By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,144 Members | 1,056 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,144 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Anyone still not upgrading from 97?

P: n/a
Checking back for discussions, there was a lot of talk about 2000 being
slower than 97, but not so much lately. What is the latest opinion?

Anyone care to set up a poll for how many NG members are still using
97? 2000?

I am slightly tempted to upgrade by a new client whose data is in 2000,
but of course, I can just port it all back through Excel...right?

and I guess I have seen a couple of nice features...

still, how many changes do I have to make to code? Does anyone have a
reference for converting code (declaring recordsets etc.)

Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
13 Replies


P: n/a
Whoops, I just noticed now that I can convert back to 97. How come I
never knew that?

Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
pe***********@aol.com wrote in
news:11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:
Checking back for discussions, there was a lot of talk about 2000
being slower than 97, but not so much lately. What is the latest
opinion?

Anyone care to set up a poll for how many NG members are still
using 97? 2000?
I have not upgraded but one of my clients from Access97 to A2K, and
that was because of interoperatbility (they needed to add a person
who had only A2K).
I am slightly tempted to upgrade by a new client whose data is in
2000, but of course, I can just port it all back through
Excel...right?
A2K can save it as A97.
and I guess I have seen a couple of nice features...

still, how many changes do I have to make to code? Does anyone
have a reference for converting code (declaring recordsets etc.)


For clients with A2K, I almost always develop in A97 and convert for
production use. I have run into only a handful of obscure and not
very important problems caused by that.

Right now, almost all of my new development is A2K with hardly
anyone running on anything beyond A2K itself. I do have one major
project that's running under A2K3 (under Windows Terminal Server)
for some users and under A2K for others. No problems so far.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
pe***********@aol.com wrote in
news:11*********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com:
Whoops, I just noticed now that I can convert back to 97. How
come I never knew that?


Possibly because it's the first version of Access that ever offered
a backwards conversion.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a
David W. Fenton wrote:
pe***********@aol.com wrote in
news:11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:
Checking back for discussions, there was a lot of talk about 2000
being slower than 97, but not so much lately. What is the latest
opinion?

Anyone care to set up a poll for how many NG members are still
using 97? 2000?


I have not upgraded but one of my clients from Access97 to A2K, and
that was because of interoperatbility (they needed to add a person
who had only A2K).
I am slightly tempted to upgrade by a new client whose data is in
2000, but of course, I can just port it all back through
Excel...right?


A2K can save it as A97.
and I guess I have seen a couple of nice features...

still, how many changes do I have to make to code? Does anyone
have a reference for converting code (declaring recordsets etc.)


For clients with A2K, I almost always develop in A97 and convert for
production use. I have run into only a handful of obscure and not
very important problems caused by that.

Right now, almost all of my new development is A2K with hardly
anyone running on anything beyond A2K itself. I do have one major
project that's running under A2K3 (under Windows Terminal Server)
for some users and under A2K for others. No problems so far.


I also develop (almost) exclusively in A97 and then convert a copy to A2K
format. I have users in all versions from A97 on up.

I have a handful of "quick knock-off" projects that I did for users that I knew
were exclusively using A2K so I developed one or two of those directly in A2K3.
I found nothing particularly pro or con about the development experience. They
weren't large enough for the monolithic (slow) save to be an issue, but neither
did I notice anything that I liked much better than A97.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:52:39 UTC, pe***********@aol.com wrote:
Checking back for discussions, there was a lot of talk about 2000 being
slower than 97, but not so much lately. What is the latest opinion?

Anyone care to set up a poll for how many NG members are still using
97? 2000?

I am slightly tempted to upgrade by a new client whose data is in 2000,
but of course, I can just port it all back through Excel...right?

and I guess I have seen a couple of nice features...

still, how many changes do I have to make to code? Does anyone have a
reference for converting code (declaring recordsets etc.)


Hello,

My applications were developed for the Jet Engine under Access 97.
We just have tables and do not make use of reports and other features
that Access has. Our applications have not required any adjustment
to accomodate the Jet equivalents of Access 97, 2000, 2002, or 2003.
We did switch our installs and new clients over to Access 2000 format
several years ago. The original customers using Access 97 are
compatible with the applications.

