS did promise
that Jet 4.0 and later would not change file format so all versions
could read all versions but alas 2000 can't open a 2002 format file.
2) What are the major reasons for upgrading to 2002 ?


Do you mean 2002 or 2003?

A lot of people I know will choose the version "MS -1" so that
whatever MS has as the current version, they use the one before it,
this is to give the latest version time to mature and stabilize in the
hands of others, there's an old saying "The pioneers are the ones with
arrows in their backs". I also know of consultancy companies that
stick to this rule 100%, I wouldn't want them to consult for me as
this shows a lack of knowledge of product quality and IMHO consultancy
in general, any fool could give that level of consultancy, you could
buy the book that they read for less than their fees and get the same
level of advice.

There has been in the past, a pattern to some MS products where a
release cycle went bad-good-bad-good, e.g. Windows 95 releases, the
base was bad, a was better, b not so good, c was better, interestingly
the Knight Rider style boot screen went in different directions on
each release, perhaps leaning toward the good or the bad :-)

The same sort of thing happened with Access:

1 bad so I hear (I didn't start until 2)
2 - good - brilliant compared to 1 - introduced rushmore as well.
95 bad -wouldn't pee on it if it was on fire - never improved
97 good - considered the bugfix for 95
2000 bad -started really bad but improved a bit
2002 good -I would consider a bugfix for 2000

2003? Following the pattern, should be bad, the MS -1 philosophy works
for this version, the same wouldn't for some previous ones. Personally
I would hang around here and see who ends up like the areforementioned
pioneers, there was a time when I always wanted to use the latest and
greatest, etc but experience has taught me otherwise.

I backed off 95 before it was too late, I wish I could say the same
for 2000, got burnt on that one.

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.


Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:14:57 GMT in comp.databases.ms-access, "Larry
Linson" <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote:
The Help interface of Access 2003 is not nearly as user-friendly as in
Access 2002. The "improvements in security" have proven to be more of an
irritant than an actual improvement in security (does it really help you to
have to click to open every database that isn't "electronically signed",
even your own, because "this database may contain code that can do
damage"?). Other than that, there are some improvments, most of them
office-wide, not Access-specific, to collaboration, and corporate and
enterprise tools (e.g., the interface to SharePoint).


Now you mention it Larry, I do remember this irritating security thing
akin to opening a word or Excel doc with macros, any way to turn it
off so I'll know where to go next time I look at it?

Even better, how to electronically sign an app, I can't imagine how
I'd distribute an application in 2003 if it presented every user with
a question like this, it's bad enough sending people an attachment and
their mail program warns them that some files contain viruses, they
then mail be back and ask why I sent them a virus, arrrrrrg!

<rant>
I find more and more MS apps are getting too namby pamby, the other
day I went to edit a login script on a DC, the files in c:\winnt were
hidden, click her to show files, etc, ferchrissakes I'm logged into a
server as an administrator, stop treating me like a plebe.
</rant>

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.
Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
Trevor Best previously wrote:

Now you mention it Larry, I do remember this irritating security thing
akin to opening a word or Excel doc with macros, any way to turn it
off so I'll know where to go next time I look at it
For your own machine you can set security level to low as in Excel.
Or you can say that you trust your own apps (I.e on your own machine)
Even better, how to electronically sign an app, I can't imagine how
I'd distribute an application in 2003 if it presented every user with
a question like this, it's bad enough sending people an attachment and
their mail program warns them that some files contain viruses, they
then mail be back and ask why I sent them a virus, arrrrrrg!


AIUI No way round this.
Either the user puts up with not-trusted messages or you buy an electronic
certificate from one of the trusted sources (having proved to them that
you CAN be trusted and paying them 200 dollars for the privilege)which the
user can say is trusted.

Peter Russell

Nov 12 '05 #6

P: n/a
ru***@127.0.0.1 (Peter Russell) wrote in
news:me**********************@russellscott.btinter net.com:
Trevor Best previously wrote:

Even better, how to electronically sign an app, I can't imagine
how I'd distribute an application in 2003 if it presented every
user with a question like this, it's bad enough sending people an
attachment and their mail program warns them that some files
contain viruses, they then mail be back and ask why I sent them a
virus, arrrrrrg!


AIUI No way round this.
Either the user puts up with not-trusted messages or you buy an
electronic certificate from one of the trusted sources (having
proved to them that you CAN be trusted and paying them 200 dollars
for the privilege)which the user can say is trusted.


