 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
MS Access Forum / General 1 / April 2006Access 97 vs. newer versions
If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a datasheet that would include two related tables to create an encyclopedic style database and then create some fairly indepth forms to filter and query the info in the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading from Access97 to a later version? > If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a datasheet > that would include two related tables to create an encyclopedic style > database and then create some fairly indepth forms to filter and query > the info in the database, would there be any great advantage to > upgrading from Access97 to a later version? If you use Access 2003 you won't have those recruiters from Antiques Roadshow bothering you. Access 97 is just fine. So is driving to California from Oklahoma in a Model A Ford. It's especially fine for those who are not capable or do not wish to familiarize themselves with the complexities of overhead cam engines, or automatic transmissions, and want be exploited as fruit pickers because they have no current marketable skills. And the use of Access 97 qualifies you for immediate Access to DAO heaven should you be DOA, which is very convenient as it’s quite easy to mistake the one for the other.  SignatureLyle Fairfield > If you use Access 2003 you won't have those recruiters from Antiques > Roadshow bothering you. What?!? > Access 97 is just fine. So is driving to California from Oklahoma in a > Model A Ford. It's especially fine for those who are not capable or do not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > qualifies you for immediate Access to DAO heaven should you be DOA, which > is very convenient as it's quite easy to mistake the one for the other. Is this supposed to make sense??? 'cause it didn't address my question or any other for that matter!?! >> If you use Access 2003 you won't have those recruiters from Antiques >> Roadshow bothering you. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Is this supposed to make sense??? 'cause it didn't address my question or any > other for that matter!?! Lyle like "new stuff" better. You need to examine the "What's New?" documents for the newer versions to see if any of those features appeal to you enough to pay for an upgrade. Nothing you've described seems to mandate anything newer. If you intend to share your file with others then a version that produces the 2000 file format would have the largest compatibility because anyone with 2000, 2002, or 2003 would not only be able to open it (MDB or MDE), but also make design changes (MDB only). If you were only concerned with others "using" it and didn't mind distributing an MDB then Access 97 file format would have the largest compatibility since the newer versions can use a 97 file (MDB only), they just can't make design changes without converting it first. SignatureRick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP Email (as appropriate) to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com >> If you use Access 2003 you won't have those recruiters from >> Antiques Roadshow bothering you. > > What?!? Lyle thinks that software code "rusts" when it gets old (i.e., older than 5 years or so). He's crazy on this point, so far as I'm concerned. >> Access 97 is just fine. So is driving to California from Oklahoma >> in a Model A Ford. It's especially fine for those who are not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Is this supposed to make sense??? 'cause it didn't address my > question or any other for that matter!?! It's an absolutely ludicrous comparison -- and not worth paying the slightest attention to. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ Give 'em Hell, Lyle! >> If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a datasheet >> that would include two related tables to create an encyclopedic style [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > qualifies you for immediate Access to DAO heaven should you be DOA, which > is very convenient as it's quite easy to mistake the one for the other. Your example is just non-sense. A better comparaison could be a '86 Honda Accord vs a '06 Honda Accord. In truth, the '86 wasn't that bad and some even prefer it to the new one. Lighter, feels sportier. Very reliable and cheap to run. > Access 97 is just fine. So is driving to California from Oklahoma in a > Model A Ford. It's especially fine for those who are not capable or do not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > qualifies you for immediate Access to DAO heaven should you be DOA, which > is very convenient as it's quite easy to mistake the one for the other. Let's see! The 86 Accord came in at 110 (most) horsepower and 27 mpg (best). The 2006: 244 hp and 37 mpg. So the 2006 is quite a bit more than twice as powerful than the 1986 and 37 per cent more efficient. So may I quote you that Access 2003 is more than twice as powerful as Access 97 and at least 37 per cent more efficient? Gee, who would want that? Lyle Fairfield: > Gee, who would want that? let's see ... in 6 years: X gained 100% raw power and 37% efficiency Y gained, say, 300% raw power and y% efficiency Suppose y<37% and rate(X)=rate(Y). After six years of owning both an X and an Y, which one should be