Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Manchester, Gtr Manchester, England
    Posts
    299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    2003 versus 2000 (2003/XP/2000)

    I'm currently using Access XP but every database I create (or work on) is in 2000 format. So far I've had no reason to think about changing this. Most people in our company have XP.

    I'm just reading a project brief where one of the deliverables is a 2003 database. I'm not sure yet whether this is at the client's request or something we had suggested.

    Are there any major gotchas I should know about?

  2. #2
    4 Star Lounger SteveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Chelsea, Gtr London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    587
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 2003 versus 2000 (2003/XP/2000)

    I found several issues with A2003 (most were cured with SP1)

    It had issues with continuous forms and conditional formatting (when calculated controls were involved)
    It had a nasty flickering issue with llistboxes
    It tended to crash and burn when A2K would carry on

    I generally found it less stable than A2K (which I still develop in).

    I have not yet found a compelling reason to move from A2K (others may disagree!)

    But then I'm a bit of an old stick-in-the-mud!
    Steve H
    IT Lecturer/Access Developer
    O2K SR3/O2010; Win7Pro

  3. #3
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    84,353
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 29 Posts

    Re: 2003 versus 2000 (2003/XP/2000)

    I think you meant the Access 2000 database format vs the Access 2002/2003 database format. I recommend staying with the Access 2000 format for the following reasons:

    - Compatibility: everyone who has Access 2000, 2002, 2003 or 2007 can work with an Access 2000 format database without requiring conversion.
    - File size: the Access 2002/2003 database format results in significantly larger file sizes.

    The only downside is that you if you're working in Access 2002 or later, you cannot convert an Access 2000 format database to an .MDE database.

  4. #4
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Manchester, Gtr Manchester, England
    Posts
    299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 2003 versus 2000 (2003/XP/2000)

    It just says 'Access 2003 database' on the spec sheet.

    I'm guessing that if I handed over a 2000 format db created in XP that no-one would even notice.

  5. #5
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    84,353
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 29 Posts

    Re: 2003 versus 2000 (2003/XP/2000)

    I agree with that, but it might be a good idea to attach a note stating that you use Access 2000 format, and why.

  6. #6
    Gold Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Crystal Beach, FL, Florida, USA
    Posts
    3,436
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 34 Times in 34 Posts

    Re: 2003 versus 2000 (2003/XP/2000)

    I can't remember the details, but it seems like early-on with Access2003 there was a problem if the underlying database was Access2000 format. So I have used Access2003 for my frontend, but I still use Access2000 for my backend databases.
    Mark Liquorman
    See my website for Tips & Downloads and for my Liquorman Utilities.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •