File format; 97 -vs- 2000 -vs- 2003

[Killer42]

The documentation seems to take the approach of "upgrade unless you really need to read it with an old version". No great surprise there, really. Actually, it's surprisingly generous of MS to admit that an earlier version exists, and even provide a conversion which (usually) works.

But, can someone point me to a summary of the practical differences between the various file formats? I expect they are already "out there" on the web. So far the only difference I've been able to make out is that, not unexpectedly, later versions are larger.

And presumably a database stored in Access 97 format would be limited to a max of 1GB in size.

Anything else?

[NeoPa]

Don't have a documentation link, but I know that 97 didn't have the Unicode feature.

[Killer42]

Don't have a documentation link, but I know that 97 didn't have the Unicode feature.

So, that's one advantage of 97, then.

[MMcCarthy]

So, that's one advantage of 97, then.

I don't know of a general discussion link but I often find going to sites like Amazon.com and reading customer reviews on the various versions will give you some indications of the major differences.

Mary

[NeoPa]

So, that's one advantage of 97, then.

I still use 97 for my back-end for that very reason ;)

[Killer42]

I still use 97 for my back-end for that very reason ;)

What is it, about half the size? I'm wondering whether I should convert my data back to 97 format.

[NeoPa]

Unicode Compression uses half the space of the full Unicode data for strings.
Bear in mind, Access 2K can also use it but it must be selected (sometimes very laborious but new tables use default from your Options).
All in all - I doubt it's ever as much as a 50% saving. Nevertheless it can be appreciable in certain circumstances.

[Killer42]

Unicode Compression uses half the space of the full Unicode data for strings.
Bear in mind, Access 2K can also use it but it must be selected (sometimes very laborious but new tables use default from your Options).
All in all - I doubt it's ever as much as a 50% saving. Nevertheless it can be appreciable in certain circumstances.

Hm... yeah, I was forgetting again about the Unicode compression option. I always have turned on by default, so I don't take much notice of it. So, converting to 97 would be much more time and trouble than it's worth, in my case. The stuff I'm mostly working with is very large, but very static data - just a new chunk added onto the end each day.