replaced first? > So may I quote you that Access 2003 is more than twice as powerful > as Access 97 and at least 37 per cent more efficient? No one but an idiot would say that the two versions of Access differ by anything close to that much. There is absolutely not one type of desktop database application that you can create in A2K3 that you cannot create in A97. Yes, some minor fraction of those applications are easier in A2K3, but they are not significantly easier in A2K3 than they were in A2K, which was released in 1999. This is ludicrous, Lyle. Your chosen analogy was wildly hyperbolic. I still say that the automobile comparison would be reasonable if you used a model of car in the years the two versions of Access were released (1996 and 2002). Of course, software has no "wear-and-tear" factor, so it's not that much of a comparison, either. You'd have to compare a mint condition 1996 car with virtually no miles on it to a brand-new 2002. If you did that, the differences would not be worth that much, except to a very few. And that's exactly the case with Access, and especially so for standalone apps for one's own personal use. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ >> So may I quote you that Access 2003 is more than twice as powerful >> as Access 97 and at least 37 per cent more efficient? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > And that's exactly the case with Access, and especially so for > standalone apps for one's own personal use. Esp is said car is still using the same engine (although it does have an optional upgraded engine) :) Signatureregards, Br@dley >> So may I quote you that Access 2003 is more than twice as powerful >> as Access 97 and at least 37 per cent more efficient? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > And that's exactly the case with Access, and especially so for > standalone apps for one's own personal use. Disregard my prev post... I misread it as a comparison of A2000 & 2003... (off to inject more coffee now) Signatureregards, Br@dley Why do you publish false figures? Just because it is convenient to you? It is a very good way to zilch your credibility. 27mpg was for CITY and 33 is for HIGHWAY. For the 2006 V6, it is 24/37. But you clearly miss the point. A lot of Accord '86-89 ex-owners are nostalgic and don't find the same sportiness and zest in the newer versions. And this generation was dead reliable. Who needs the added complexity if you are not interested in speed and want to keep the cost down. A lot of parallels as we can see. > Let's see! The 86 Accord came in at 110 (most) horsepower and 27 mpg > (best). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Gee, who would want that? > If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a > datasheet that would include two related tables to create an > encyclopedic style database and then create some fairly > indepth forms to filter and query the info in the database, > would there be any great advantage to upgrading from Access97 > to a later version? Unless you are interested in suffering the effects of newly introduced b\u\g\s\features like Name Autocorrupt or much ADO about nothing, there is little point in upgrading. SignatureBob Quintal PA is y I've altered my email address. > If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a datasheet that > would include two related tables to create an encyclopedic style database > and then create some fairly indepth forms to filter and query the info in > the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading from Access97 > to a later version? Access 97 is fine. > the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading from Access97 > to a later version? In my opinion, yes. What Lyle says makes perfect sense. His analogy is the Model A and a modern vehicle compared to A97 and later versions of Acccess. In my own experience, I've found that while A97 is pretty solid, I've had difficulty deploying my apps on WinXp machines. Frequently, these machines have had A97 installed along with later versions of Office. I have no control over these machines, but it seems that frequently, software support people don't do such installs correctly. In such situations and sometimes even in cases where only Office 97 is installed on the WinXp OS, I encounter cripppling problems that usually manifest themselves when library references are screwed up. I prefer to deploy mde's and it's really not worth the headache to go out and try and compile these on the many problem machines there are. This was one of a couple of major reasons for my decision to switch to A2003. SignatureTim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/ ^o< /#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake /^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me >> the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading from Access97 >> to a later version? