Need to upgrade - 2002 or 2003?

[Stephan Golux]

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 to use lots 'o system resources, so I am wondering if I am
best to go with the older (2002) version.

Any opinions out here? In particular, which version more likely to make
the conversion of the 97 databases the least painful? Both upgrades
cost the same...

Thanks for any thoughts.

[Lyle Fairfield]

Stephan Golux <st*****@nospam.com.goluxstudio.invalid> wrote in
news:xd****************@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net:

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.
Perhaps, you should tell us about the bug. There are work-arounds for
almost all bugs.
Current supported upgrades are 2002 and 2003.

2003 appears to use lots 'o system resources, so I am wondering if I am
best to go with the older (2002) version.

Any opinions out here? In particular, which version more likely to make
the conversion of the 97 databases the least painful? Both upgrades
cost the same...

Is it possible that you will want in the future some feature that is
available in 2003 but not in 2002?

Software becomes obsolete very quickly. Why start out that way?

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)

[Stephan Golux]

Lyle Fairfield wrote:
<snip>

Perhaps, you should tell us about the bug. There are work-arounds for
almost all bugs.
I have previously written about the bug in this newsgroup - see the
thread titled "Exporting Reports to RTF format causes unexpected
truncation". I have since found a microsoft knowledgebase article that
describes the bug, namely article #288877. URL:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;288877

<snip>
Is it possible that you will want in the future some feature that is
available in 2003 but not in 2002?

Software becomes obsolete very quickly. Why start out that way?

Quite possible, but I am also sensitive to feature and resource bloat.
Access 2003 (by microsoft's published specifications) requires double
the memory of 2002, so I partly want to know if it is worth it. I have
also heard rumors that performance is worse in 2003. Also, since I need
to use a number of databases that were created in 97, I am curious about
whether there are backward compatibility issues I need to be concerned
about.

[Rick Brandt]

"Stephan Golux" <st*****@nospam.com.goluxstudio.invalid> wrote in message
news:X%****************@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...

Lyle Fairfield wrote:
<snip>

Perhaps, you should tell us about the bug. There are work-arounds for
almost all bugs.

I have previously written about the bug in this newsgroup - see the
thread titled "Exporting Reports to RTF format causes unexpected
truncation". I have since found a microsoft knowledgebase article that
describes the bug, namely article #288877. URL:

The first thing I would do before proceeding is finding someone with a newer
version to absolutely confirm that the RTF problems are solved in those
versions. I am not so sure that they are.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Lyle Fairfield]

Stephan Golux <st*****@nospam.com.goluxstudio.invalid> wrote in news:X%
wd**************@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

Lyle Fairfield wrote:
<snip>

Perhaps, you should tell us about the bug. There are work-arounds for
almost all bugs.

I have previously written about the bug in this newsgroup - see the
thread titled "Exporting Reports to RTF format causes unexpected
truncation". I have since found a microsoft knowledgebase article that
describes the bug, namely article #288877. URL:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;288877

<snip>

Is it possible that you will want in the future some feature that is
available in 2003 but not in 2002?

Software becomes obsolete very quickly. Why start out that way?

Quite possible, but I am also sensitive to feature and resource bloat.
Access 2003 (by microsoft's published specifications) requires double
the memory of 2002, so I partly want to know if it is worth it. I have
also heard rumors that performance is worse in 2003. Also, since I need
to use a number of databases that were created in 97, I am curious about
whether there are backward compatibility issues I need to be concerned
about.

I can't imagine buying a new version of Access just to address this problem.

Let's suppose the KB article you cite is correct (they aren't correct very
often but we always have to allow for that possibility). Surely it would be
simple enough to remove double hard returns from the memo field in the
AfterUpdate event of the form where the data are entered, or in a clean-up
type query run before the report is generated.

But, of course, the KB article may be wrong, or not pertinent to your
problem. It's not wonderfully difficult to create a MS-Word file that
contains fields, to fill these fields from MS-Access (I prefer to have the
MS-Word file look for a text file where its field entries reside, and to
create that text file from MS-Access, (automation is another route), and to
send that MS-Word file, or those MS-Word files to whomever, however. And MS-
Access Files can look much better than RTF files, which are quite limited.