My only problem thus far (noticed a few days ago) is that one
of the open dialogs appears to work differently under a new Windows
2003 platform. Our applications are developed in VC++ or VB and
use ODBC connections to the database. We use DAO and ADO to
manipulate the indexes, fields, and tables in the database.

We've seen some performance and reliability gains. In general
the customer is unaware of the difference with our applications.

David
Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a
On 7 Apr 2005 16:52:39 -0700, pe***********@aol.com wrote:
Checking back for discussions, there was a lot of talk about 2000 being
slower than 97, but not so much lately. What is the latest opinion?

Anyone care to set up a poll for how many NG members are still using
97? 2000?

I am slightly tempted to upgrade by a new client whose data is in 2000,
but of course, I can just port it all back through Excel...right?

and I guess I have seen a couple of nice features...

still, how many changes do I have to make to code? Does anyone have a
reference for converting code (declaring recordsets etc.)


I have had one project recently that I had to do in Access 97, and I would
have been able to do it slightly quicker and simpler in Access 2002.

In my opinion, Access 2000 had some moderately compelling new features, but an
awful lot of unique quirks, especially when ODBC back-ends are involved, and I
do a lot of that. Access 2002 didn't fix all the quirks, but enough to make
the new features tip the scale from Access 97 for me.

One of the biggest reasons I prefer Access 2K2 over Access 97 is custom
events, which I think are a tremendously valuable and underused feature of
VBA. If you use objects much at all, custom events are a great work-around
for the fact that circular references are a serious memory-leak hazard in a
reference-counting language such as VBA.

The next biggest reason I like A2K2 is that it includes a few very much needed
string and array handling functions. None of these is terribly hard to
implement as custom code, but Access applications tend to be worked on by
multiple programmers, each with their own custom functions, each with their
own bugs. It's nice to have some consistency now with common functions like
Split, Join, Strrev, and such.

Biggest pet peve about Access 2000 and above - the GoToPage action has been
lobotomized, and can no longer be used to position the current record at a
specific desired scroll position, because that requried omitting the page
number argument, and the argument is now required.
Nov 13 '05 #7

P: n/a
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:24:44 GMT, "David" <Fl************@United.Com>
wrote:

Hello,

My applications were developed for the Jet Engine under Access 97.
We just have tables and do not make use of reports and other features
that Access has. Our applications have not required any adjustment
to accomodate the Jet equivalents of Access 97, 2000, 2002, or 2003.
We did switch our installs and new clients over to Access 2000 format
several years ago. The original customers using Access 97 are
compatible with the applications.

My only problem thus far (noticed a few days ago) is that one
of the open dialogs appears to work differently under a new Windows
2003 platform. Our applications are developed in VC++ or VB and
use ODBC connections to the database. We use DAO and ADO to
manipulate the indexes, fields, and tables in the database.

We've seen some performance and reliability gains. In general
the customer is unaware of the difference with our applications.

David

Hi
If people are using Access only as a back-end (ie JET), reasons for
change from 97 would be that 2000+ can store unicode, and also that
some IPs only support 2000+ with ASP, not 97. Of course the 2000 files
are bigger.

Since you can do everything via VBscript, JET is essentially free in
both versions, perhaps why it is deprecated!
David

Nov 13 '05 #8

P: n/a
On 8 Apr 2005 08:43:22 -0500, d.***************@blueyonder.co.uk (David
Schofield) wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:24:44 GMT, "David" <Fl************@United.Com>
wrote:

Hello,

My applications were developed for the Jet Engine under Access 97.
We just have tables and do not make use of reports and other features
that Access has. Our applications have not required any adjustment
to accomodate the Jet equivalents of Access 97, 2000, 2002, or 2003.
We did switch our installs and new clients over to Access 2000 format
several years ago. The original customers using Access 97 are
compatible with the applications.

My only problem thus far (noticed a few days ago) is that one
of the open dialogs appears to work differently under a new Windows
2003 platform. Our applications are developed in VC++ or VB and
use ODBC connections to the database. We use DAO and ADO to
manipulate the indexes, fields, and tables in the database.

We've seen some performance and reliability gains. In general
the customer is unaware of the difference with our applications.