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > try and compile these on the many problem machines there are. This was one of > a couple of major reasons for my decision to switch to A2003. While I don't doubt your experiences I have Access 97 runtime apps deployed on hundreds of machines (which I have NEVER seen physically) using everything from Win95 all the way to Windows Server 2003 and have zero problems that can be attributed to the Access version. These days the majority of those users are running WinXP. I have never compiled my MDEs on anything but my single office PC at work. I hear stories about people needing to compile their apps "per environment", but have never seen that issue either. Access 97 is not the best choice on machines where NT accounts are set up and the user is not an admin of the machine, but even with that I have seen few issues that were not easily solved. It is also not a good choice for Terminal Server apps on newer versions of Windows as the "high percentage, low priority" CPU usage of Access 97 that is normally not a problem in other situations does seem to bog the machine down in that scenario. SignatureRick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP Email (as appropriate) to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com > While I don't doubt your experiences I have Access 97 runtime apps deployed on > hundreds of machines (which I have NEVER seen physically) using everything from > Win95 all the way to Windows Server 2003 and have zero problems that can be > attributed to the Access version. That's reassuring to hear. Here's some more background on my situation for information's sake. 8) Most of my problem has to do with a different part of our organization over which the network support guy runs a reign of iron control and terror (in my opinion) and has all individual PCs locked down tightly, not permitting anyone to do anything on their PCs except in their own user space. While I know there are some organizations where such control is warranted, this one example is certainly *NOT* one of them. As far as I'm concerned, this network admin, who also handles PC support, does not do Office installs correctly when there are multiple versions of Office required (such as Office 2000 and A97, for example). The very small number of similar problems in my own area can, I think be attributed to similar mis-installations. One of those local problems I attribute to a commercial VB app installed on one user's PC that uses some version of Jet. All of these I'm pretty sure I can attribute to two (sometimes more) versions of Office, ie, A97 and a later version of Office running. I couldn't be bothered to keep up with stuff so the only A97 apps I support are when people come to me with an issue on a machine where I can see the format, left, etc functions are still working properly. SignatureTim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/ ^o< /#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake /^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me > Access 97 is not the best choice on machines where NT accounts are > set up and the user is not an admin of the machine, but even with > that I have seen few issues that were not easily solved. . . . I've never seen any such problems. Word97 needs a registry permissions change for the spell checker to work, but I"ve never had to make any adjustments for Access. And all my clients for whom I'm the sysadmin are *not* running as administrative users (which is very bad practice). > . . . It is also not a good choice for Terminal > Server apps on newer versions of Windows as the "high percentage, > low priority" CPU usage of Access 97 that is normally not a > problem in other situations does seem to bog the machine down in > that scenario. Really? Is A97 different from A2K in regard to the low-priority Access message thread? SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ > > Access 97 is not the best choice on machines where NT accounts are > > set up and the user is not an admin of the machine, but even with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Really? Is A97 different from A2K in regard to the low-priority > Access message thread? I can't say for sure as I have only our one anecdotal incident, but we were using Access 97 runtime on a two server Citrix farm running on NT 4 TS Edition for a few years. The system guys noticed the idle CPU usage, but I explained what it was and we had no problems. When we upgraded those servers (new boxes and server 2003) we suddenly had all kinds of resource problems. Killing the Access instances always freed up the resources. It "appeared" that the same idle CPU process was still there, but no longer acting as if it had low priority. We installed Access 2000 (did not remove A97 runtime) and I converted a copy of the app to 2K file version and all the problems went away. Ever since that I have been converting a copy of my app strictly for use on the Citrix farm. Everyone who does not run off of Citrix still uses the A97 runtime. SignatureRick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP Email (as appropriate) to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com > We installed Access 2000 (did not remove A97 runtime) and I > converted a copy of the app to 2K file version and all the > problems went away. Ever since that I have been converting a copy > of my app strictly for use on the Citrix farm. Everyone who does > not run off of Citrix still uses the A97 runtime. Citrix of Windows Terminal Server? I really wish people would be more careful with terminology. