should I convert my databases to Access 2003? 1

[beckyh]

Or just open my Access 2000 databases with Access 2003? What are the pro's and con's of each scenario? Thank you for your feedback!

 

[beckyh]

I should supply more info. my company's pc techs are wondering if they can deploy Office 2003 on new pc's and eventually upgrade everyone in our company. but i don't know, because i don't know the differences between Access 2000 and Access 2003. Currently all of our databases are 2000 file format. Should we convert every database to Access 2003 before we deploy Office 2003? We know that 2000 files will open in 2003, but does all code work? if we don't convert them to 2003 right away, are there any con's to just opening 2000 files in 2003?

 

[cottontop]

I've been working for several months in 2003 openning 2000 databases and have not run into any problems/limitations.

Since we are not all using 2003, I think it would be prudent to open in 2000 until everyone's has 2003!

 

[ineuw]

Converting existing 2000 databases to Access 2003 is not a very good idea. There are numerous bugs in Access/Office 2003 and you can search the web for comments. (There are many). However, it boils down to whether the problems affect your applications. The next best thing is convert a copy of one database that contains queries, forms, reports and VBA code (if you use these) and test them thoroughly before committing yourself.

Win2000P/Acc2000 - It's best to stay with products that work.

 

[Ed2020]

And there aren't any bugs is Access 2000?!

Access 2000 is a horribly buggy piece of software. 2003 ain't perfect, but it seems like a hell of an improvement to me over Acc2000.

Ed Metcalfe.

Please do not feed the trolls.....

 

[beckyh]

Wow...a mixed interpretation. I am not surprised though. Good point of staying with software that works, however if we want to upgrade our Office here, doesn't it make sense to get the database up to current version? When we went from Access 95 and 97 to 2000, we had to convert our databases to 2000. I just assumed we would have to do the same in this case, because 2000 files are 2 versions behind 2003.

Any other opinions out there? Nothing is really swaying me one way or the other? Open 2000 files in 2003? Or convert 2000 file to 2003? Question of the year...

 

[beckyh]

question for a programmer - can i program (add or delete VBA) my 2000 file in 2003. Or can i just simply open the database? i do not want to run into issues of compatibility.

 

[ineuw]

I don't know about 2003. but it's not a problem when programming 2000 in Access XP. Also, you can simply export all your code from 2000 as text and reimport it to 2003. Just make sure you have the required libraries installed.

Win2000P/Acc2000 - It's best to stay with products that work.

 

[ineuw]

To Ed2020: Could you kindly point me to a bug in 2000? I would be most interested in testing it since I am using it extensively. . . . . Thanks in advance.

Win2000P/Acc2000 - It's best to stay with products that work.

 

[sfreeman]

Update to 2003 - office 2003 is much more extensive

Volume Licensed Editions - These versions are available through Microsoft's various Volume License programs for businesses.

Microsoft Office Professional Enterprise Edition 2003
Word Excel Outlook PowerPoint Publisher OL BCM Access XML & IRM InfoPath

 

[Lightning]

When we went from Access 95 and 97 to 2000, we had to convert our databases to 2000. I just assumed we would have to do the same in this case, because 2000 files are 2 versions behind 2003.

You needed to convert your databases at this time because MS moved from using DAO in 95 & 97 to using ADO in 2000. XP and 2003 both use ADO, so the upgrade process is not as intense between these and 2000 as it was between 95/97 and 2000.

If your databases currently use ADO then you will have no major issues in upgrading to 2003. If you are still using DAO, then you will need to ensure that all users have the DAO 3.6 object library installed on their PC, and all Databases include a reference to this library.

HTH
Lightning

 

[MichaelRed]

There should be no issues between 2000, 2003 and XP. both '03 and 'XP actually use the 2K file foirmat as their default settings, so opening using and programming are all fully compatible.





MichaelRed
mlred@verizon.net

 

[THWatson]

Just to offer my experience...

I used Access 2003 on my laptop computer for almost 3 months. I kept everything in Access 2000 format, in order to use it on my desktop as well, as I didn't put 2003 on my desktop.

I only ran into a couple of programming issues. One had to do with the HasData function. Can't remember the other one.

And, as MichaelRed suggests, there shouldn't be any issues between 2000 and 2003 as they are built on the same basic platform.

However, in due course I removed Access 2003 and went back to Access 2000. What drove me to removing 2003 was sudden and unexplainable program crashes which were always, without exception, unrecoverable. There is supposed to be a way to recover, through Office Recovery, but it surely never worked for me.

Recently, Microsoft has issued a service pack for Office 2003, and that, hopefully, might resolve some issues.

Tom

 

[Ed2020]

Bugs I've experienced in Access 2000:

1. All tables/queries disappearing from the database window, although they can still be opened as recordsets.

2. Forms refusing to open in design view.

3. Forms refusing to open in design view and form view.

4. DoCmd.TransferSpreadsheet doesn't work when exporting to a filepath > 63 characters in length (gives error message "Database or object is read only").

5. Double-precision numeric fields truncated to 2dp when exporting using DoCmd.TransferText.

6. QueryDefs working for months and then giving error message "Query is too complex".

7. VBA project becoming corrupt for no apparant reason.

8. Workgroup file cannot be changed for a new DBEngine object (although this could be seen as an undocumented feature, rather than a bug - there is actually a different DBEngine object for use in this instance).

Some of these I have found answers to, others I haven't. I could go on (I have *plenty* of other examples)......

All in all I reckon I've lost more hours work through Access 2000 bugs than all the other versions of Access put together.

Ed Metcalfe.



Please do not feed the trolls.....

 

[ineuw]

I just came across a website, which has some info for beckyh, about conversion issues from 97 -> 2000 -> 2002 -> 2003. Hope this helps.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~allenbrowne/tips.html#flaws

Win2000P/Acc2000 - It's best to stay with products that work.

 

[beckyh]

I can't get the above link to work.

I am still interested in this topic, if others have more to offer to this discussion.

 

[beckyh]

Link does work after all! However, I'm not sure I understand what I am to be looking at on this page.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Ed2020,

I've used all versions of Access extensively, although I haven't dealt as much with Access XP/2003. I have found that Access 2000 is one of the most stable.

It seems to me that many of the problems that you are mentioning could be due to a bad install, as I've never come across them (I've developed across a dozen machines during my time).

 

[sfreeman]

Ed:

You're a little late, bud :-B



Sam_F
"90% of the problem is asking the right question.

 

[FancyPrairie]

Here's my 2 cents worth (and that's about all it's worth at this time because I'm not familiar with .NET). I was doing a Google search on Access 2003 and activeX and came across an article (can't find it now though) that indicated that Microsoft would be abandaning VBA in favor of .NET. I believe all of the Office 2003 products, except Access, uses .NET. Although you can incorporate .NET in Access 2003. The article recommended going to Access 2003.

Like I said, I don't know anything about .NET but am hoping that someone might be able to shed some light on this.