I hate Access 2000

[DougP]

here are some links

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q241/1/41.asp

Elizabeth wrote this FAQ
faq181-166 DougP, MCP

Visit my WEB site

http://www.barcodeone.com

to see how Bar-codes can help you be more productive

 

[Saintor]

I did upgrade to ACC2K because I had no choice (corporate decision). ACC97 was just fine. I feel it is slower. And sometimes, code will hang and you can't do anything.

When I'll get enough of MS stupid decisions, I'll move to ASP for the applications on the intranet. And ASP won't generate as much money for them as Access.

Thanks god, we have that corporate Oracle license.

 

[MichaelRed]

I've had a problem converting A2K to '97 for users. Even "simple" little demos to show a technique. If there is any code (in a MOdule), it usually doesn't get placed in a module in the 'retot' '97 version.

Anyone know what I'm doing wrong?


MichaelRed
redmsp@erols.com

There is never time to do it right but there is always time to do it over

 

[Guest_imported]

how to open Access 2000 .mdb files in Access 97

 

[MichaelRed]

this doesn't work. It is retro, not prognosticating.

MichaelRed
mred@att.net

There is never time to do it right but there is always time to do it over

 

[woyler]

You have to convert to a previous version from within 2K

 

[Databaseguy]

Hey, if Everyone was running Windows 3.0, a Novell 3.X server and Access 2.0:

1. Everything would work just fine
2. Nothing would need to be fixed
3. We'd all be out of work



Seriously though. I am also frustrated at times over the seemingly endless succession of new products. I just learn one Object Model and out comes another.

On the plus side, (for the most part) the newest version is usually more capable. Overall, I don't mind the change. I just accept it.

Besides, there'll be a lot of clients needing "consulting" when their new stuff doesn't work...

 

[jbam]

Just use Access 2k for a front end and you'll be okay.

 

[davidn]

This has all been quite interesting. I only recently acquired Office 2K Professional (just to get Access 2000) I started with Access V.2, skipped Access95 and really becaume a serious programmer with V.8 (97). I also had used the DTK for Access2.0 and the ODE which you buy to go with Office97. So, naturally, I wanted to get the ODE or whatever it would be called in 2000. Then someone told me it was packaged in Office2K professional. Only after purchase did I learn it ain't. When I went looking, Microsoft's website doesn't even offer Office2000 products(Hey! Buy our OfficeXP!) A phone call to MS tech support gained me the insight that I should try to find a copy of Office 2000 Premium (which they advised is the Developer's version) I finally tracked down a 3rd party supplier who had it on the shelf(Man! where did all those copes go?)But they called me to verify this was what I really wanted. I related the assurances of MS tech support and they said OK! we got a copy for you. So I bought it and installed it, but am only superficially getting into the works with it. And then I read in this thread that I'm wrong! That there really is a "developer's edition" and, immediately, I'm concerned I won't be able to build run-time set-ups for application distribution with what I have in my possession. Can someone verify this for me. I paid about $750 for the Premium Edition. And I still have the original Office 2K Professional on the shelf. If I go to management and tell them I bought the wrong one and still have to buy another, they may shoot me.

 

[Smack]

I converted everything over the weekend and it has not been fun. Some reports came in using the system default, 1" margins and potrat instead of landscape. A2K will not allow me to even save minor changes like this with others in the system. I also had to set permissions on the front end AND the back end. The system now runs considerably slower. I have posted questions and got no response.
Who is doing this to me?
Why did I teach myself Access?
I'm ready for a cold beer or a frontal labotamy, not sure which one yet.
-Smack

 

[Oppenhiemer]

Ok heres my view - what a waste of money. In fact the sooner Linux (or one of the other alternatice Unix versions) gets its act together, the better - because I can bin their buggy OS too.

Comming from Office 97 + developers edition - I purchased Office 2000 Premium (becuase it give the ability to create redistribution versions of my database app.)

I then found the following :

1. Took me ages to find out HOW to access the developers tools in order to create a redistribution of my database (in fact I ended up having to phone MS.)
2. No Expression Builder - whats that about ??
3. Total change in programming model. They dramatically changed this approach with a view to what ? Make it more Object Orientated ? LOL I dont think so.
4. The size of a distribution files for a 1MB database file is approximately 160 MB. Compare this with about 11 MB for Access 97. This perhaps would be ok if you were giving customers more features - but your are not!