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ > > We installed Access 2000 (did not remove A97 runtime) and I > > converted a copy of the app to 2K file version and all the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I really wish people would be more careful with terminology. Citrix runs on top of TS so I assume that people know that the former includes the latter. SignatureRick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP Email (as appropriate) to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com >> > We installed Access 2000 (did not remove A97 runtime) and I >> > converted a copy of the app to 2K file version and all the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Citrix runs on top of TS so I assume that people know that the > former includes the latter. But Citrix only provides *extensions* to Terminal Server. So the main issue may be TS-related, and not Citrix at all. Secondly, none of my clients using TS have any of the Citrix extensions (I can't see that they provide any value now that MS licensed most of their basic technology for inclusion in Windows Server starting with Win2K Server), so if the isssue *is* Citrix-only, that means I wouldn't have to worry. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ > > > > We installed Access 2000 (did not remove A97 runtime) and I > > > > converted a copy of the app to 2K file version and all the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Server starting with Win2K Server), so if the isssue *is* > Citrix-only, that means I wouldn't have to worry. My impression was that the "issue" was running multiple Access instances on server 2003. The fact that those instances were being instantiated by remote users via Citrix/TS is not relevant as far as I know. Does straight TS allow for the use of "published applications" where the remoite user has no access to a desktop or any other programs? I always assumed that this was a Citrix-Only feature and was the primary reason that we use it. SignatureRick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP Email (as appropriate) to... RBrandt at Hunter dot com >> the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading >> from Access97 to a later version? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and a modern vehicle compared to A97 and later versions of > Acccess. That's the biggest pile of BS I've ever seen. It's more like the comparison between a 2003 model car and the corresponding 1997 model. There's hardly any difference in how both will work for transportation, though there may be nice little useful features offered by the later model (the latest in airbag technology, or GPS, etc.). > In my own experience, I've found that while A97 is pretty solid, > I've had difficulty deploying my apps on WinXp machines. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > encounter cripppling problems that usually manifest themselves > when library references are screwed up. I've never seen a single problem on a WinXP machine, and several of my clients' A97 apps are running on them. > I prefer to deploy mde's and it's really not worth the headache to > go out and try and compile these on the many problem machines > there are. This was one of a couple of major reasons for my > decision to switch to A2003. If it's reference paths, then the problem would wouldn't change with a later version of Access, no? SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ > That's the biggest pile of BS I've ever seen. It's more like the 8) Well, consider it this way - are you more likely to sell a car with an airbag and a modern suspension system or someting with a steel wheel and leaf springs? Design expertize in which is more likely to be relevant? I was trying to explain Lyle's analogy. Whether or not you agree with it is up to you. > I've never seen a single problem on a WinXP machine, and several of > my clients' A97 apps are running on them. As rkc mentioned. See my response to him for further clarification on my experiences. > If it's reference paths, then the problem would wouldn't change with > a later version of Access, no? Actually I meant the reference path conflicts that are the result of two or more different versions of Office when they are not installed as recommended. What often happens is the format(), left() etc functions that may be part of an expression in a form's textbox(es) display something like error#. When I open the A97 app on the offending computer, the DAO reference is usually 3.6. This is when the application is developed on my machine and reference checks show the reference to correctly be 3.51. And yes, this happened quite frequently to me before I had anything but Office 97 on my own machine. You can reset this to 3.51 usually and let the user carry on with no difficulty. But it's a total PITA. The above is caused by improper installs of later versions of Office. I base that on myriad posts on the subject in this newsgroup since people first began complaining of problems with A2K. SignatureTim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/ ^o< /#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake /^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me >> That's the biggest pile of BS I've ever seen. It's more like the > > 8) Well, consider it this way - are you more likely to sell a car > with an airbag and a modern suspension system or someting with a > steel wheel and leaf springs? Design expertize in which is more > likely to be relevant? It all depends on what you are building and why. I note that NASA uses computer technology that is quite primitive in comparison to what we have on our own desktops, but that's because the technology is tested and proven. > I was trying to explain Lyle's analogy. Whether or not you agree > with it is up to you. If you need the features in the new model, well, of course, get the new model. If you don't, the older will serve just fine. In that regard, my alteration of Lyle's analogy makes more sense. Likening A97 to a Model A is ludicrous in light of the minor differences between A97 and A2K3. I wouldn't even say that dBase II would be a Model A, by analogy. >> I've never seen a single problem on a WinXP machine, and several >> of my clients' A97 apps are running on them. