Access XP Reliability

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Wayne Aprato - 30 Sep 2004 11:06 GMT

How does Access 2002 fit in to the reliability lineup of Access
versions. Access 95 seemed to be fairly ordinary, Access 97 by all
accounts was their best effort yet and Access 2000 seems to have a few
nasty bugs.

Any opinions/help would be appreciated.

Reply to this Message

Brian - 30 Sep 2004 11:33 GMT

IMNSHO, it's no worse than '97. Both versions do 99.9% of their stuff OK,
but both versions have some "features" that you need to find a way of
working around.

> How does Access 2002 fit in to the reliability lineup of Access
> versions. Access 95 seemed to be fairly ordinary, Access 97 by all
> accounts was their best effort yet and Access 2000 seems to have a few
> nasty bugs.
>
> Any opinions/help would be appreciated.

Reply to this Message

Allen Browne - 30 Sep 2004 12:29 GMT

Wayne, see:
Converting from Access 97
at:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~allenbrowne/ser-48.html

Particularly, the Usability part of the article highlights the issues you
must be aware of to get A2000 and later working reliably.

IME and subject to the limitations discussed in the article, A2003 is the
most reliable version of Access for developing in.

Signature

Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

Reply to this Message

Wayne Aprato - 30 Sep 2004 22:05 GMT

Thanks for the information Brian and Allen.

Regards.

Reply to this Message

Trevor Best - 30 Sep 2004 21:14 GMT

It alternated:
A1 crap
A2 good
A95 crap
A97 good
A2K crap
A2K2 good

Think I'll avoid A2K3 for as long as poss. :-)

Signature

\\\\\\
\\ \\ Windows is searching
\ \ For your sig.
\ \ Please Wait.
\__\

Reply to this Message