What do those cost, and how long do they last before you have to pay
again?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #7

P: n/a
As an update I have come across this article:
http://office.microsoft.com/assistan...HP010397921033
&CTT=98
If you click on the ShowAll option on this page there is some info near
the bottom which provides a way of starting Access without the warnings,
using an automation script.

Certificates from Thawte or Verisign cost 399/400 dollars for 2 years.

Peter Russell


David W. Fenton previously wrote:
ru***@127.0.0.1 (Peter Russell) wrote in
news:me**********************@russellscott.btinter net.com:
Trevor Best previously wrote:

Even better, how to electronically sign an app, I can't imagine
how I'd distribute an application in 2003 if it presented every
user with a question like this, it's bad enough sending people an
attachment and their mail program warns them that some files
contain viruses, they then mail be back and ask why I sent them a
virus, arrrrrrg!


AIUI No way round this.
Either the user puts up with not-trusted messages or you buy an
electronic certificate from one of the trusted sources (having
proved to them that you CAN be trusted and paying them 200 dollars
for the privilege)which the user can say is trusted.


What do those cost, and how long do they last before you have to pay
again?

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


Nov 12 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:23 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) in
comp.databases.ms-access, ru***@127.0.0.1 (Peter Russell) wrote:

[electronic sigs]
AIUI No way round this.
Either the user puts up with not-trusted messages or you buy an electronic
certificate from one of the trusted sources (having proved to them that
you CAN be trusted and paying them 200 dollars for the privilege)which the
user can say is trusted.


Cheers Peter.

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.
Nov 12 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:08:14 GMT in comp.databases.ms-access, "David
W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

[electronic sigs for Access app]
What do those cost, and how long do they last before you have to pay
again?


I would assume one would last for the life of the application so once
rolled into an MDE it won't expire as the MDE shouldn't change
although I expect your right to put it into an updated one will expire
(these companies wouldn't stay in business long if it didn't, bit like
selling ever lasting light bulbs).

--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.
Nov 12 '05 #10

P: n/a
ru***@127.0.0.1 (Peter Russell) wrote in
news:me**********************@russellscott.btinter net.com:
As an update I have come across this article:
http://office.microsoft.com/assistan...ssetID=HP01039
7921033 &CTT=98
If you click on the ShowAll option on this page there is some info
near the bottom which provides a way of starting Access without
the warnings, using an automation script.
So, in order to avoid the security warning, they recommend using a
VBScript, executed by the Windows Scripting Host?

And they have the nerve to call this *security*?

Pretty clearly, MS is forcing digital rights management on all of
us.

I think it's pretty clear to me I won't be using that version of
Access for anything, ever.
Certificates from Thawte or Verisign cost 399/400 dollars for 2
years.


Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #11

P: n/a
Trevor Best <bouncer@localhost> wrote in
news:1b********************************@4ax.com:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:08:14 GMT in comp.databases.ms-access,
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

[electronic sigs for Access app]
What do those cost, and how long do they last before you have to
pay again?


I would assume one would last for the life of the application so
once rolled into an MDE it won't expire as the MDE shouldn't
change although I expect your right to put it into an updated one
will expire (these companies wouldn't stay in business long if it
didn't, bit like selling ever lasting light bulbs).


The architectural limitations listed in the article Peter Russell
cited are pretty severe. They mean I'd have to re-architect every
single Access application I've ever created and do huge numbers of
search and replace operations (to replace public variables with
class module members).

I guess I'm annoyed that I'm committed to a system that was
improperly designed in the first place, VBA.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 12 '05 #12

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.74:
The architectural limitations listed in the article Peter Russell
cited are pretty severe. They mean I'd have to re-architect every
single Access application I've ever created and do huge numbers of
search and replace operations (to replace public variables with
class module members).

I guess I'm annoyed that I'm committed to a system that was
improperly designed in the first place, VBA.


Pete Barnes: "This means the end of civilization as we know it."

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)
Nov 12 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Feb 09 2004, 12:20 pm, "David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid>
wrote in news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.74:
So, in order to avoid the security warning, they recommend using a
VBScript, executed by the Windows Scripting Host?


Well, they are not recommending it per se, they just happen to use VBScript
in the example. You might as well write a generic Access app launcher in VB
that will do it, which will also be useful for other things such as front
end auto updating. So it's an extra annoyance, but hardly more.

--
remove a 9 to reply by email
Nov 12 '05 #14

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.