Access 2000 vs. 2003 Front Ends

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wes Peters
  • Start date Start date
W

Wes Peters

I'm getting ready to develop an ADP frontend / SQL backend app and would
very much like some feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of 2000 and
2003.

The app will have about 10 - 15 users on a LAN. The SQL server will also be
accessed via the web.

We already have Access 2000 and the question I need to answer is is it worth
the upgrade to 2003 or is 2000 equally as good.

If anyone knows of any papers that address this comparison, please point me
in the right direction.

Thanks for your time.
Wes
 
ADP 2000 is the first version of ADP and many of its problems have been
solved with the subsequent versions. However, nothing forbid you to start
your development with Access 2000 and then upgrade to 2003 if necessary.

As far as I remember, I was very happy when I got the chance to replace
A2000 with A2002 but I don't remember why.
 
Thanks for the reply Sylvain.

Since we already have A2000 I think I'm going to start there as you suggest.

Wes
 
I'm getting ready to develop an ADP frontend / SQL backend app and would
very much like some feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of 2000 and
2003.

The app will have about 10 - 15 users on a LAN. The SQL server will also be
accessed via the web.

We already have Access 2000 and the question I need to answer is is it worth
the upgrade to 2003 or is 2000 equally as good.

If anyone knows of any papers that address this comparison, please point me
in the right direction.

Thanks for your time.
Wes
Click to expand...

In my experience 2000 and 2002/3 have very different ADP bugs, so if you start
with 2000, you'll have a vast amount of debugging when you switch to 2002/3.
IMO, 2000 was not the best version of Access for MDBs, but ADPs are, in many
ways, worse in 2002/3.

For instance, in 2000, you had to specify the "Unique Table" table behind your
query that would be editable. In 2002/3, Access tries to make all the tables
editable, but it often fails, and setting the "Unique Table" usually has no
effect. The only reliable option is to not try to allow editing on a query
with a join at all, and use combo boxes to look up related values instead.
 
Back
Top