Comparison between Access versions

[David Anderson]

I've struggled to find any good sources for a warts-and-all comparison of
Access 2000, 2002 and 2003. Any useful links on this topic would be much
appreciated. I didn't mention Access 2007 here because Allen Browne has
provided an excellent summary at http://allenbrowne.com/Access2007.html.

I currently use the developer version of Access 2000, which includes Access
2000 runtime code and the Package and Deployment Wizard but am concerned
that this is now quite an old product. I also possess Access 2007, but have
not yet given it any serious attention (there are a bewildering number of
interface changes and Allen Browne's website says that is is "too buggy for
serious use" at present). That leaves the possibility of buying an upgrade
to Access 2002 or 2003 (probably via eBay) for use until Access 2007 gets
properly debugged. Any input on the pros and cons of upgrading to either of
these versions would be welcomed.

I'm already aware that I can't get any developer extensions, such as the
runtime code and PDW, for Access 2003 without paying a ludicrous price for
the 'Microsoft Visual Studio Tools 2005 for the Microsoft Office System'
package. By comparison, the runtime and PDW for A2000 and A2007 are free. I
don't know the situation for A2002. I have read suggestions that the A2007
runtime (and PDW?) might work for an app developed in some older versions of
Access, but would appreciate confirmation on that point.

David

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

The runtime for Access 2000 isn't free.

There is (or was) a free download for a revised smaller version of the
Access 2000 runtime, because everyone bemoaned how large packages created by
the original version were (it automatically included an upgrade to IE 5, if
memory serves, whether it was required or not), but you require a license
for the previous larger version in order to use it legally.

And while VSTO may be "a ludicrous price", what would it cost you for 10
copies of Access?

For what was new in Access 2002, take a look at
http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/sampchap/5022.aspx

For what was new in Access 2003, take a look at
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/access/HA010714971033.aspx

 

[David Anderson]

Hi Doug,
I am an idiot. Of course the A2000 runtime & PDW were not free. I had to buy
the Developer version to get these items! Just put it down to old age and
advancing senility. My real whinge about VSTO was that it cost far more
(AFAICR) than the premium I paid for the Developer version of A2000.
However, I totally accept that for a professional developer it is not a huge
sum. My current Access development activity is being done at no charge for a
non-profit making organisation with which I am associated so cost is a
critical factor in my situation. Perhaps I'm also being a stereotypical Scot
in my unwillingness to spend money....

I'm interested to hear about the reduced size version of the A2000 runtime.
I had not heard about that before.

Thanks for the MS "what's new" links for A2002/03, but given their source
they are rather unlikely to give me the warts-and-all view that I was
seeking. Allen Browne's review of A2007 is a model of what I had in mind.
BTW, which version of Access do you use yourself?

David

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Most of my work is still in Access 97. We've got roughly 100,000 desktops
world-wide that we haven't upgraded yet (although we're on Office 2003 for
the other products in the Office suite). I also work in Access 2003 at home.

And not wanting to continue flogging a dead horse, but IIRC, you could buy
the Developer Extensions for Access 2000 by themselves, not requiring you to
purchase the entire Office 2000 Developer Edition (which included a copy of
Office 2000 Professional in addition to the other bells and whistles). That
would have made the price tag much lower. To the best of my recollection,
that option wasn't available for Access 2002 or 2003.

 

[David Anderson]

Most of my work is still in Access 97...

That makes me feel a little less worried about still using Access 2000!

David

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

I'm already aware that I can't get any developer extensions, such as the
runtime code and PDW, for Access 2003 without paying a ludicrous price for
the 'Microsoft Visual Studio Tools 2005 for the Microsoft Office System'
package.

The pricing total cost was about the same as always.

You don't have to make two separate purchases. You simply purchase the
Visual Studio Tools for Office extensions for office and your done.

You also don't have to install visual studio at all.

As for cost I think in the same price range as always...

I have read suggestions that the A2007 runtime (and PDW?) might work for
an app developed in some older versions of Access, but would appreciate
confirmation on that point.

I can't really say there's enough experience built up yet to risk this in a
production environment.

For example I've been told that access 2003 can consume a 2000 or 2002 mde.
Hhowever I'm not sure I would really risk that.

I would be pretty much inclined to develop under the same version I plan to
distribute under. A few bugs here and there with any amount of distribution
will eat up thousands of dollars of support time in a flash.

In fact I would consider with any large amount distribution or you don't
have control the target machine who would consider purchasing some
commercial install scripts. you can find them here:

www.sagekey.com

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

That makes me feel a little less worried about still using Access 2000!

Actually, most of us consider Access 2000 to be one of the poorer releases
(second only to Access 95).

Access 97, on the other hand, is generally regarded as being one of the most
stable.

 

[David Anderson]

That rather begs the question, is there a similar general consensus about
the benefits and/or shortcomings of A2002 and A2003? More specifically, how
would you rank Access versions 95 to 2007 in terms of stability?

David

 

[David Anderson]

Albert,
Thanks for the info. Just out of interest, what version of Access do you
prefer to use for all your new database development?

David

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

I'm still reserving judgement on Access 2007.

For the others, from best to worst I'd say Access 97, Access 2003, Access
2002, Access 2000, Access 95.

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

Albert,
Thanks for the info. Just out of interest, what version of Access do you
prefer to use for all your new database development?

David

I'm currently using 2003. before that I was using 97.

I like 2003 for several reasons and I have to admit I also liked the themes
ability
(that just simply means that the buttons are a bit rounded).

Hhere some samples side by side screens with themes turned off and then
things turned on

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal/Atheme/index.htm

While you actually lose the sunken the fact I just simply prefer the new
look. When I moved my access 97 software to 2003 and turned themes on, it
really made by nearly ten year old software look quite new and modern.

I suppose I'm a bit of fluf liking things to look a bit more modern. so
sometimes I do choose things in terms of them looking better than just basic
functionality.

And while I not delivered any applications in 2007 yet, I am looking forward
to making some really cool nice looking ribbons.

 

[David Anderson]

Albert,
That's interesting. I also have a keen interest in the appearance of my
Access apps and any extra tools for tweaking the design style of the user
interface are very welcome. How many different themes are available for
selection in Access 2003 (I'm assuming there is more than one)?

David

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

There's no choice of themes in 2003.

Its just that you can have themes turned on or off. When you turn themes on,
it uses the Windows XP settings.

As those screen shot show the main difference is the rounding of the buttons
but you do lose some of the other effects as some people actually like. For
example there is a chisel or edged effect that you see when you use an
option group. Note in those photos how much the chiseled effect disappears.
also some don't like the loss of the sunken the effect.

Regardless, I still prefer the new look that the screen shot show.

So it's not that you choose from bunch of themes it's just that MS access
inherits the windows xp theme look.

In 2007 you actually do have a bunch of color schemes that you can actually
choose from.

As I said it's kind of minor but if you look at the following continuous
forms in access 2003 I just think they look a good deal better.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal/Articles/Grid.htm

 

[Rick Brandt]

As I said it's kind of minor but if you look at the following
continuous forms in access 2003 I just think they look a good deal
better.
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal/Articles/Grid.htm

I agree, but I think if you set the system color used for the form background to
the lighter color used in the themed version examples, the difference would be a
lot less. That darker gray is what looks "tired" (IMO).