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > newsgroup since people first began complaining of problems with > A2K. So, it really doesn't have anything to do with any kind of flaw in A97. And the situation you describe is simply not relevant to the original poster's question -- if you've got A97 and a newer version of Access available on the desktops you're developing for, then it's a no-brainer to use the latest version, seems to me (even if it's A2K). SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ > It all depends on what you are building and why. I note that NASA > uses computer technology that is quite primitive in comparison to > what we have on our own desktops, but that's because the technology > is tested and proven. What primitive "computer technology" does NASA use? In case they need extra copies, I still have old DOS versions, along with WordStar, FoxBase, Clipper, QuickBasis, and SuperCalc - all on 5 1/4" disks so they don't need to upgrade their hardware. I can't find my old dBASE II disks though, nor my CPM operating system disks, so hopefully they don't need those. But I heard (yes, you are not the only one with sources to what NASA runs on their desktops) that they are upgrading to Windows 3.11. If so, I have copies of Windows, and even VB3 and Access 2.0. But the VB/Access programs are on 3 1/2" disks, so they may need to find some money in their budget to upgrade the hardware :( Any insight on the computer technology, if any, being used by our government to track those WMDs? Steven >> It all depends on what you are building and why. I note that NASA >> uses computer technology that is quite primitive in comparison to >> what we have on our own desktops, but that's because the >> technology is tested and proven. > > What primitive "computer technology" does NASA use? The space shuttle, for instance, uses computers that would have been considered low-powered in 1990. Recently I was watching a PBS show about the Mars rovers, and those were using computers that would have been considered reasonable in 1990. Granted, these are all missions that are designed long before they pay off (especially the Mars rovers, which took 10 years or more from conception to missiong completion), but the Mars rovers did *not* use the latest technology available in the mid-90s (when they were designed), but instead opted for older, proven technology. It looks even more out-of-date today, but it seems to have worked pretty darned well in the end. > In case they need extra copies, I still have old DOS versions, > along with WordStar, FoxBase, Clipper, QuickBasis, and SuperCalc - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But I heard (yes, you are not the only one with sources to what > NASA runs on their desktops) . . . Er, what the hell are you talking about? I said nothing about NASA's desktops. You're just making that up out of whole cloth. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ >>> It all depends on what you are building and why. I note that NASA >>> uses computer technology that is quite primitive in comparison to [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Er, what the hell are you talking about? I said nothing about NASA's > desktops. You're just making that up out of whole cloth. Lighten up ... And you didn't say anything about their desktops - I got confused since you compared their technology to our desktops, so I was thinking of an apple to apple comparison. It was not clear what technology of theirs you were referring to. Regardless, do you think, though, they need extra copies of some of these old programs I have? Steven >>> It all depends on what you are building and why. I note that NASA >>> uses computer technology that is quite primitive in comparison to [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Er, what the hell are you talking about? I said nothing about NASA's > desktops. You're just making that up out of whole cloth. Lighten up ... And you didn't say anything about their desktops - I got confused since you compared their technology to our desktops, so I was thinking of an apple to apple comparison. It was not clear what technology of theirs you were referring to. Regardless, do you think, though, they need extra copies of some of these old programs I have? Steven > And you didn't say anything about their desktops - I got confused > since you compared their technology to our desktops, so I was > thinking of an apple to apple comparison. It was not clear what > technology of theirs you were referring to. Lyle compared Access 97 to a Model A. That's a much more confusing comparison than mine. