going from Access97 to Access2007

[boblarson]

when 2000 opens 97, it needs to convert it to open it.

actually, that isn't quite true. You can still open it in 2000 without converting, but if you do you can't make any structural changes. If you want to make any changes you need to convert.

 

[Rabbie]

You know, I would love to round up some grannies and throw them in front of 2003 and 2007 and see which group of grannies get it first.

Someone have to be scientific about this, you know.





EDIT: And for sake of being on-topic, I have to second Bob's assessment- 2007 is the future, so best to learn it sooner and deal with what it have and doesn't have. If you care to, google for Allen Browne's article about when to upgrade to 2007. I think he's pretty spot-on on his assessment.

As a granddad I have no problems in using A2003 at work and A2007 at home. Perhaps the youngsters need to put a little work into adjusting to change in this technological age

 

[Rabbie]

You know, I would love to round up some grannies and throw them in front of 2003 and 2007 and see which group of grannies get it first.

I think you will get better results from both sets of grannies if you seat them comfortably in front of their computers rather than hurl them to their places.

 

[Banana]

Rabbie, if we can find computer illiterate youngsters, then I'm game.

As for hurling them in the places, I would like to think of it as adding 'crash' to crash course in Access.

 

[Rabbie]

Rabbie, if we can find computer illiterate youngsters, then I'm game.

As for hurling them in the places, I would like to think of it as adding 'crash' to crash course in Access.

I have nothing against hurling youngsters computer illiterate or not. I was only trying to protect grannies

 

[Mike375]

I am not moving from 2003 until I positively need to.

When Microsoft feel the over powering urge to upgrade there seems to be two things that they are driven to do:

1) Design the upgrade so people will resist buying it and hang on to what they have to the very end.

2) Cease availability of the product being replaced.

Microsoft seem to have as their ultimate goal the release of a product that no one buys.

 

[boblarson]

Microsoft seem to have as their ultimate goal the release of a product that no one buys.

That is an absurd statement.

And, just because you prefer a horse over an automobile isn't going to stop the development (changes) of the auto. You can continue to use the horse (to some extent) but you can't move as fast or as long as a car.

 

[Mike375]

Bob,

The facts are that people resist upgrading and when they need more of what they have Microsoft won't sell it.

This site is called Access World Forums and yet members who post a question with a zip attachment that is A2007 are warned that they should include in their post that the attachment is for A2007 and because most members can't open A2007.

Anyone who is capable of answering a question on this forum will be an Access enthusiast but as group they hang on for as long as they can to earlier versions of Access.

 

[jwhite]

Hi Mike,

Have to side with Bob... Most IT shops want their company to stay with the latest versions, and that has been my observation with our flagship Access/SQL product having a client list of over 400 worldwide companies. With updating their install base to Office 2007, Access 2007 comes along with it. When users want more features, that usually means answering them with a new Main version for the product. It would cause havoc if MS made substantial design changes within the same Main Version. Everything evolves, software included. If Microsoft did not evolve MS Access, THAT would be a product no one would buy, as another software company would give the masses what they want. Web Technology seems to come to mind.... And it IS BIG.

Members aren't warned... It isn't as much that most users don't have Ac2007; rather, it is advisable to identify your version (ANY version) so that responders answer approprietly for the version being used.

Your last sentence is true -- enthusiasts will hang on as long as possible; businesses cannot afford to that and, therefore, Developers of commercial applications cannot afford to either.

I believe I mentioned that I have Ac2003 and Ac2007 earlier... While I have yet to use Ac2007 for application development, as a Developer, I am taking the time now to get comfortable with the differences so that when the time comes, I will be ready. A Developer that forgoes learning new versions of their bread & butter software will die a slow death. As low-priced as MS Access is, I (personally) am surprised that people are still using Access 97.

No dis-respect intended...

 

[Mike375]

As low-priced as MS Access is, I (personally) am surprised that people are still using Access 97.

One that might surprise you I make make data bases for several insurance agents. Each month they obtain from the insurance company the current benefit amounts, premiums etc for each of their policy holders. The numbers change very month because of policy holders becoming a year older and built in increases to the policy in line with the consumer price index.

