<hr>The real untold story is possibly MS wants us to abandon Access and go to .NET technology! (Would they be candid enough to just say that?) <hr>I don't think that's the case at all - for the long-term, Microsoft makes more money selling Office than most other products. Can you envision doing a mail-merge using Word and doing it via .NET technology? It just doesn't work. And quite frankly, Access97 wasn't a terribly stable source to drive a web page from - we tried it and ended up switching to SQL Server stability. On the other hand we've been using an Access 2002 database behind a .NET website for more than a year with no problems whatsoever. I have to agree with Charlotte - Access has gotten better with every release, at least through 2002. The jury is still out on 2003, but it certainly isn't any worse than 2002, and there are some nice developer features in it. In the grand scheme of things, those who upgraded each time the product changed have the fewest problems, but spent more money with Microsoft. When you jump from 97 to 2003, you spend the money you saved (and maybe more) finding you way through things.