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ > Lyle compared Access 97 to a Model A. My father had a 1930 Model A. That's why I made the comparison, you know. They are two things that were long ago and for which I feel some warmth. I remember them, through the mists of the past, as being great, but I don't want to return to them. Geez, Kyle and I had to ride in the rumble seat and he was always leaning over me and spitting on people on my side as we drove past, so that I got the blame. And in Access 97 I (almost) had to use DAO, just like the Model A, bringing up the rear, a long way from any real power, and associated with nut cases. But I'll grant you that the Model A and Access 97 are both good for dead people, even those who haven't bothered to get buried yet. SignatureLyle Fairfield > So, it really doesn't have anything to do with any kind of flaw in > A97. No, and I said as much in my original post. > And the situation you describe is simply not relevant to the > original poster's question It most certainly is. SignatureTim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/ ^o< /#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake /^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me >> So, it really doesn't have anything to do with any kind of flaw >> in A97. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It most certainly is. No, it isn't, because Citrix/Terminal Server was not involved, and it was a standalone app for personal use. SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ 'Later versions of office' use the newer installation system, which has the property that Installation can run as if the user was Admin. So if you have a partly installed Office (install on first use) or an incorrectly installed Office (confused by A97), then the installation can run as if the user was Admin. Access 97 does not have this feature. If you run Access 2000, it will re-register Access 2000, including writing to HKLM, as if the user was Admin. If you then try to run Access 97, it will try to load MSAccess.SRG, including writing to HKLM, but unless the user has admin permission on that PC, it will fail. So characteristically, A97 applications will fail on fully locked machines if Access 2K - 2K3 is used. A solution is to remove the contents of MSACCESS.SRG, so that A97 does not attempt to register itself when it is run. This also makes starting A2000+ faster, since they don't attempt to register if they haven't been de-registered by A97. (david) >> the database, would there be any great advantage to upgrading from >> Access97 to a later version? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and try and compile these on the many problem machines there are. This was > one of a couple of major reasons for my decision to switch to A2003. Thanks for the advise. For the time being, I'll stick with 97. I can always upgrade later if the need arises. Thanks again > Thanks for the advise. For the time being, I'll stick with 97. I can always > upgrade later if the need arises. You may as well hold out for Access 2007 and really be on the cutting edge. > Thanks for the advise. For the time being, I'll stick with 97. I can > always upgrade later if the need arises. Sounds Marxian to me. SignatureLyle Fairfield > Sounds Marxian to me. Amazing! I always wondered who The Boys and Girls in Redmond were. Now I got it from the Canadian Access Sage: Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, and Zeppo. I was referring Groucho's evil twin, Karl. Do you remember him? >I was referring Groucho's evil twin, Karl. Do you remember him? I think you may be mistaken, Lyle. All the Marx brothers' first names ended in the letter "o". I think that would mean that Groucho's evil twin would have to be named "Cheerio" (or something similar -- and wouldn't that be an unusual name, "Something Similar Marx", the long-lost Marx brother?). No, I don't remember any Marx brother named "Karlo" -- would that be someone who wrote "Daso Kapital"? > If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a > datasheet that would include two related tables to create an > encyclopedic style database and then create some fairly indepth > forms to filter and query the info in the database, would there be > any great advantage to upgrading from Access97 to a later version? If it's what you own and for personal use, definitely not. If it's for a client then I'd say A2K3 is the best development platform (though using the A2K file format so all of the last 3 versions of Access can use it). SignatureDavid W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ > If I were to begin creating a fairly simple database, i.e. a datasheet that would include two related tables to create an > encyclopedic style database and then create some fairly indepth forms to filter and query the info in the database, would there be > any great advantage to upgrading from Access97 to a later version? What's an encyclopedic style database? It could mean a long process of refining relations between articles, enabling users to find meaningful related information. IMNSHO newer versions of Access (or other relational style database) will be an improvement. A97 works ok with Visiomodeler. It may be a good idea to maintain some design while adding indexes and extra (encyclopedic?) reference tables. SignatureKaniest |
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.