An Access data base with three tables is emailed to the insurance agent each month. A couple of them are A2000 and one is A97. The same insurance companies will also use the earlier versions of Office due to Excel because they can't rely on a staff member saving it as an earlier version.

But what has me beat with Microsoft is why they don't continue to sell earlier versions. Surely it is not like building an earlier model car. If someone wants an earlier version of what I make it takes me the same time as a current version, that is, the time to copy it to a thumb drive

I bought two laptops last month and bought second hand so as to get XP. A large computer outlet in Sydney had an advetisement in the Sunday papers for laptops and they had several new laptops with XP and they were higher priced than the same laptops with Vista. A mate of mine telphoned them this morining and all the XPs are sold.

 

[jwhite]

Two responses:

1. Not surprised, as that is only one example. There are always exceptions. With your example, do you[/url] want to continue to support multiple versions, and have to worry about the differences between each?
2. Lack of Return On Investment.

 

[Mike375]

Based on their website Microsoft support A2000 and on.

As to return, as I said it is not like manufacturing a car or similar. Then there is the question of how much more would microsoft sell if upgrades were not so painful.

As to insurance companies and of course I don't know the American situation but in Australia you would look long and hard to find a computer with Office 2007 in an insurance company. Now insurance companies are somewhat different in the sense the agent is their customer and not the policy holder and their customer, the agent, will not upgrade unless it becomes essential.

As a side note, apart from myself I rarely see anyone on the forums that has or had Access 95 or version 7 as it was called. I have a few A95s and one of them was when they were sold as an upgrade. You bought Works for about $20 and then paid about half price for the MS Office, which would only install when you put Works on first.

 

[jwhite]

Support, yes. Sell, no. Big Difference between the two. When a version becomes Legacy (Ac2003- in this case), Microsoft shifts the business plan to Supporting only for a period of time. Supporting is maintaining, not Developing.

I've read every word you have said, and we will agree to disagree.

Cheers.

 

[ListO]

Seems there are a lot of opinions, and most of them are context-sensitive - the client's needs and demands and capabilities drive much of how each of us works.

After all the competition in the software marketplace in the late 80's and 90's, Microsoft killed (or they died on their own) all the competition, so they're kind of idling along- It doesn't seem that there has been any remarkable alteration in Access, or really any of the core Office tools since '97, mostly refinements (all the little dancing assistants available) and now some shifting to more currently-popular web-appropriate functions.

But Microsoft needs to sell software. If they were to go bust, you wouldn't see ANY support for anything. We pay for that underlying support with our upgrades. Perhaps if all the software were subscribed to instead of purchased, Microsoft would look at their mission differently. Meantime, in order to sell more software, Microsoft needs to keep re-packaging their software so that it looks improved.

This whole ribbon thing, while it cannot be ignored, is just painting the lobby rather than hiring on a new crew. All it does, as far as I experience, is make the Office apps different. Not better, not all that much worse. But annoying for anyone trying to keep up.

My real job is centered around audio workstations; my industry has embraced Apple as the only acceptable platform. The people who develop the audio software have to run very fast in place in order to keep up with Apple's constant hardware and software 'upgrades.' It's not at all uncommon for the audio software to be several months behind then current Apple operating system upgrade. Hardware is equally difficult. When Apple went to Intel machines, I had to spend about $10k for compatible audio cards, replacing my 2-year old ones. I never have any hardware breakdown because I buy new stuff so often that nothing has time to break down.

As to why some of us might still be working on '97; for me it's just a matter of not seeing any improvements that are worth the bother of re-doing a lot of my work. Access wasn't very broken, so why should I try to fix it?

BUT I'm not a professional programmer, and my only client is ME, so I'm not as concerned that I don't have the shiniest new software versions. If I were selling this to clients, I would think some would want to see it available for Office 2011.

 

[boblarson]

This whole ribbon thing, while it cannot be ignored, is just painting the lobby rather than hiring on a new crew. All it does, as far as I experience, is make the Office apps different. Not better, not all that much worse. But annoying for anyone trying to keep up.

