Question MS Access 2000 vs. MS Access 2003?

[tranchemontaigne]

I have been asked if I can provide support to a select group who need to use MS Office 2003 for mission critical collaboration with external partners.

Unfortunately I have never seen MS Access 2003 and the IT group that supports the business I work for refuses to provide any support to anything beyond basic use of MS Access 2000. Before management fights to get MS Access 2003 installs some questions must be resolved:

(1) Are there any benefits to choosing MS Access 2003 over MS Access 2000?

(2) How well does MS Access 2003 work with MS Access 2000 files?

(3) Will MS Access 2000 files need to be converted before MS Access 2003 software can open them?

(4) Will MS Access 2003 allow for files to be formatted in an MS Access 2000 format?

(5) Have any MS Access 2000 features been depricated?

(6) Have any MS Access 2000 functionality been discontinued?

(7) Does the interface look the same, but with prettier colors and rounded edges?

(8) What is the data object model? (Has ADODB been replaced with something else?) (Is DAO Still supported?)


I remember having to edit a lot of MS Access '97 modules when MS Access 2000 was adopted because the object-subobject period delimiters [Forms].[frmMainMenu].property was discontinued and a strict use of exclamation delimiters [Forms]![frmMainMenu].property was implemented in VBA code modules.

Any help would be appreciated.
________
FORD LANDAU HISTORY

 

[DCrake]

Have you looked at MS for their opinions and FAQ's?

 

[Banana]

Also, I should note that Access 2003 by default uses 2000 file format. Moving to 2003 is totally trivial compared to 97.

 

[gemma-the-husky]

A few thoughts

slightly diiferent look and feel i think

somewhere between A2000, AXP(A2002) and A2003 there was an issue that mde files generated from certain of these were not interchangeable

if you dont use mde's i dont think this will cause a problem.

-----
if you open a A97 dbs with later vbersions you get the "earlier version ... cant save changes" message - not sure if this will happen between A2000/A2003

However, in A2003, if you create a dbs in A2000 format, then A2000 should be able to use it. If you create in A2003 format, then A2000 probably wont open it.

 

[LPurvis]

If I might take a slightly different tack and tackle the questions verbatim

(1) Are there any benefits to choosing MS Access 2003 over MS Access 2000?
It depends upon your intended use. 2000 was fairly revolutionary in the concepts it introduced which we now take for granted. (A revolution not seen again until 2007 - in each case with substantial "growing pains").
IMO there are some very useful pieces of functionality in 2003 - but most of the useful concepts came about in 2000 - they just got a bit better.

(2) How well does MS Access 2003 work with MS Access 2000 files?
As mentioned by the others - very well. Out of the box it's the default file format.

(3) Will MS Access 2000 files need to be converted before MS Access 2003 software can open them?
As above - no. MDE's should even be compatible - though I have encountered occasions where they weren't - this has been suggested to be apportionable to reference issues. I'm not convinced - I'd say it's reasonable to hope for them to work... but not to expect it.
You can only create an MDE of a version in the application version you're running.
2000 format MDBs should be totally fine regardless. (Obviously 2000 cannot open a 2002-2003 version MDB).

(4) Will MS Access 2003 allow for files to be formatted in an MS Access 2000 format?
As above - yeppers.

(5) Have any MS Access 2000 features been depricated?
None spring to mind.

(6) Have any MS Access 2000 functionality been discontinued?
Again - as above.

(7) Does the interface look the same, but with prettier colors and rounded edges?
To a large extent. It could be argued that this is actually a weakness of 2003 - in that the UI development should have advanced a bit more beyond support for Windows Themes (which is at least something - and I've known clients notice and like that - when I didn't expect them to be bothered!)

(8) What is the data object model? (Has ADODB been replaced with something else?) (Is DAO Still supported?)
To a large extent the same. By the time of 2003 MS had changed tack and re-introduced DAO as the top defaul data access library again - but including ADO as well. (Which makes disambiguated declarations more important than ever - I don't like not having both references included anyway).
Obviously ADO had advanced a bit - but 2.1 is referenced by default. Naturally a 2000 db is as capable of referencing ADO 2.8. IMO 2003 has the edge with making better use of it.

As I said at the start though - it largely depends upon the extent of functionality you're looking for.
Much as 97 was considered the ultimate version for features at the time and stability (it was the "bug fix" for 95) 2003 could be (somewhat harshly) considered the ultimate version of 2000 (before MS begin to move away into new direction with 2007).

 

[LPurvis]

And to offer a little list of the noteworth differences that generally occur to me (i.e. without really looking in to it) along with the version which actually introduced it (note how many are actually 2002).

