Biting the upgrade bullet -- which version of Access is leastproblematic/buggy?

[Don]

I've continued to use Access 97 all these years because (1) it does
everything I need quickly and (2) most of what I've read online
indicates that it's still the most bug-free version of Access. But
now that Vista is gradually becoming the only Windows choice and Vista
doesn't exactly "cooperate" with Access 97, I'm afraid it may be time
to take the leap.

I haven't had any experience with later versions of Access so I'm
seeking recommendations.

* Which version of Access is the most stable/bug-free? 2000? 2002?
2003? I really need the Replication/synchronization feature so that
may rule out Access 2007.

* Depending on the version I upgrade to, is there a good soure (onlne
or otherwise) that helps with the transition and learning about the
new features? I have some pretty involved projects with lots of VBA.

Many thanks for any & all suggestions & input...

--Don

[Chris O'C via AccessMonster.com]

I'd recommend upgrading to Access 2003. It's the most stable/bug free
version since Access 97 sr2. You need to set the macro security on low to
avoid the big brother attempts to keep you from making the sky fall whenever
you open any db.

Most online tutorials are geared for Access 2007, since that's the most
recent release. Microsoft has some online tutorials on Access 2003 for you,
but they aren't going to be the "what's new" and "what's different from
Access 97" you want:

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/tr...829401033.aspx

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ac...CL100570041033
Chris
Microsoft MVP
Don wrote:

>I've continued to use Access 97 all these years because (1) it does
everything I need quickly and (2) most of what I've read online
indicates that it's still the most bug-free version of Access. But
now that Vista is gradually becoming the only Windows choice and Vista
doesn't exactly "cooperate" with Access 97, I'm afraid it may be time
to take the leap.

I haven't had any experience with later versions of Access so I'm
seeking recommendations.

* Which version of Access is the most stable/bug-free? 2000? 2002?
2003? I really need the Replication/synchronization feature so that
may rule out Access 2007.

* Depending on the version I upgrade to, is there a good soure (onlne
or otherwise) that helps with the transition and learning about the
new features? I have some pretty involved projects with lots of VBA.

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200808/1

[lyle fairfield]

The most stable version is the one running a well-designed and
carefully-crafted application.

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

Don <do******@gmail.comwrote:

>* Which version of Access is the most stable/bug-free? 2000? 2002?
2003?

A2003 fully patched. A2007 is still a bit new even with SP1 to be completely bug
free yet.

>I really need the Replication/synchronization feature so that
may rule out Access 2007.

I think that is still available if the BE is in MDB format. But not in ACCDB format.

>* Depending on the version I upgrade to, is there a good soure (onlne
or otherwise) that helps with the transition and learning about the
new features? I have some pretty involved projects with lots of VBA.

I'd have to think back a bit as to the problems. Nothing major. I suspect Allen
Browne may have a page on this topic at www.allenbrowne.com.

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
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

[bcap]

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by Access 2003. It's really not much
more than Access 97 with a paint job, and so it'll all seem very familiar to
you. Sure there are new bells and whistles for you to learn about, but no
fundamental differences. Even the Help system approaches useful, unlike the
dross that we got in 2000 and 2002 (and, sadly, 2007).

I doubt that you'll find a list anywhere of what's new in Access 2003
compared to 97 (there were two versions in between!) so you might have to
Google through the versions in turn (2000, 2002, 2003) to get a full picture
of all the new toys you have to play with.

Googling "what's new in Access <version>" should get you lots of
information.
"Don" <do******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:5f**********************************@b1g2000h sg.googlegroups.com...

I've continued to use Access 97 all these years because (1) it does
everything I need quickly and (2) most of what I've read online
indicates that it's still the most bug-free version of Access. But
now that Vista is gradually becoming the only Windows choice and Vista
doesn't exactly "cooperate" with Access 97, I'm afraid it may be time
to take the leap.

I haven't had any experience with later versions of Access so I'm
seeking recommendations.

* Which version of Access is the most stable/bug-free? 2000? 2002?
2003? I really need the Replication/synchronization feature so that
may rule out Access 2007.

* Depending on the version I upgrade to, is there a good soure (onlne
or otherwise) that helps with the transition and learning about the
new features? I have some pretty involved projects with lots of VBA.

