What are the advantages of Access 2003 over Access 1997

[mcc]

Hi, can anyone tell me the differerence between the 2 versions of access and
whether I should upgrade?

 

[Allen Browne]

See:
Converting from Access 97 to 2000 and later
at:
http://allenbrowne.com/ser-48.html

Of couse, A2003 is now also out of date, and A2007 is a significant upgrade.
Details:
http://allenbrowne.com/Access2007.html

 

[aaron.kempf]

1997 doesn't run on Windows Vista.
1997 doesn't support ADP or DAP.

-Aaron

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

97 runs on Vista: you just have to ensure you've enabled Run As
Administrator.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP

(no e-mails, please!)


1997 doesn't run on Windows Vista.
1997 doesn't support ADP or DAP.

-Aaron

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

Hi, can anyone tell me the differerence between the 2 versions of access
and
whether I should upgrade?

Really, only you can answer this. From office 2000 and onwards, it is now
uni-code (that means you take a performance hit, but can have the
application
play nice in different languages/locales. This would likely be on of the
largest reasons to upgrade if you need foreign language ability.

There is also the split IDE between the code system, and the forms design.
Some love this, some hate it (I did not like it at first, but now, I prefer
it much over the old a97 system. There is also source code control available
for a2003. And, you jumping from vb5 to vb6, so there is a number of
additional vba commands such as split().


Keep in mind that each new version will requite more memory, and more
processing then the previous version, and will usually run somewhat slower
(the whole computing industry been that way for 20+ years now).

There are things like support of windows xp themes (here is some screen
shots)
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal/Atheme/index.htm


I don't have a handy post of 2000, and 2002 over that of a97, but you will
get an idea of what kind of features you get every year....

Here is a post of what 2003 over that of 2002 are.

this is old repost:

 

[David W. Fenton]

97 runs on Vista: you just have to ensure you've enabled Run As
Administrator.

It's odd that you have to do that, given that you don't in any
previous version of Windows. I presume it's because of the changed
registry architecture, permissions-wise. Surely a permanent change
to the registry key permissions could resolve this problem without
requiring RUN AS ADMIN all the time?

 

[aaron.kempf]

PS - I don't take a performance hit with unicode. I have varchar.. I
can use varchar.. and I have nvarchar. I can use whichever works best
in the correct situation.

Plus, I use Access forms and reports.

-Aaron

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

It's odd that you have to do that, given that you don't in any
previous version of Windows. I presume it's because of the changed
registry architecture, permissions-wise. Surely a permanent change
to the registry key permissions could resolve this problem without
requiring RUN AS ADMIN all the time?

It may also be that the wizard MDAs are in the Program Files hierarchy
and Access wants to update them.

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/

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

1997 doesn't support ADP or DAP.

ADPs have not been touched in A2007. DAPs are even less used.

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/

 

[David W. Fenton]

It may also be that the wizard MDAs are in the Program Files
hierarchy and Access wants to update them.

But that's the same for Windows 2000 and WinXP, no? I can't check on
either of my PCs (Win2K and WinXP), as I've altered so many of the
default permissions. Actually, it looks like I have the default
permissions on this WinXP laptop, which is read-only on the programs
folder. But I have Office97 installed under my user profile, so it's
not an issue (i.e., under your profile, you have full control).

Again, a permanent permissions change for the Office 97 folder would
fix that problem, so it oughtn't require running as admin.

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

But that's the same for Windows 2000 and WinXP, no?

True, if you are running as user AFAIk.

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/

 

[David W. Fenton]

True, if you are running as user AFAIk.

And, of course, the vast majority of people did not run 2K and XP as
user (let alone NT).

Except, of course, *my* users.

What's the point of having real security if you don't use it? I am
just completely baffled as to why people would only now be
encountering this kind of problem with Vista. Win2K was the point at
which everyone was supposed to get religion, but instead of
addressing reality, everyone ignored it, set themselves up as admins
and put off the problem until now.

I simply don't get why the whole Windows-based software and
consulting industry seems to be some bloody stupid.

 

[aaron_kempf]

Warning

David Fenton makes inaccurate and incorrect statements.

I would reccomend finding a certified SQL Server DBA or Developer in
order to fit your database needs.

This 'D A V I D F E N T O N' kid learned his databases on the back of
a cracker jacks box

-Aaron Kempf
MCITP: DBA

 

[Rick Brandt]

And, of course, the vast majority of people did not run 2K and XP as
user (let alone NT).

Except, of course, *my* users.

What's the point of having real security if you don't use it? I am
just completely baffled as to why people would only now be
encountering this kind of problem with Vista. Win2K was the point at
which everyone was supposed to get religion, but instead of
addressing reality, everyone ignored it, set themselves up as admins
and put off the problem until now.

I simply don't get why the whole Windows-based software and
consulting industry seems to be some bloody stupid.

I believe it was because the further back you go the more existing software
being used by businesses would not work properly if run with a restricted
account. Our company still has some enterprise level (cannot be replaced)
software that won't work unless run as a local admin.

That fact is the shame of the company that produces the software for sure,
but that doesn't help the consumers of that software if it cannot be easily
(and inexpensively) replaced with software that has no such issues.

 

[David W. Fenton]

I believe it was because the further back you go the more existing
software being used by businesses would not work properly if run
with a restricted account. Our company still has some enterprise
level (cannot be replaced) software that won't work unless run as
a local admin.

How do these software companies get away with such shoddy design? Of
course, Intuit is a major software company and one of the worst
offenders is Quickbooks. I just don't comprehend how such
incompetence can be so widespread.

That fact is the shame of the company that produces the software
for sure, but that doesn't help the consumers of that software if
it cannot be easily (and inexpensively) replaced with software
that has no such issues.

There's plenty of shinkwrapped software that assumes it's running as
admin. Another area is software that pretends to be designed to run
as a user, but really doesn't, such as the Norton AV products, which
very frequently break down completely if the autoupdate is not run
under and admin logon. Yes, of course you need to be running with
admin permission to update your AV software. But the updater should
say "we've downloaded your most recent update, but you'll need to
log on as admin to install it." They don't do that. They try to run
the update and then it fails. And it can hose things so badly that
you have to uninstall. And woe unto you if you're using Win2K,
because none of the repair tools they provide will run on Win2K.

(Have I mentioned I'm moving my clients to AVG?)