Need Your Opinions: Access 97 vs 2000

[jimmythegeek]

I know the debate that rages over 97 vs 2000 very well, in fact I am in the midst of it now. My company wants to upgrade to Office 2000, and some are for, and some are against (just so you know, I come down on the AGAINST side). I was asked if I could get some reasons why we should, or SHOULD NOT upgrade to 2000. Basically I don't think that 2000 offers enough to warrant an upgrade, as well as the performance is worse, and code adjustments have to be made (DAO reference stuff).

So please weigh in. Pro or con, for or against, opinion or fact, let me have it on why you think one is better (97), or worse (2000) than the other. Thanks for your opinions, we would like them all! [sig]<p>Jim Lunde<br><a href=mailto:compugeeks@hotmail.com>compugeeks@hotmail.com</a><br><a href=

http://www.cgeek.com>CompuGEEKS</a><br>Custom

Application Development[/sig]

 

[DreewToo]

Hiya Jim,

My .02 is against A2K. My opinion is based on attempting to move an A97 database, relative simple with a couple of ODBC links, and a few reports, to A2K, and finding an incompatibility when attempting to add more of ODBC connections of the same type. The details go further, but each time I tried to move/add additional objects to the A2K app, it would not recognize the connection. (well, at least in that database. When I upgraded the objects I needed to add from A97, it permitted it fine to a new database)...it just wouldn't allow me to import the previously upgraded ODBC objects that were still working fine in the other A2K database. I tried it every way I could think of, to no avail.

(Using A2K 9.0.2720)

Content to wait for the next patch,
Drew [sig][/sig]

 

[jagilman]

I have customers with both. There are some neat features in 2000, but I have just started working with class objects and Enumerated Types. I also was able to bypass the Access version of SQL7 and was only using Access as a front end. From what I hear about the upgrading of 97 db's it sounds like trouble.

I will also sit back and watch the results! [sig]<p>John A. Gilman<br><a href=mailto:gms@uslink.net>gms@uslink.net</a><br>[/sig]

 

[Phooey]

I've been upgrading Access97 databases for some months now and have found no problems with converting from 97 to 2000. There should be no problems with upgraded databases as the DAO referrence still exists in the Access 2000 database. Even new coding of databases can be done using DAO, although the DAO referrence has to be added to the database before the DAO command are recognised.
I have found Access 2000 easier to work with in terms of ODBC connections, although I didn't have too much exposure to ODBC connections in Access 97. I am unsure as to the comparative speed of 97 and 2000 due to the dreadful state of the network card I had before, admittedly 97 did seem faster until I upgraded the network card.
Overall, I find the speed of Access is purely dependant on the prevailing network load..

[sig]<p>Phooey<br><a href=mailto:Andrew.j.harrison@capgemini.co.uk>Andrew.j.harrison@capgemini.co.uk</a><br>Otherwise known as Windy Bottom.[/sig]

 

[Smashie]

Access 2000 seems a Microsoft rush job to me. The new features aren't that impressive - i.e the Internet integration is frankly poor. I feel that Microsoft should have waited a while and then released a new version of Access that TRULY allowed greater web development. I have come across quite a few bugs and mysterious crashes and by far the largest problem is finding other people who have experienced the same problems since not many people seem to be using A2K yet (& Microsoft (of course) won't admit to bugs until at least 50 people contact them with the same bug). I would advocate sticking with A97 until A2K is being used by more people and/or Microsoft release patches to iron out more bugs.
The one major + from my point of view is that the ADO model is great practise for my ASP! [sig][/sig]

 

[TheInsider]

Hi,
I work with both (unfortunately). I am a C/C++ and VB programmer who does not have any reason to like Access. Therefore I consider myself an unbiased professional. I'll keep this simple. A lot of things were fixed in Access 2000. It is generally superior to 97. Try writing a derived-table query in Access 97! ex.) &quot;SELECT...FROM TABLE1 LEFT JOIN (SELECT...) AS TABLE2&quot;
The interface is better. The control properties are interfaced like Visual Basic. To name a few. Lets face it: They (generally) don't release a new version to be inferior to the previous version. Who uses Access 95 anymore? Do you still use 486 computers? Bottum line... you have to keep up with the information technology industry or you'll be left behind.
[sig][/sig]

 

[jimmythegeek]

Thank you all for your responses.

In response to CCTC1, the one reason that we may NOT upgrade is that we are eventually phasing Access out as a viable front-end tool. We are moving more towards VB, and Web-based solutions. Thus, I don't think the effort to upgrade the some 50 + applications we have running in 97, to 2000 is worth it, even though the technology is &quot;behind&quot;.

And just to let you all know, I have run tests on 4 identical processes run in both 97 and 2000, on the same machine, from local tables. Access 2000 ran the processes an average of 10 times slower than 97. You can't blame it on network issues, or different machines, as it was local, on a single machine. [sig]<p>Jim Lunde<br><a href=mailto:compugeeks@hotmail.com>compugeeks@hotmail.com</a><br><a href=

http://www.cgeek.com>CompuGEEKS</a><br>Custom

Application Development[/sig]