Anyway, having bought the thing - its sat there gathering dust now. I have gone back to using Acccess 97 and tools. In fact I am curently re-writing my applications in Borland Delphi (a truly Object Oriented language.)

Wow - I feel better after that rant ;-)

Cheers..

Opp.

 

[Aivars]

Hi, MichaelRed!

I think your DB2000 contains some objects of ActiveX controls or Calendar control. In such case you may change its to older version ActiveX. Access97 don't know MSCOMCTL.OCX but COMCTL32.OCX and not DAO360.DLL but DAO350.DLL. Also though Calendar controls show same version numbers require that its will be changed. I always remove all these objects from forms and create new objects with same names. Codes works fine exclude Common Dialog control: don't works <Cancel> button.

I like Access 2000. There are repaired errors of Treeview control, better works ProgressBar and Common Dialog. Also several new functions (e.g. Round()) and lot of object properties which had not Acc97 are included in the Acc2000.

Aivars

 

[AccessGuru]

I wrote a large commodity trading application in Access 2.0 then converted to 97 (1000 objects). That was in 1994 and until today they are still using both the 2.0 and 97 versions - for 2 companies. Why no 2000 you ask?

But I have tried to convert the 97 to 2000 or sql backend or 2002. Well, i have this to say:

The good:
1. If you have no secured databases and minimal code, mostly macros and 10 lines of code max everywhere, chances are you will convert quite smoothly, but still need to re-test everything, so that is good for small apps.

The bad:
If you have lots of code you will encounter lots of errors. Re-writing of code will be needed. To make best use of 2000 you should use only 2000 code. e.g. docmd openform becomes docmd.openform, etc.

Doing this will take you just as long as re-writing one. I suggest copying and pasting code and recreating all forms from scratch.

The ugly:
With secured databases, and a large number of objects, security does not port over, so you need to re-create all the mdw users, groups and permissions.

One more ugly, corrupted objects. You work frantically to find out after 5 days that the code is perfect but the object is corrupted. One work around is to copy and paste the object within the dataqbase, delete the original one and rename the new one back to the original one. if it does not work, you haveto recreate it. I suggest retyping all the code. do not copy and paste. And over more get corrupted. I had at least 5 out of 1000 objects.

All in all, with testing, re-creating security and re-coding, i would suggest you evaluate the benefits versus the down side. That is only my experience.

 

[number2]

I had to chime in; I developed an app in '97. It worked fine. The only reason I moved up was to make packaging and distribution &quot;easier&quot;. I needed a setup routine which would install Access runtime as many potential users may not have Access installed.

The packager in Office XP Dev Edition had a bug. But I found the patch at the MS site. It works, but it is a &quot;mother&quot; to install. In order to install the XP Access runtime, setup must install system files on the users PC, and THEN install the runtime. It can mean 2 reboots on PCs running Win98 or below. This equals possible trouble for uptight and scared users who don't expect their PC's to reboot several times when installing a small program.

A second problem is of course the &quot;unstable&quot; feel of Access XP (no doubt no improvment over Access 2000). On many occaisions the program will stop working..make a back and ask, &quot;An error has occurred would you like to report this?&quot; You know; Access 97 NEVER locked up, it never asked to report to Bill and it always felt solid. I feel very insecure working with Access XP (2002). I feel that it could taste my data in paroxsym of over-zealous code.

I have not run a great deal of test installs of my Access XP Runtime app on virgin systems yet. I will pass on my &quot;real world&quot; results.