Of course, Access97 is a very antiquated program, and you might find many
useful capabilities in a newer version. I use 2000, 2002 and 2003 with no
problems and no noticeable slowness.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)

[Stephan Golux]

First off, let me say your points are great, and welcome. Just to specify:

Lyle Fairfield wrote:

I can't imagine buying a new version of Access just to address this problem.

Let's suppose the KB article you cite is correct (they aren't correct very
often but we always have to allow for that possibility). Surely it would be
simple enough to remove double hard returns from the memo field in the
AfterUpdate event of the form where the data are entered, or in a clean-up
type query run before the report is generated.
The problem is that the application in question is for people who WANT
that double hard return in the field, and want it to be propagated
appropriately. So removing them is not an option!

But, of course, the KB article may be wrong, or not pertinent to your
problem. It's not wonderfully difficult to create a MS-Word file that
contains fields, to fill these fields from MS-Access (I prefer to have the
MS-Word file look for a text file where its field entries reside, and to
create that text file from MS-Access, (automation is another route), and to
send that MS-Word file, or those MS-Word files to whomever, however. And MS-
Access Files can look much better than RTF files, which are quite limited.

Hmmm... this is an interesting idea, but I would love to pick your
brains for how to apply it in my case.

Basically this application is used by stage managers and directors and
assistant directors in theatre and film who need to create work notes
that are then sent via email or fax to the people who need them.

Essentially, the user types in the notes, and assignes any given note to
any given number of roles, where any number of people may be affiliated
with a given role. Then, once the notes are entered, the user hits a
dingle "distribute" button, and reports are generated for each
individual person, broken down by roles, and then emailed or faxed to
each person automatically. There could be several hundred people and
several hundred roles.

Do you see a way to automate something like this using MS-Word in the
way you describe? I feel like the driving engine needs to be Access in
this case, but perhaps you have experience that would allow me to do
something smarter and cleverer.

Thanks again!

-s

[Stephan Golux]

Rick Brandt wrote:

The first thing I would do before proceeding is finding someone with a newer
version to absolutely confirm that the RTF problems are solved in those
versions. I am not so sure that they are.

Very good point. Thank you.

-s

[Don Leverton]

Hi Stephan,

I haven't read your previous post or looked at the KB article either, so if
what I'm about to suggest is just plain stupid, I apologize in advance.

The implication seems to be that you want to be able to share reports with
other users who may not have Access installed.
Unless your users *have to have* the ability to edit your report, is it
possible that using the freely-distributable Access Snapshot Report Viewer
might solve your problem?

http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=acc97

PS. I am also stubbornly "sticking with" Access97. I do have AccessXP, too,
but I just can't seem to invest the time it takes to make the switch. :-(

Another reason for me not to switch is that most of my "clientele" are
automotive repair shops running Pentium / PII / PIII (NOT the newest
equipment) Funny how those guys will spend $6-8,000 on a new "school-bus
yellow" Snap-On (TM) toolbox (and thousands more to fill it with Snap-On
tools), but only $300 for a "good used" PC <grin>

--
HTH,
Don
=============================
Use My*****@Telus.Net for e-mail
Disclaimer:
Professional PartsPerson
Amateur Database Programmer {:o)

I'm an Access97 user, so all posted code
samples are also Access97- based
unless otherwise noted.
=============================
"Stephan Golux" <st*****@nospam.com.goluxstudio.invalid> wrote in message
news:X%****************@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...

Lyle Fairfield wrote:
<snip>

Perhaps, you should tell us about the bug. There are work-arounds for
almost all bugs.

I have previously written about the bug in this newsgroup - see the
thread titled "Exporting Reports to RTF format causes unexpected
truncation". I have since found a microsoft knowledgebase article that
describes the bug, namely article #288877. URL:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;288877

<snip>

Is it possible that you will want in the future some feature that is
available in 2003 but not in 2002?

Software becomes obsolete very quickly. Why start out that way?

Quite possible, but I am also sensitive to feature and resource bloat.
Access 2003 (by microsoft's published specifications) requires double
the memory of 2002, so I partly want to know if it is worth it. I have
also heard rumors that performance is worse in 2003. Also, since I need
to use a number of databases that were created in 97, I am curious about
whether there are backward compatibility issues I need to be concerned
about.

