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 11 1284
Aidan Tobin wrote: 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
2002/2003 still can use the 2000 file format so why do you need to
convert? :)
--
regards,
Bradley
On 21 Apr 2004 11:52:53 -0700, ai********@hotmail.com (Aidan Tobin)
wrote:
From Access 2 to any other version can be a major step, since you're
going from 16-bit to 32-bit. Perhaps it makes sense to settle on the
Access2000 format: it is still supported by the newer versions.
-Tom. 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
Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All
databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...
Aidan Tobin wrote: Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...
Hehe, sounds like one of my clients;) God bless 'em.
There shouldn't be any major dramas converting 2000-2003 except the
annoyance of Digital Signatures in 2003.
--
regards,
Bradley ai********@hotmail.com (Aidan Tobin) wrote in
news:67*************************@posting.google.co m: Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...
Do they really understand that the Access 2000 format is native to
Access 2003?
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David W. Fenton wrote: ai********@hotmail.com (Aidan Tobin) wrote in news:67*************************@posting.google.co m:
Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...
Do they really understand that the Access 2000 format is native to Access 2003?
But he has v2.0 and 97 databases to upgrade as well, and there may be
issues upgrading them.
--
Error reading sig - A)bort R)etry I)nfluence with large hammer
Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> wrote in
news:40***********************@auth.uk.news.easyne t.net: David W. Fenton wrote: ai********@hotmail.com (Aidan Tobin) wrote in news:67*************************@posting.google.co m:
Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...
Do they really understand that the Access 2000 format is native to Access 2003?
But he has v2.0 and 97 databases to upgrade as well, and there may be issues upgrading them.
But upgrading to A2K3 format seems to me to be a mistake. Upgrading
to A2K format maintains backward compatibility with the last three
releases of Access, while losing you nothing but a small handful of
features specific to A2K2 and A2K3.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David W. Fenton wrote: Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> wrote in news:40***********************@auth.uk.news.easyne t.net:
David W. Fenton wrote:
ai********@hotmail.com (Aidan Tobin) wrote in news:67*************************@posting.google .com:
Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...
Do they really understand that the Access 2000 format is native to Access 2003?
But he has v2.0 and 97 databases to upgrade as well, and there may be issues upgrading them.
But upgrading to A2K3 format seems to me to be a mistake. Upgrading to A2K format maintains backward compatibility with the last three releases of Access, while losing you nothing but a small handful of features specific to A2K2 and A2K3.
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.
Maintaining backward compatibility with 2000 would negate the point of
having the latest version although as you say, there's not much more to
it, the only significant things I've seen added to 2K3 are unproductive,
e.g. warnings about macros, etc. they might as well place a warning
within the executable itself that says "warning: this executable file
contains executable code that may damage your computer, are you sure you
want to run it?".
I think MS has gone too far on this one and 2K2 will be the last version
I'll ever use.
--
Error reading sig - A)bort R)etry I)nfluence with large hammer
Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> wrote in
news:40***********************@auth.uk.news.easyne t.net: David W. Fenton wrote: Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> wrote in news:40***********************@auth.uk.news.easyne t.net:
David W. Fenton wrote:
ai********@hotmail.com (Aidan Tobin) wrote in news:67*************************@posting.googl e.com:
>Oh how i wish i could but someone dosent see it that way, All >databases have to be upgraded to office 2003...
Do they really understand that the Access 2000 format is native to Access 2003?
But he has v2.0 and 97 databases to upgrade as well, and there may be issues upgrading them. But upgrading to A2K3 format seems to me to be a mistake. Upgrading to A2K format maintains backward compatibility with the last three releases of Access, while losing you nothing but a small handful of features specific to A2K2 and A2K3.
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.
Maintaining backward compatibility with 2000 would negate the point of having the latest version although as you say, there's not much more to it, the only significant things I've seen added to 2K3 are unproductive, e.g. warnings about macros, etc. they might as well place a warning within the executable itself that says "warning: this executable file contains executable code that may damage your computer, are you sure you want to run it?".
I think MS has gone too far on this one and 2K2 will be the last version I'll ever use.
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).
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
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
Trevor Best <nospam@localhost> wrote in
news:40***********************@auth.uk.news.easyne t.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 This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics |
by: Mike Owen |
last post by:
Hi,
I have just used the import Wizard to import a VS 2003 app to VS 2005.
I have a lot of work to do to enable it to compile successfully with all the
errors and warnings it gave me, but as a starting point the compiler can no
longer find the function as at the bottom of this posting, that was in the
Global.asax.vb file.
All the...
|
by: Noesis Strategy |
last post by:
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...
|
by: Aidan Tobin |
last post by:
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...
|
by: John |
last post by:
Hi
I have an old access 97 application which I need to upgrade to one of the
newer versions. Which of the access versions xp or 2003 should I choose?
Which one is more stable?
Thanks
Regards
|
by: Lauren Wilson |
last post by:
Hi Folks,
I have a widely distributed Access 200 Application. I must retain my
ability to support users who are still on Access 2000 and Access 2000
Runtime. However I also need to upgrade my development environment to
Office 2003 Professional.
My question is: Where can I find a comprehensive description of the
known issues that will...
| |
by: Owen Jenkins |
last post by:
I have an Access application that is being used by 150+ clients. I
develop in 97, convert to 2000 and distribute as a 97 or 2000 mde, or 97
runtime. This limits me to 97 functions. My clients may use any one of
Access 97, 2000, 2002, 2003 or 97 runtime.
So that I'm not lingering too far behind, I'm thinking of developing in
2003, using 2000...
|
by: ARC |
last post by:
Hello All,
I have a major application for quoting and invoicing that is written in
Access 97 (both front and back ends). I have a user base of over 300
customers, and currently I don't require that they have Access 97, as I use
the access 97 runtime scripts from Sagekey software. The main problems I've
seen with Access 97 are the built in...
|
by: ARC |
last post by:
Hello All,
I have a major application for quoting and invoicing that is written in
Access 97 (both front and back ends). I have a user base of over 300
customers, and currently I don't require that they have Access 97, as I use
the access 97 runtime scripts from Sagekey software. The main problems I've
seen with Access 97 are the built in...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that...
| |
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in...
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
|
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating...
| |