Many thanks for any & all suggestions & input...

--Don

[lyle fairfield]

Typically Access 2003 uses JET 4, while Access 97 uses JET 3.5.
JET 4 has many new and powerful capabilities.

IMO, these new capabilities were largely ignored by the Access
community, including the Access MVP community.

Pity!

On Aug 30, 5:54*am, "bcap" <[e-mail]:

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by Access 2003. *It's really notmuch
more than Access 97 with a paint job, and so it'll all seem very familiarto
you. *Sure there are new bells and whistles for you to learn about, butno
fundamental differences

[Linq Adams via AccessMonster.com]

Version 2003, hands down! Tried and proved. It does, indeed, have a number of
useful enhancements, but essentially works as previous versions. One of the
most telling statements I've seen about v2007, by someone here (sorry, can't
remember who) is that the learning curve for v2007 is about 3 times as large
for an experienced Access developer as it is for a newbie.

Allen Browne has an excellent article on his site that discusses what needs
to be done when upgrading from v97 to v2000 and beyond:

http://allenbrowne.com/ser-48.html

--
There's ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat!

Answers/posts based on Access 2000/2003

Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200808/1

[Wayne]

On Aug 31, 5:08*am, "Linq Adams via AccessMonster.com" <u28780@uwe>
wrote:

Version 2003, hands down! Tried and proved. It does, indeed, have a number of
useful enhancements, but essentially works as previous versions. One of the
most telling statements I've seen about v2007, by someone here (sorry, can't
remember who) is that the learning curve for v2007 is about 3 times as large
for an experienced Access developer as it is for a newbie.

Allen Browne has an excellent article on his site that discusses what needs
to be done when upgrading from v97 to v2000 and beyond:

http://allenbrowne.com/ser-48.html

--
There's ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat!

Answers/posts based on Access 2000/2003

Message posted via AccessMonster.comhttp://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/databases-ms-access/2008...

I find A2007 to be slow. Slow at opening forms, slow at running
queries, slow at everything. It just isn't as responsive as A2003.
The whole of Office 2007 is the same. Excel 2007 is also a slug.
When will MS learn that new bells and whistles shouldn't come at the
expense of speed and productivity?

[David W. Fenton]

Don <do******@gmail.comwrote in
news:5f**********************************@b1g2000h sg.googlegroups.com
:

I really need the Replication/synchronization feature so that
may rule out Access 2007.

It doesn't. As Tony says in reply to this comment, if you use an
MDB, A2K7 provides the same replication functionality as A2K3.

However, there have been signficant bugs in A2K7 in regard to
synchronization -- the original release had a bug that caused the
DAO Synchronize method to fail (though the corresponding JRO command
worked), which was patched first with a hotfix, and later in SR1,
and I'm currently corresponding with a user in the replication
newsgroup who is having problems in with propagation of certain
kinds of design changes from the Design Master, and the problem
occurs only in A2K7.

So, despite the fact that A2K7 still supports Jet replication in the
MDB format, you might want to be cautious in choosing it.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Sky]

"Don" <do******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:5f**********************************@b1g2000h sg.googlegroups.com...

I've continued to use Access 97 all these years because (1) it does
everything I need quickly and (2) most of what I've read online
indicates that it's still the most bug-free version of Access. But
now that Vista is gradually becoming the only Windows choice and Vista
doesn't exactly "cooperate" with Access 97, I'm afraid it may be time
to take the leap.

I haven't had any experience with later versions of Access so I'm
seeking recommendations.

* Which version of Access is the most stable/bug-free? 2000? 2002?
2003? I really need the Replication/synchronization feature so that
may rule out Access 2007.

* Depending on the version I upgrade to, is there a good soure (onlne
or otherwise) that helps with the transition and learning about the
new features? I have some pretty involved projects with lots of VBA.

Many thanks for any & all suggestions & input...

--Don

I agree that Access 2003 works well after service packs.

As I recall, my biggest conversion issue from Access 97 was dealing with the
new menu and toolbar coding, which changed quite a bit using CommandBar
objects. (Unfortunately menu/ribbon coding changes even more in Access
2007!)

Also Jet 4 uses Windows language-dependent sorting versus Jet 3 ASCII
sorting in queries, which affects any C++ or other code that depends on
sorting.

- Steve