Access 2002 vs. 2003

"Albert D.Kallal" wrote in message
...
I'm a bit confused. Somewhere else I read someone give advice that if a
db was developed in A2003 using A2003 format, that it couldn't be used in
A2002;

You must have miss-read that.

It was a post by John Vinson on 7/16/04 that I found through Google Groups.
In it he wrote that as long as the database is in 2000 format, both 2002 and
2003 can use it. But if it's upgraded to 2003 format, then 2002 can't use
it. Here's the quote:

wrote:
I have a small network set up using access 2002. I have added another
computer to the network. Do I need to continue with 2002 on the new
computer, can I use 2003 on the new computer and leave 2002 on the rest of
the network or do I need to upgrade all the computers to 2003?


The two versions are quite compatible; in fact both default to using
Access2000 format for their databases. It is possible to upgrade a
..mdb file to 2003 format, making it unusable for 2002 - so just don't
DO that. If you have already done so, use Tools... Convert... To
Previous Version to save the database in 2000/2002 format.

John W. Vinson[MVP]

(http://groups.google.com/group/micro...638f03bab6ceb6)

Neil





but if it was developed in A2003 using A2000 format, then it could be used
with A2002, since A2000 and A2002 share the same format. If A2002 and
A2003 use the same format, then why couldn't an A2003 database in A2003
format be used with A2002?

You can use a 03 with a 02....they are the same format.

since A2000 and A2002 share the same format

No, they are different formats for 00 and 02. It is actually 02 and 03
that share the same format. (but, all 3 default to using the a2000
format).

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

One thing that concerns me, though: I've heard that there are potential
corruption issues when the db is developed and compiled in 2003 and then
opened in an earlier version (even with it being in 2000/2 format). I have
another client who is running Access 2003 and he would modify some forms
and
reports in the MDB and then send it back to me (MDB was kept in 2000
format). I would open it in A2000 and frequently one of the forms or
reports
that he modified was corrupted (could not open the code module for that
object). We stopped having him modify the MDB directly, but just send me
modified versions of the objects he changed, and the problem went away. So
I'm concerned about using A2003 but recompiling and distributing in A2002.

That's possible. I've been working in a similar environment recently
without any such issues.

But if you only use A2002 to create the MDE then that will reduce such
issues.

Right, except that there might be an issue when I first open it in A2002 for
recompile. But at least that would be before it got to the users. But if you
say you've been doing that without any problems, then that puts me at ease
somewhat. The above mentioned situation was from A2003 to A2000, not to
A2002, so that's different.


I'd also strongly suggest your network guy stage his upgrades. This
month Win 2003 Server. Next month or two SQL Server. Later for
Office. Besides those upgrades really don't care about the server.

Hmm, the more I think about this, if he really wants to do all those
upgrades at the same time, he's an utter idiot.

I think he was thinking that he would have to reinstall SQL Server after
the
Windows upgrade, so he might as well install the new version.

FWIW SQL Server 2000 and 2005 can coexist quite nicely. See "named
instance" in the SQL BOL for more info. Essentially each named
instance it's own install of SQL Server right down to the DLLs. Very
nice for testing SP and patches, among other things. So let him
install SQL Server 2005 now on his current server. Big deal.

Actually, we're using SQL 7. Can that co-exist with SQL 2005?

And, re.
upgrading Office, it was because he "had to touch each PC anyway" (his
words).

Why does he even need to touch each PC for a server upgrade? Touch
each users profile sure to setup the new server shares. Mind you
I'm not at all familiar with what is required in a corp environment.
Maybe that is indeed required.

I dunno. I'm not sure he knows either....


And, yes, he is an utter idiot.

My sympathies.

Thanks. Fortunately the project manager realizes this, so that's helpful.

Thanks,

Neil



Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

is possible to upgrade a
..mdb file to 2003 format, making it unusable for 2002

That is no doubt a type-o......



--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

Fixes in the database engine apply to A2002 (because the same database
engine is used)
Fixes in security apply to A2002. (because A2002 is still in support for
security fixes).

Since those are the only fixes that matter, all fixes that matter apply to
A2002.

A2003 SP2 also removed the ability to write
from Access to Excel. Since this is the result
of a Patent dispute, this is a more-or-less
compulsory patch for A2003 users. No similar
patch has been released for A2002.

(david)



"Neil" wrote in message
ink.net...
Also, I noticed that Access 2003 has SP2. I wonder if fixes in the new
2003 SPs would be propagated down to 2002 SPs. Probably not, would be my
guess (but, then again, perhaps they don't need to be).

N

I am not sure what the fixes are, but they were major fixes. I believe
if you go to Microsoft Office's site and then to Access, you should be
able to search for what the fixes have been. The network guy is right,
These fixes from 2002 to 2003 will be as service packs for 2002, but to
save time, 2003 would be quicker.

It is all a matter of time vs possible price. I am not sure if there is
a difference in price but if there is, you would pay through time, if not
in price.

--
Joe Obergfell
Web Developer

Well, don't mean to harp on it, but I think the context of the question and
of the answer, as well as the statement, "If you have already done so, use
Tools... Convert... To Previous Version to save the database in 2000/2002
format" indicates that he felt that 2000/2002 were the same format, and that
if the database had been converted to 2003 it would need to be converted
back to 2000/2002 format. If that's wrong, then fine; I'm glad that 2002 and
2003 are the same format. Makes the decision to go with 2002 instead of
insisting on 2003 easier. But just wanted to note that.