David

Hi
If people are using Access only as a back-end (ie JET), reasons for
change from 97 would be that 2000+ can store unicode, and also that
some IPs only support 2000+ with ASP, not 97. Of course the 2000 files
are bigger.


But not -that- much bigger. If you use Unicode compression, the size of
stored text is roughly the same as in Access 97, and there doesn't seem to be
any significant speed penalty. Also, if you use Access 2003 to compact your
code database, I've found that it compacts to 1/2 to 1/3 of the size Access
2000 can do, and still works when you open it in Access 2002. I guess 2003
has a smarter compactor.

Nov 13 '05 #9

P: n/a
Rick Brandt wrote:
I also develop (almost) exclusively in A97 and then convert a copy to A2K format. I have users in all versions from A97 on up.


Ditto. I learned enough ADO style programming from doing an e-commerce
web site that I should be able to do legacy Access ADO on A2K3 in the
future :-). I only get to try the new features out when doing work for
companies that have never even heard of A97.

James A. Fortune

Those who stay in a pressure cooker environment too long come out
half-baked.

Nov 13 '05 #10

P: n/a
ji********@compumarc.com wrote in
news:11*********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com:
Rick Brandt wrote:
I also develop (almost) exclusively in A97 and then convert a
copy to

A2K
format. I have users in all versions from A97 on up.


Ditto. I learned enough ADO style programming from doing an
e-commerce web site that I should be able to do legacy Access ADO
on A2K3 in the future :-). I only get to try the new features out
when doing work for companies that have never even heard of A97.


About the only time I do ADO is when I strip it out of an
A2K+-created switchboard and convert it back to DAO. Takes about 5
minutes.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #11

P: n/a
d.***************@blueyonder.co.uk (David Schofield) wrote in
news:42568741.192169294@localhost:
If people are using Access only as a back-end (ie JET), reasons
for change from 97 would be that 2000+ can store unicode, and also
that some IPs only support 2000+ with ASP, not 97. Of course the
2000 files are bigger.


But if your app doesn't have admin permissions to run, it won't be
able to upgrade the OS's Jet 4 files to the latest service pack --
you'll have to tell the users to do it via Windows Update.

So, the fact that Jet 4 is part of the OS in Win2K and WinXP would
look to me like a good reason to choose Jet 3.5 for a back end for a
VB app, since it means you're not as likely to be exposed to all the
problems of early versions *ahem* of the Jet 4 engine.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #12

P: n/a
Steve Jorgensen <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote in
news:6c********************************@4ax.com:
Biggest pet peve about Access 2000 and above - the GoToPage action
has been lobotomized, and can no longer be used to position the
current record at a specific desired scroll position, because that
requried omitting the page number argument, and the argument is
now required.


Oh, I wrote about the set of bugs in GoToPage a very long time ago:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ccess/msg/87a8
29ffe05b5488?dmode=source

(Message-ID: <92*********************@news-server.nyc.rr.com>)

(gad, I hate the fact that Google Groups has now f*cked up their
URLs again; when they were using MessageIDs, which are native to
every single Usenet message as well as unique, it made sense, as it
was a permanent URL; now the URLs can go the way of Deja.com URLs,
which used Deja's message numbers, which were unique to their news
spool; but I rant tangentially...)

Of course, I always hated multi-page forms, since navigation is so
hard to control. I've never really used them since the introduction
of the native tab control, but I do have to maintain old apps that
include them, as well as work on apps developed by other people.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #13

P: n/a
Bri
I still do all of my development in AC97 and then convert for the
client to their version (AC2000 for one, AC2003 for another, all others
sticking with AC97).

The only AC2000+ feature I use is Conditional Formatting, which I add in
after the conversion.

Most of the coding changes to deal with AC2000+ quirks will work in AC97
too.

--
Bri

pe***********@aol.com wrote:
Checking back for discussions, there was a lot of talk about 2000 being
slower than 97, but not so much lately. What is the latest opinion?

Anyone care to set up a poll for how many NG members are still using
97? 2000?

I am slightly tempted to upgrade by a new client whose data is in 2000,
but of course, I can just port it all back through Excel...right?

and I guess I have seen a couple of nice features...

still, how many changes do I have to make to code? Does anyone have a
reference for converting code (declaring recordsets etc.)

Nov 13 '05 #14

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.