[Lyle Fairfield]

"Don Leverton" <le****************@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:hwydc.25673$J56.13818@edtnps89:

Hi Stephan,

I haven't read your previous post or looked at the KB article either, so
if what I'm about to suggest is just plain stupid, I apologize in
advance.

The implication seems to be that you want to be able to share reports
with other users who may not have Access installed.
Unless your users *have to have* the ability to edit your report, is it
possible that using the freely-distributable Access Snapshot Report
Viewer might solve your problem?

http://support.microsoft.com/default...348&Product=ac
c97

I'm a big fan of the Snapshot Viewer; when it came out I though faxes were
history, but it never seemed to catch on with people. Regardless, if
Stephan could persuade his users to install this, (and it's very simple to
do so) then that would be a much simpler and cleaner solution than messing
with MS-Word files.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)

[Lyle Fairfield]

Stephan Golux <st*****@nospam.com.goluxstudio.invalid> wrote in
news:j%****************@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net:

First off, let me say your points are great, and welcome. Just to
specify:

Lyle Fairfield wrote:

I can't imagine buying a new version of Access just to address this
problem.

Let's suppose the KB article you cite is correct (they aren't correct
very often but we always have to allow for that possibility). Surely it
would be simple enough to remove double hard returns from the memo
field in the AfterUpdate event of the form where the data are entered,
or in a clean-up type query run before the report is generated.

The problem is that the application in question is for people who WANT
that double hard return in the field, and want it to be propagated
appropriately. So removing them is not an option!

But, of course, the KB article may be wrong, or not pertinent to your
problem. It's not wonderfully difficult to create a MS-Word file that
contains fields, to fill these fields from MS-Access (I prefer to have
the MS-Word file look for a text file where its field entries reside,
and to create that text file from MS-Access, (automation is another
route), and to send that MS-Word file, or those MS-Word files to
whomever, however. And MS- Access Files can look much better than RTF
files, which are quite limited.

Hmmm... this is an interesting idea, but I would love to pick your
brains for how to apply it in my case.

Basically this application is used by stage managers and directors and
assistant directors in theatre and film who need to create work notes
that are then sent via email or fax to the people who need them.

Essentially, the user types in the notes, and assignes any given note to
any given number of roles, where any number of people may be affiliated
with a given role. Then, once the notes are entered, the user hits a
dingle "distribute" button, and reports are generated for each
individual person, broken down by roles, and then emailed or faxed to
each person automatically. There could be several hundred people and
several hundred roles.

Do you see a way to automate something like this using MS-Word in the
way you describe? I feel like the driving engine needs to be Access in
this case, but perhaps you have experience that would allow me to do
something smarter and cleverer.

Before you embrace MS-Word, perhaps you should consider Don's suggestion.

--
Lyle
(for e-mail refer to http://ffdba.com/contacts.htm)

[Stephan Golux]

Hi Don - a very creative idea, and many thanks for it. Unfortunately,
to the best of my knowledge this viewer is not available for the
macintosh or for linux. RTF files can be viewed on all those various
machines.

Thanks!

-s

Don Leverton wrote:

Hi Stephan,

I haven't read your previous post or looked at the KB article either, so if
what I'm about to suggest is just plain stupid, I apologize in advance.

The implication seems to be that you want to be able to share reports with
other users who may not have Access installed.
Unless your users *have to have* the ability to edit your report, is it
possible that using the freely-distributable Access Snapshot Report Viewer
might solve your problem?

http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=acc97

PS. I am also stubbornly "sticking with" Access97. I do have AccessXP, too,
but I just can't seem to invest the time it takes to make the switch. :-(

Another reason for me not to switch is that most of my "clientele" are
automotive repair shops running Pentium / PII / PIII (NOT the newest
equipment) Funny how those guys will spend $6-8,000 on a new "school-bus
yellow" Snap-On (TM) toolbox (and thousands more to fill it with Snap-On
tools), but only $300 for a "good used" PC <grin>

[Stephan Golux]

As I said to Don - I need to be able to distribute to non-MS platforms -
and I don't think the snapshot viewer works there...

