Access 2003 vs Access 2007 performance

[New]

Hi, does anyone know how the 2007 version of Access compares to its
predecessor in performance, ability to compress and analyze data.

Thank you very much in advance

Stan

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

Hi, does anyone know how the 2007 version of Access compares to its
predecessor in performance, ability to compress and analyze data.

Thank you very much in advance

Stan

The general rule in our computer industry is that the next version of any
product generally requires more hard disk, requires more RAM, and requires
more processing. In fact this rule pretty much held true since the first IBM
pc came out in 1981.

In the past twenty years I've been around these computers, I can't EVER
remember any new version of any product ever not breaking the above rule. Of
course I am not telling you anything new here, and the above information
likely has been ingrained in your mind ever since you used your first
computer also. (There's no reason to think that your computer experience in
the past years would be any different than mine).

In access 2007 we have a new version of the jet database engine called ACE.
I've not seen anything so far that suggests this engine reads data any
slower than the previous version. It seems to perform the same to me.

I do notice the load time to launch ms-access is longer in 2007. Once again
this is just an issue of needing more ram and the program taking up more
disk space and being larger. However, once ms-access is loaded, then I don't
see any difference in loading a mdb or accDB file as compared to before. So,
once ms-access is loaded, then it compares well to 2003. Some posters here
have commented that screens re-plot slower for them, but it really depends
how much eye candy you have turned on in windows (the "aero" interface in
Vista for example been cited as running things slower).

The program system (visual basic for applications - VBA) has not been
changed, so your code execution speed should remain the same in both
versions.

So at the end of the day, you likely should have a little bit more RAM in
your computer, and hopefully you're upgrading to a new computer at the same
time so you have a faster hard drive and more processing also.

I'm running access 2007 and 2003 on a four year old notebook with a weak
budget "semtron" processor. I find access 2007 runs well on that computer,
and as mentioned the largest difference I noticed is in the access program
load time. However, after access is loaded, then loading of applications
seems similar to that of 2003. Hence, overall general performance seems very
close to the previous version, at least in terms of reading data, and
running code...

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

Hi, does anyone know how the 2007 version of Access compares to its
predecessor in performance, ability to compress and analyze data.

Thank you very much in advance

Stan

The general rule in our computer industry is that the next version of any
product generally requires more hard disk, requires more RAM, and requires
more processing. In fact this rule pretty much held true since the first IBM
pc came out in 1981.

In the past twenty years I've been around these computers, I can't EVER
remember any new version of any product ever not breaking the above rule. Of
course I am not telling you anything new here, and the above information
likely has been ingrained in your mind ever since you used your first
computer also. (There's no reason to think that your computer experience in
the past years would be any different than mine).

In access 2007 we have a new version of the jet database engine called ACE.
I've not seen anything so far that suggests this engine reads data any
slower than the previous version. It seems to perform the same to me.

I do notice the load time to launch ms-access is longer in 2007. Once again
this is just an issue of needing more ram and the program taking up more
disk space and being larger. However, once ms-access is loaded, then I don't
see any difference in loading a mdb or accDB file as compared to before. So,
once ms-access is loaded, then it compares well to 2003. Some posters here
have commented that screens re-plot slower for them, but it really depends
how much eye candy you have turned on in windows (the "aero" interface in
Vista for example been cited as running things slower).

The program system (visual basic for applications - VBA) has not been
changed, so your code execution speed should remain the same in both
versions.

So at the end of the day, you likely should have a little bit more RAM in
your computer, and hopefully you're upgrading to a new computer at the same
time so you have a faster hard drive and more processing also.

I'm running access 2007 and 2003 on a four year old notebook with a weak
budget "semtron" processor. I find access 2007 runs well on that computer,
and as mentioned the largest difference I noticed is in the access program
load time. However, after access is loaded, then loading of applications
seems similar to that of 2003. Hence, overall general performance seems very
close to the previous version, at least in terms of reading data, and
running code...

 

[Arvin Meyer MVP]

The general rule in our computer industry is that the next version of any
product generally requires more hard disk, requires more RAM, and requires
more processing. In fact this rule pretty much held true since the first
IBM pc came out in 1981.