Sorry, but I disagree. I actually find the ribbon to be very useful and much easier to find things as they are grouped more logically than in the past. Plus there is so many more items exposed which were buried three and four levels deep in the menus. If you don't like the way it takes up space, then just hit CTRL + F1 and make it disappear. It will come back if you put your mouse up there (just like the hiding of the task bar on Windows).

The problem really is that people don't like change. And, it is an individual's capacity to handle change which ultimately determines whether they see something as good or bad. I can tell by the statements you and Mike have made that you are definitely a pair who would prefer little change if possible. And there's nothing wrong with that. Deep down, we all really want to experience as little change as possible because change makes us uncomfortable. It is "unknown" and we have to get away from old habits. You like the comfort you get from the known quantity which is the version you are used to. You know where all of the menu items are, you know how to manipulate the items to do what you want it to do. But you don't know how to do it all in 2007. So, it becomes EASIER to revert to what you know and not to experience the unknown (or at least the little you've found out about it).

So, as John has said, we will have to agree to disagree. It is likely that nothing I can say will sway you to my way of thinking and it is very unlikely that you will sway me (obviously). So, we can go on knowing that we will both do what we feel is right and whatever happens will happen. Although there is one certainty - you eventually will have to move to a later version or you will be tied to certain hardware to use the earlier stuff. Eventually it all will get replaced.

 

[Darth Vodka]

actually, that isn't quite true. You can still open it in 2000 without converting, but if you do you can't make any structural changes. If you want to make any changes you need to convert.

aaah, didn't try that

ta bob, here to learn!

 

[Darth Vodka]

and as for why do people still use 97...

my place has a hundred Access 97 databases, a lot linking into each other and all of them used all day... to replace them would be a lot of man-hours...some of them are key applications

i can't wait until IT refuse to let Office 97 be on the PCs alongside 2000 and 2007

 

[boblarson]

Actually, I know that is the case with several. But, at the same time everytime you bypass a version upgrade your apps likely become harder and harder to convert until you might get to a point where it is going to cost you way more to upgrade all of those key applications than what it would have cost to keep up with the version upgrades.

 

[Simon_MT]

Bob does have a point about the natural resistance to change, and I accept the point about Office 2007 being a veneer. Past experience is (dis)tempered with major Microsoft upgrades that have a tendency to bite you on the derriere and upgrading from Classic asp to Asp.Net was certainly problematical. The problem with upgrades is not what goes right but how to fix what is now broken or even finding a solution. Apart from my sloppy programming, the only thing I found broken with Access 2007 was the FollowHyperlink using AdInfo, its only a string for goodness sake.

The one thing I will say under the bonnet little has changed from Access 1997, yes perhaps you like the Alternative Colours or ADP but making the leap to Access 2007 works surprising well, I hesitated because I thought it would be frought with issues. So anyone using Access 1997, if the circumstances require upgrading to Access 2007 don't hesitate.

I did chuckle when I read that images are now stored in their native format, wakey wakey Microsoft, bitmaps were never going to rule the world, Objects as Large as Elephants were going to take off.

Simon

 

[Mike375]

I wish I did not resist change so much because some of the best things for me have been due to change and usually change that was forced upon me.

The problem many of us experience with Microsoft is the upgrade seems to only involve negatives. Of course eash person is different depending on how they use the stuff.

Moving from A95 to A2003 gave me two small gains and they were conditional formatting and also the Switch function which had problems in A95. With A95 if you had a form with fields that were based on the Switch function and then opened another form and then closed that form the Switch fields were full of #error

I suffered two losses both of which were significant to me. I can't copy what is in the expression box and I use that quite a bit because of the query design as I never use the SQL view. My biggest negative was having to change everything that was used for opening Word and inserting into bookmarks. Although that in reality turned out to be a large positive as I increased my knowledge by a large amount. It was that problem that introduced me to Access forums and so it was a blessing in disguise.

So overall I gained greatly from the change to A2003 from A95 and the change was forced on me due to problems with A95 and XP.