"Mike Turco" wrote in message
news:lw3Hd.8274$nt.1238@fed1read06...

"Neil Ginsberg" wrote in message
news
I wrote we're using Access 2000, not 2002. I agree re. 2002/2003.

Neil,

I haven't seen anything new and great since A97. (A2 was 16 bit and A95
was a piece of junk.) I keep upgrading because all my customers upgrade.

I agree re. A97.

I think A97 was a real breakthrough in reliability. I'm not particularly
impressed with ADO, the ASP pages or any of this newer stuff. Unless you
have a specific reason to upgrade I would suggest that you stay with what
you have.

One concern is that A2000 is now 5 years old, and MS won't support things
indefinitely. As new OS's come out, more and more the older software becomes
incompatible. We are looking to revamp our DB, so it seems a good time to
upgrade and do it in a newer version, even though, yeah, there's no real
compelling reason.


There have been some nice incremental improvements. For example, if you
change the name of a query, and you have a report based on that query, the
report will automatically updated to reflect the changed name.

I have another client who likes to fiddle around with the database, mostly
re. reports and some form formatting. He's notorious for renaming objects as
he thinks of a better name. Drives me crazy! For that reason alone, it would
be worth switching to A2003! :-)

That's a nice feature -- renaming objects used to be so difficult. (There
are some drawbacks too. The name game is best avoided.)

Name game?

Thanks,

Neil



Mike