 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
MS Access Forum / General 2 / October 2007Comparison between Access versions
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 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  SignatureDoug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP http://I.Am/DougSteele (no e-mails, please!) > 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 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > David 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 > The runtime for Access 2000 isn't free. > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> >> David 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. SignatureDoug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP http://I.Am/DougSteele (no e-mails, please!) > Hi Doug, > I am an idiot. Of course the A2000 runtime & PDW were not free. I had to [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >>> >>> David > Most of my work is still in Access 97... That makes me feel a little less worried about still using Access 2000! David >> Most of my work is still in Access 97... > > 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. SignatureDoug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP http://I.Am/DougSteele (no e-mails, please!) 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 >>> Most of my work is still in Access 97... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Access 97, on the other hand, is generally regarded as being one of the > most stable. 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. SignatureDoug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP http://I.Am/DougSteele (no e-mails, please!) > That rather begs the question, is there a similar general consensus about > the benefits and/or shortcomings of A2002 and A2003? More specifically, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Access 97, on the other hand, is generally regarded as being one of the >> most stable. "David Anderson" <PLSdcanderson88@REMOVEhotmail.FIRSTcom> wrote in message > 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 SignatureAlbert D. Kallal (Access MVP) Edmonton, Alberta Canada pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com 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 > "David Anderson" <PLSdcanderson88@REMOVEhotmail.FIRSTcom> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > www.sagekey.com > 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. SignatureAlbert D. Kallal (Access MVP) Edmonton, Alberta Canada pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com 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, >> Thanks for the info. Just out of interest, what version of Access do you [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > And while I not delivered any applications in 2007 yet, I am looking > forward to making some really cool nice looking ribbons. 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 SignatureAlbert D. Kallal (Access MVP) Edmonton, Alberta Canada pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com > 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). SignatureRick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP Email (as appropriate) to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.