-s

Lyle Fairfield wrote:

Before you embrace MS-Word, perhaps you should consider Don's suggestion.

[David W. Fenton]

Lyle Fairfield <Mi************@Invalid.Com> wrote in
news:Xn*******************@130.133.1.4:

Software becomes obsolete very quickly. Why start out that way?

Since the major premise is laughably untrue, the minor premise is
also false.

Software does not become obsolete very quickly. *Some* software
does, but not versions of Access.

And I long ago abandoned any thought of RTF export for anything but
the simplest purposes because it mostly produces entirely
unacceptable results.

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

[David W. Fenton]

Stephan Golux <st*****@nospam.com.goluxstudio.invalid> wrote in
news:GZ****************@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net:

a very creative idea, and many thanks for it. Unfortunately,
to the best of my knowledge this viewer is not available for the
macintosh or for linux. RTF files can be viewed on all those
various machines.

What about PDF files?

I created PDF files with pdf995 (pdf995.com), which is a printer
driver wrapped around GhostScript. The results are great, and I
gladly view the web page advertisement that pops up every time I
print.

I'm sure there are PDF writers that can be programmed from VB/VBA,
so if you need something more integrated, that's another approach.

Yet another is to write the file with Word using automation and
then, in Word, save as RTF.

But if all you're really looking for is cross-platform non-editable
distribution, I'd say PDF is the way to go.

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

[David W. Fenton]

Stephan Golux <st*****@nospam.com.goluxstudio.invalid> wrote in
news:j%****************@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net:

Do you see a way to automate something like this using MS-Word in
the way you describe? I feel like the driving engine needs to be
Access in this case, but perhaps you have experience that would
allow me to do something smarter and cleverer.

Have you looked at Albert Kallal's WordMerge sample database?

http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn.../msaccess.html

(scroll down to " Super Easy Word Merge")

This basically does what Lyle described.

Based on your circumstances, and assuming Word is installed on all
users' PCs, I'd definitely use that instead of RTF.

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

[David W. Fenton]

Stephan Golux <st*****@nospam.com.goluxstudio.invalid> wrote in
news:B_****************@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net:

I need to be able to distribute to non-MS platforms

There's always PDF, and I'd guess it's possible to do this without
having to install a PDF printer driver on everyone's PC. But so far
as I can see, it does require a licensed ActiveX control on the PC,
so you're introducing an additional dependency.

If you've got Word installed, I'd go with Albert's method and then
automate Word to save the result as RTF.

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

[Stephan Golux]

I can't keep up with all the people I need to thank for many good ideas,
so please consider yourselves all thanked.

Not that I want to stop them coming!

Seriously, very helpful. Much appreciated.

[tom]

how about printing these reports to a PDF printer and distributing
them in that format?

[Stephan Golux]

I've considered this, but am unsure how to automate it... all PDF
printer drivers I have tested stop with a dialog box to ask for the file
name. If you know one that is totally seamless, let me know, it might
work great...

-s

tom wrote:

how about printing these reports to a PDF printer and distributing
them in that format?

[Tony Toews]

Stephan Golux <st*****@nospam.com.goluxstudio.invalid> wrote:

I've considered this, but am unsure how to automate it... all PDF
printer drivers I have tested stop with a dialog box to ask for the file
name. If you know one that is totally seamless, let me know, it might
work great...

Not specifically but there's got to be a solution somewhere at one of the links at
Creating PDF files from within Microsoft Access
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/pdffiles.htm

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

[Steve]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:04:25 GMT, Stephan Golux
<st*****@nospam.com.goluxstudio.invalid> wrote:

Win2PDF by Dane Prairie Systems (www.daneprairie.com) allows you to
set/change the output file name, and surpresses the file save dialog,
by setting a registry value. The value, by default, is removed from
the registry after each document is generated, or the value can be
made persistent. You can also create names which are unique or expand
using environment variables .

Steven Zuch
Cogent Management Inc.

I've considered this, but am unsure how to automate it... all PDF
printer drivers I have tested stop with a dialog box to ask for the file
name. If you know one that is totally seamless, let me know, it might
work great...

-s

tom wrote:

how about printing these reports to a PDF printer and distributing
them in that format?