Printer Object control (2002)
List Controls bindable to recordsets (2002 - excellent addition to 2000's form rst)
List Controls AddItem / RemoveItem (2002 - IMO not so vital given the above).
OpenArgs for Reports. (2002)
The Application ExportXML and ImportXML methods. (2002 - improved 2003)
Dependency Object (2003)
Pivot Tables (2003)
XP Theme Support (2003)

New events too for example "Undo". (2002)
(And lots related to things like pivot tables - which are rarely applicable).

There are other things too like larger limits - for, say, list control's rowsource text (32K instead of 2K) or the level of nested forms/reports increasing to 7.

For some things I've done - I've found 2003 just better able to accept the functionality (my immediate example is binding created recordsets to forms and establishing updatability - 2000 just refuses, can't do it, nuh uh, bye bye).

Cheers.

 

[Banana]

I'd like to second LPurvis's sentiment about binding recordsets to listboxes and comboboxes; it certainly does make everything much easier now that you can just deal with the recordsets directly rather jumping through hoops to get the presentation you want and sending too many query to server in the process.

 

[tranchemontaigne]

Thanks greatly! This is exceptionally helpful.
________
Weed vaporizers

 

[gemma-the-husky]

having said that, i actually prefer A97 - i find there's very little i can't do with A97, and it seems far quicker than A2003 - and the A97 help makes sense - I can never find anything in A2003 help!

I always use A97 backends

 

[LPurvis]

Just to offer another viewpoint (not entirely in contradiction either) - I used 97 for many years (most of my career) and still do to some extent.
But I do find it limiting in several ways now. To my mind - it was (/is) fantastic. Stable and too good for its time in some way ways. But I feel its time is passing (/has passed - as I've been saying "is passing" for a couple of years now ;-).

But then - I've personally never really found 2003's help to be too bad at all when needed. Might just be me (being odd) - as most feel it's relatively poor.

Oh - and Jet is optimised to work against the same file format of its release (as is DAO FWIW) and so performance can take a dive at times with a cross platform BE if pushed hard over a network.
I certainly agree that the 3.5 backend can be attractive though for maintaining a larger compatability (but the Jet 4 format MDB is pretty standard amongst integrators).

Cheers.

 

[tranchemontaigne]

Gemma and Leigh,

Your comments about help are well noted.

My experience is that the help files are never as helpful as a google search - often with the answers, syntax explanations, and code samples and on web pages hosed in Rumania, Canada, UK etc.

I've haven't used Access '97 for probably 5 years, but do recall that it was very stable. The cross platform interoperability of an MS Access '97 BE was something I had not thought about. It's an excellent point, but not relevent for any of my current projects. that having been said, I will keep it in the back of my brain...caveats about prerformance observations included.

This is the kind of information that is not included in commercial product comparisons and adds a real down-in-the-dirt knowledge that just doesn't come that quickly outside of forums.
________
Chrysler lx platform history

 

[Lister]

I think I have hit a snag with moving to 2003, I support database's in 2000 format, these are compiled on the server for the users as 2000.mde files. As they only run Access2000 Runtime. So is there a way to conver a A2k db that I have worked on to a A2k.mde file? As I am being told by A2003 that this can't be done.

Is there a way?

 

[boblarson]

I think I have hit a snag with moving to 2003, I support database's in 2000 format, these are compiled on the server for the users as 2000.mde files. As they only run Access2000 Runtime. So is there a way to conver a A2k db that I have worked on to a A2k.mde file? As I am being told by A2003 that this can't be done.

Is there a way?

For the creation of mde files you need to use the version of Access that you want that mde file to be in. If you want an Access 2000 version mde file then you will need to do it in Access 2000.

Another method would be to move to Access 2007 and then create an Access 2007 accde/mde file and then use the free Access 2007 runtime.

 

[Lister]

I was hoping that wouldn't be the only option but was almost sure it was. So I will have a look for a Access2003 runtime version, just the overhead of having to set it up on my users PC, bit of a pain but if that's the only way then so be it.

Thanks for your input

 

[boblarson]

I was hoping that wouldn't be the only option but was almost sure it was. So I will have a look for a Access2003 runtime version, just the overhead of having to set it up on my users PC, bit of a pain but if that's the only way then so be it.

Thanks for your input

Not sure, but since the Access 2003 SDK/Runtime was something you needed to purchase, it probably is going to make more sense to pay for an upgrade to Access 2007 and then have a FREE SDK/Runtime. But that's your choice. You might find a copy of the Access 2003 Developers Extensions on Ebay or something but be careful as there is a lot of pirated software being sold there and you could find yourself in trouble if not careful.