By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,572 Members | 963 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,572 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Thinking of upgrading runtime from Access 97, any comparisons / tips?

P: n/a
ARC
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 e-mail support for sending reports.
Unless a user uses the MS Outlook 2000/XP method, they have to go with
either an .RTF (which doesn't include graphics), or a Snapshot (which they
don't like to do).

After catching up with some of the posts here, it sounds like the .RTF issue
still exists in Access 2003. This is ok, as long as 2003 will finally
support the use of Outlook Express, using your own defined attachments, and
not requiring a full copy of Outlook 2000/XP or later, for attachments. I
guess I really have 3 options:

1) Stick with Access 97, and buy the updated Access 97 runtime scripts from
Sagekey that now supports Windows Vista installs. Buy an e-mail add-in
program that supports build in e-mails, .pdf attachments, etc.

2) Buy Office Developer 2003 (not sure thist can still be purchased
anywhere), and new Access 2003 runtime scripts.

3) Buy the latest Office Developer 2007.

I do believe the e-mail handling, with lack of attachments such as .pdf or
..xls, in the default ms mapi functions, is the big drawback of access 97.
The positives of staying with 97 would be the reduced size of the download,
and possibly faster running speed of 97 (as Microsoft software evolves, it
generally requires faster hardware, etc.)

I'm sure I'm missing many key features that have been added to the 2003 and
2007 versions of office, but it's really hard to find a link comparing the
feature sets of all versions of office. Can anyone offer suggestions?

Many, many thanks!

Andy
May 8 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
On Tue, 08 May 2007 18:31:42 GMT, "ARC" <an**@andyc.comwrote:

For #1 check out Stephen Lebans' utility here:
http://www.lebans.com/reporttopdf.htm

#3: Does not exist yet, AFAIK

I'm sure you can find a "what's new" link on office.microsoft.com

-Tom.

>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 e-mail support for sending reports.
Unless a user uses the MS Outlook 2000/XP method, they have to go with
either an .RTF (which doesn't include graphics), or a Snapshot (which they
don't like to do).

After catching up with some of the posts here, it sounds like the .RTF issue
still exists in Access 2003. This is ok, as long as 2003 will finally
support the use of Outlook Express, using your own defined attachments, and
not requiring a full copy of Outlook 2000/XP or later, for attachments. I
guess I really have 3 options:

1) Stick with Access 97, and buy the updated Access 97 runtime scripts from
Sagekey that now supports Windows Vista installs. Buy an e-mail add-in
program that supports build in e-mails, .pdf attachments, etc.

2) Buy Office Developer 2003 (not sure thist can still be purchased
anywhere), and new Access 2003 runtime scripts.

3) Buy the latest Office Developer 2007.

I do believe the e-mail handling, with lack of attachments such as .pdf or
.xls, in the default ms mapi functions, is the big drawback of access 97.
The positives of staying with 97 would be the reduced size of the download,
and possibly faster running speed of 97 (as Microsoft software evolves, it
generally requires faster hardware, etc.)

I'm sure I'm missing many key features that have been added to the 2003 and
2007 versions of office, but it's really hard to find a link comparing the
feature sets of all versions of office. Can anyone offer suggestions?

Many, many thanks!

Andy
May 9 '07 #2

P: n/a
The scripts in the developer ed are just wrappers for installing the
runtime version of access on the user's machine and copying in the
database - if you have the inclination, you can script this yourself
with vbscript, or a bat file... whatever you're comforable with. There
are also some very good third party applications for packing your mde.
So don't let this be a deal breaker.

Access 2003 doesn't really add much over A2k - Most access aps
developed in 2003 are actually compiled in the 2000 format anyway. In
fact, I avoid 2003 where possible because of the crazy macro security
warnings that plague users. Unless you are willing to shell out an
annual subscription for a security cert I'd avoid 2003 - there are
work arounds, but they involve messing with security settings - which
is never polite. I have heard that some third party mde packaging
solutions get around this - but I don't know how, so can't comment
here.

Don't know anything about 2007, sorry!

Also, the blurb is that you can easily upgrade existing aps from one
version to another and run 2000 on 2003 etc... not always the case -
and I have a recycling bin full of corrupted dbs to testify!

My advice: If it ain't broke...

May 9 '07 #3

P: n/a
ARC
Thanks so much, Bill!

So you are saying I should stick with Access 97? I've considered that. And
interestingly, I do have Office 2000 Developer, and the only time I've used
it is if my Access 97 program .mdb became corrupted, as I found that Access
2000 could often save the day, and read the corrupted .mdb, thus allowing me
to resave as access 97.

Would it be worthwhile to just up it to access 2000? Any benefits, such as
speed, etc.? I know that I frequently get questions regarding why the wheel
on the mouse will not work in 97, does this problem go away in 2000?

Hmmm...I guess if I can find a self-contained e-mail client, that worked in
vista as well, staying with 97 wouldn't be bad. The problem is I have to be
able to specify extra attachments, and the .sendobject just doesn't cut it.
I do use the Outlook library add-in to get around this, but of course, that
means the customer needs full Outlook.
Thanks!

"BillCo" <co**********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@u30g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...
The scripts in the developer ed are just wrappers for installing the
runtime version of access on the user's machine and copying in the
database - if you have the inclination, you can script this yourself
with vbscript, or a bat file... whatever you're comforable with. There
are also some very good third party applications for packing your mde.
So don't let this be a deal breaker.

Access 2003 doesn't really add much over A2k - Most access aps
developed in 2003 are actually compiled in the 2000 format anyway. In
fact, I avoid 2003 where possible because of the crazy macro security
warnings that plague users. Unless you are willing to shell out an
annual subscription for a security cert I'd avoid 2003 - there are
work arounds, but they involve messing with security settings - which
is never polite. I have heard that some third party mde packaging
solutions get around this - but I don't know how, so can't comment
here.

Don't know anything about 2007, sorry!

Also, the blurb is that you can easily upgrade existing aps from one
version to another and run 2000 on 2003 etc... not always the case -
and I have a recycling bin full of corrupted dbs to testify!

My advice: If it ain't broke...

May 9 '07 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.