Access 2000 versus 2003

[razorking]

I have the option at work to upgrade my Access version from 2000 to 2003.

In the opinion of those here who have made the move; is the move worthwhile or are they too similar to make any real difference?

Thanks!

 

[dt01pqt]

If it ain't broke don't fix it. The company I last worked at the larger holding company suddenly decided that all the businesses had to have office 2000 for no good reason. This caused a lot of havoc, and many people were left with something they either couldn't use or was inadequate. I know this isn't quite the same, but then again why bother. Access 2003 may have more functionality but do you actually need this extra functionality. Also expect the teething problem all new products have. It is better to have an old reliable workhorse rather than a wild mustang.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Access 2003 has sufficient usability enhancements to warrent an upgrade. You can still continue building databases in A2K so your users don't have to upgrade but you will have a better tool to use. I skipped A2K because it was too buggy and stayed with A97 until AXP came out. I happily upgraded from Office XP to Office 2003 because of the usability improvements. Word, Powerpoint and Excel didn't change much but Outlook and Access definitely got better.

I vote for the upgrade.

 

[spacepro]

I have just recently upgraded to office 2003, and have found no complaints with it so far. Like Pat says you can create the db still in 2000 or 97 format.

Andy

 

[AN60]

I have moved to 2003 with no problems. It is better to use and works better than 2000. Not only with Access.

 

[sportsguy]

A2K doesn't support the decimal table field, so if you are reading MSSQL tables in views, A2k reads them as text. . . .

I am trying to upgrade this piece of crap 2000 software asap

sportsguy

 

[Crilen007]

I have both on my computer.

I hate access 2003.


Why:

For one, the Linked Table manager was buggy. I use tables linked from MySQL ODBC Connector. The linked table manager in 2k3 sometimes wouldn't show any tables, and sometimes it would show them all ok.

I used it for about a week when it first came out, then stopped because it was driving me nuts.

I'll try it again and see how it goes.

 

[razorking]

Well it looks like there are some conflicting viewpoints expressed here. Kind of makes it hard to decide. I was hoping all of those who had made the switch would be satisfied, that would have been a good indicator.

I am surprised by Pat's comments. I would have thought anyone so obviously skilled in Access would have been using 2000 over 97. Personally I was happy to go from the 97 version to 2000. I like 2000 quite a bit myself.

I do know that, in my experience it is usually a good thing to move to newer software versions. For example; Windows XP is far superior to Win98 but, I know of several people who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into making the change. No more illegal operation errors (never could determine the actual cause of most of those, just reboot and move on).

Maybe I will load Access 2003 on a secondary machine for test purposes.

 

[Crilen007]

"Windows XP is far superior to Win98"

Not in every situation.

IE: 98 on a p1 is faster than XP on a p1 (if thats even possible).

however, on a p4 3ghz with 1024mb ram, xp is faster than 98.

 

[Crilen007]

Why load 2003 on a diff machine?

Run both on the same machine. I do.