In the past twenty years I've been around these computers, I can't EVER
remember any new version of any product ever not breaking the above rule.

Just when the rule seems totally proved, an exception occurs. <g>

Windows 7 definitely loads faster and uses fewer resources than Vista.

 

[Arvin Meyer MVP]

The general rule in our computer industry is that the next version of any
product generally requires more hard disk, requires more RAM, and requires
more processing. In fact this rule pretty much held true since the first
IBM pc came out in 1981.

In the past twenty years I've been around these computers, I can't EVER
remember any new version of any product ever not breaking the above rule.

Just when the rule seems totally proved, an exception occurs. <g>

Windows 7 definitely loads faster and uses fewer resources than Vista.

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

Just when the rule seems totally proved, an exception occurs. <g>

Windows 7 definitely loads faster and uses fewer resources than Vista.
--

Agreed! A really wonderful change. I think this rare change in our industry
means win 7 going to be a real hit.

I also think perhaps the model of more memory, more resources etc. may
finally becoming to an end....

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

Just when the rule seems totally proved, an exception occurs. <g>

Windows 7 definitely loads faster and uses fewer resources than Vista.
--

Agreed! A really wonderful change. I think this rare change in our industry
means win 7 going to be a real hit.

I also think perhaps the model of more memory, more resources etc. may
finally becoming to an end....

 

[Arvin Meyer MVP]

Agreed! A really wonderful change. I think this rare change in our
industry means win 7 going to be a real hit.

I also think perhaps the model of more memory, more resources etc. may
finally becoming to an end....

For the consumer's sake, one can only hope. I doubt it though. Memory and
processor manufacturers will always keep pressure on increases.

 

[Arvin Meyer MVP]

Agreed! A really wonderful change. I think this rare change in our
industry means win 7 going to be a real hit.

I also think perhaps the model of more memory, more resources etc. may
finally becoming to an end....

For the consumer's sake, one can only hope. I doubt it though. Memory and
processor manufacturers will always keep pressure on increases.

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

I also think perhaps the model of more memory, more resources etc. may
finally becoming to an end....

Hah. You believe in the tooth fairy too do you?

Tony

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

Bill Gates said 640K were enough back than,

FWIW apparently Bill never said that.

See the Misattributed section at
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

The quotable Bill Gates: In his own words
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9101838

Tony

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

Window Vista can work with only 512MB of RAM, does this mean you only need
this much? They forgot to include disclaimers on other application
requirements on the box labels. Until today, clueless buyers still don’t know
the requirements.

FWIW I happily run Windows Vista and Access for testing purposes in a
Virtual PC with only 512 Mb RAM allocated to it. This includes an
antivirus program. Once you start adding stuff then yes you need RAM.

Tony

 

[David W. Fenton]

FWIW apparently Bill never said that.

See the Misattributed section at
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

The quotable Bill Gates: In his own words
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB
asic&articleId=9101838

And frogs won't stay in water that is brought to boiling, either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog#Veracity

Many of the things we know to be "true" simply aren't (there's also
the Eskimo snow words, and the Chinese character for
crisis/opportunity, both of which are untrue, but I don't have time
to look up the references).

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

(there's also
the Eskimo snow words, and the Chinese character for
crisis/opportunity, both of which are untrue, but I don't have time
to look up the references).

Although the funny thing about the Eskimo/Inuit words for snow is that
English actually has a lot of words for snow.

"Computational linguist Steven J. Derose[6] lists the following as
snow-related English words in general use: avalanche, berg, blizzard,
cornice, crevasse, dusting, floe, flurry, freezing rain, frost,
glacier, glare ice, hardpack, hoarfrost, ice, iceball, iceberg,
icecap, ice crystal, ice field, ice storm, icicle, new-fallen snow,
powder, rime, slush, snowball, snowbank, snowcap, snowdrift, snowfall,
snowflake, snowlike, snowstorm, and yellow snow. He suggests that
skiers may have more words."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow

And yeah, I've probably used and/or seen all of those. Although the
beer commercial featuring the guys drinking the yellow snow leaking
from a keg was funny.

Tony