 

[ToeShot]

I have been using Access 2000 for a while now. I don't feel there is much of a performance difference between A2K and A97. As for the conversion part I had to Convert A97 to A2K was about 200 objects. but I didn't have a conversion problem. As for the coding problems I found most of it was do to referencing and just by changing that most of the code worked. There were Some instances I had to rewrite some code because A2K didn't suport that anymore. I don't know May be it is just me but if you are coming out with new product it should be able to fully suport its predecessor in all aspects, Oh wait, sorry I went off to dream world. As for the developer I agree it shouldn't be so big and cumbersome, I feel it also lacks flexibility on your setup and install. I also agree with the Linux comment by Oppenhiemer With the Advancement in the Linux Kernel and companies like Best Linux and Redmond Linux, making there installation and operation have the same feel as a win system, it won't be long before you start seeing more Linux systems in the home use area. Also, in my opinion MySql is not a bad database system I am currently using 3.34 with VB5 Front End. I find it reliable and fast, but I would not use it for critical applications as it lacks support for transactions and it is not Full ANSI92 compatiable. It's still not ready for the big leagues but with some work it may be some day, lets see what version 4 has to offer this month. But it is free and you can use it in a windows system and ZDnet has a usefull tool to interface with MySql making it easier to create a database, With a bonus of being able to import Access Databases, Though it is easy you need to take the time to set up the import. I have the Address for the tool in another post. But anyone using MySql and wants the interface email me and let me know.
Back to the A2K issue, in a final thought I will not move to Xp because I am tired of giving Micro$oft hundreds of dollars for software that is buggy and they know it is and still charge for support. I will continue the development in A2K but I don't know how much longer. I also feel they are getting to greedy with there new OS. To all those sticking with microsoft wish you the best of luck.

Thank You for Letting me speak my mind here.

 

[Oppenhiemer]

Hi again (must admit - its been a while since I posted here - thought this thread was dead )

Did you know that you used to be able to buy the development tools for Access 97 Number2 ? They were easier to install than those for Access2k and produced a more efficient re-distribution (avarage size of distribution package being around 11MB as opposed to 160 MB for the same database with Access2k.) I must admit that for those wanting to create re-distributions of the runtime version of Access - they must go for Access2k as MS dont support (or sell) the Access97 version of the developers tools anymore (so Im hanging on to mine real tight .)

Since purchasing Access2k - about the only thing I have found it useful for was converting an old Access97 Database to Paradox version 7 tables. An expensive utility under the circumstances.

I think both Number2 and Toeshot are right to avoid AccessXP. I have not personally had experience with it - but if its like previous MS products - you will be better off waiting till at least MS have produced the second &quot;Service Pack&quot; that will solve many of the &quot;Known Issues&quot; (because thats what they are folks - not bugs :lol.)

And I totally agree with ToeShot with regards the giving MS any more money. It seems that (perhaps coincidentally) many of the percieved problems with MS and their products have come along since the legal problems they had. Did they not split the company up into smaller divisions or something ? (I must admit - it would explain many things about Access2k - you do get the feeling it was designed by commitee.)

The point is that they seem to be bringing out a new product (or should I say a new version of a product) every 5 minutes now. I mean how many versions of Windows have appeared over the last 18 months ?? And how many do we really nead . But yes - no more money from me for MS products.

I seriously suggest (and I know I mentioed it before) that those thinking of a direction change (or even a good start) should check out Delphi as an alternative. Its true OO and gives you more control over apps than Access (which for my taste relies too heavily on ActiveX and COM.) The new version of Delphi also makes it easier to build cross-platform apps (for those thinking of Linux.)

Anyway, just my 2 cents ..

Cheers..

 

[number2]

I do wish that I had gone with the 97 tools. The Office XP dev tools are not impressive. I was hoping to make the app more stable... HA!

The installation of the runtime in XP is as you say huge. Even a speedy PC and drive are slowed to a crawl at install; I fear what will happen on a &quot;slow&quot; 300Mhz box.

 

[scking]

I've converted very large code-based Access 97 databases to Access 2000 quite easily. Most of the code problems can be bypassed by simple doing a global replace from &quot;As Database&quot; to &quot;As DAO.Database&quot; and &quot;As Recordset&quot; to &quot;As DAO.Recordset&quot; and then setting a reference to the DAO 3.6 library. Many databases have converted cleanly with a few minor compile issues revolving around different libraries.

All the Access 97 databases I develop now will have the explicit database and recordset dim statements to allow cleaner conversion to Access 2000 when needed. I have users with 97 and 2000 accessing the same database. Since 2000 requires some modifications to work properly I just upgrade and use the same code for the 97 version. There have been no problems associated with using this method.

Yes, Access 2000 bloats files significantly and has some other peculiarities. I currently uses Access 2002 at home.

Steve King Growth follows a healthy professional curiosity