Neil


"Albert D.Kallal" wrote in message
...
is possible to upgrade a
.mdb file to 2003 format, making it unusable for 2002

That is no doubt a type-o......



--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

Thanks for that explanation.

"david epsom dot com dot au" david@epsomdotcomdotau wrote in message
...
Fixes in the database engine apply to A2002 (because the same database
engine is used)
Fixes in security apply to A2002. (because A2002 is still in support for
security fixes).

Since those are the only fixes that matter, all fixes that matter apply to
A2002.

A2003 SP2 also removed the ability to write
from Access to Excel. Since this is the result
of a Patent dispute, this is a more-or-less
compulsory patch for A2003 users. No similar
patch has been released for A2002.

(david)



"Neil" wrote in message
ink.net...
Also, I noticed that Access 2003 has SP2. I wonder if fixes in the new
2003 SPs would be propagated down to 2002 SPs. Probably not, would be my
guess (but, then again, perhaps they don't need to be).

N

I am not sure what the fixes are, but they were major fixes. I believe
if you go to Microsoft Office's site and then to Access, you should be
able to search for what the fixes have been. The network guy is right,
These fixes from 2002 to 2003 will be as service packs for 2002, but to
save time, 2003 would be quicker.

It is all a matter of time vs possible price. I am not sure if there is
a difference in price but if there is, you would pay through time, if
not in price.

--
Joe Obergfell
Web Developer

Note that most of your users only need the runtime version of Access.
Your power users who create queries will want a full version of
Access. Furthermore you can easily use the new features of Access but
create A2002 MDEs (using A2002) to distribute to your users.

I'm intrigued by this idea of using the A2003 runtime, and have a couple
more questions.

1) Would there be any performance differences between using the A2003
runtime and using the A2003 full version?

2) If A2002 and A2003 share the same file format, and if the db is in that
file format, why would the users need the A2003 runtime? If they have Access
2002 as part of Office Pro, wouldn't they be able to run the file in the
A2002/3 format?

Thanks!

Neil

I spoke too soon. Office XP SP3 Patch includes the
Access/Excel patch, and is required for all
installations of Office XP (unless you want to
wander off into the darkness of unsupported dodgy
software).

That is, the Access/Excel patch applies to both
Access 2002 and Access 2003.

(david)



"Neil" wrote in message
ink.net...
Thanks for that explanation.

"david epsom dot com dot au" david@epsomdotcomdotau wrote in message
...
Fixes in the database engine apply to A2002 (because the same database
engine is used)
Fixes in security apply to A2002. (because A2002 is still in support for
security fixes).

Since those are the only fixes that matter, all fixes that matter apply
to A2002.

A2003 SP2 also removed the ability to write
from Access to Excel. Since this is the result
of a Patent dispute, this is a more-or-less
compulsory patch for A2003 users. No similar
patch has been released for A2002.

(david)



"Neil" wrote in message
ink.net...
Also, I noticed that Access 2003 has SP2. I wonder if fixes in the new
2003 SPs would be propagated down to 2002 SPs. Probably not, would be my
guess (but, then again, perhaps they don't need to be).

N

I am not sure what the fixes are, but they were major fixes. I believe
if you go to Microsoft Office's site and then to Access, you should be
able to search for what the fixes have been. The network guy is right,
These fixes from 2002 to 2003 will be as service packs for 2002, but to
save time, 2003 would be quicker.

It is all a matter of time vs possible price. I am not sure if there
is a difference in price but if there is, you would pay through time,
if not in price.

--
Joe Obergfell
Web Developer

Access 2003 did not introduce any new file format, just a change in
terminology - what used to be called 'Access 2002' format is now known as
'Access 2002/2003' format. There is Access 2000 format, and there is Access
2002/2003 format. There is no '2000/2002' format.

--
Brendan Reynolds
Access MVP

"Neil" wrote in message
nk.net...
Well, don't mean to harp on it, but I think the context of the question
and of the answer, as well as the statement, "If you have already done so,
use Tools... Convert... To Previous Version to save the database in
2000/2002 format" indicates that he felt that 2000/2002 were the same
format, and that if the database had been converted to 2003 it would need
to be converted back to 2000/2002 format. If that's wrong, then fine; I'm
glad that 2002 and 2003 are the same format. Makes the decision to go with
2002 instead of insisting on 2003 easier. But just wanted to note that.

Neil


"Albert D.Kallal" wrote in message
...
is possible to upgrade a
.mdb file to 2003 format, making it unusable for 2002

That is no doubt a type-o......



--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

OK, thanks for confirming that.

"Brendan Reynolds" wrote in message
...
Access 2003 did not introduce any new file format, just a change in
terminology - what used to be called 'Access 2002' format is now known as
'Access 2002/2003' format. There is Access 2000 format, and there is
Access 2002/2003 format. There is no '2000/2002' format.

--
Brendan Reynolds
Access MVP

"Neil" wrote in message
nk.net...
Well, don't mean to harp on it, but I think the context of the question
and of the answer, as well as the statement, "If you have already done
so, use Tools... Convert... To Previous Version to save the database in
2000/2002 format" indicates that he felt that 2000/2002 were the same
format, and that if the database had been converted to 2003 it would need
to be converted back to 2000/2002 format. If that's wrong, then fine; I'm
glad that 2002 and 2003 are the same format. Makes the decision to go
with 2002 instead of insisting on 2003 easier. But just wanted to note
that.

Neil


"Albert D.Kallal" wrote in message
...
is possible to upgrade a
.mdb file to 2003 format, making it unusable for 2002

That is no doubt a type-o......



--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal