learning curve 97 vs XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter hnq51834
  • Start date Start date
H

hnq51834

I've been programming in Access 97 for several years and
my company is thinking about upgrading to XP. How
different is programming in 97 vs. XP? Will there be a
significant learnin curve before I can start programming
in XP? What are some of the main differences between 97
and XP?

Thanks for your input.
 
hnq51834 said:
I've been programming in Access 97 for several years and
my company is thinking about upgrading to XP. How
different is programming in 97 vs. XP? Will there be a
significant learnin curve before I can start programming
in XP? What are some of the main differences between 97
and XP?
Click to expand...

Well, there are differences you must accept and others that are optional.

The VBA code window opens in a separate application window (that started in
A2000) and there are differences in how sub-forms and sub-reports are
interacted with in design view.

The bigger changes are if you stay with the default object model. Access
97 uses DAO and all the newer versions use ADO by default. You can choose
however, to remove the reference to ADO, add the reference to DAO and
continue to work pretty much as you have in Access 97. Certainly this is
what you would likely want to do with maintenance on existing apps. While
you might want to learn and use ADO for new projects, there would be very
little value in reworking an existing DAO application to use ADO.

There are new things that require a steeper learning curve if you opt to
use them. You can create ADP projects instead of MDB apps to work directly
with SQL Server. You could try your hand at DAPs (Data Access Pages) for
interacting with your data through a web browser. XP (Access 2002) adds
some functionality for working with XML if you have any need for that.

Long story short... if you simply want to install the upgrade and continue
working largely the same as you are now, you can do so. You will find that
unless you upgrade your hardware that developing in XP will likely be
slower than in 97, but that is true of nearly all software upgrades.
 
If you are working with data stored in Access tables, the native Access
library (DAO) will be better.

There are a few new features in Jet 4 that required ADO/ADOX, but you can
learn those at your leisure.

You might consider performing a custom install of Access 2002 so you can
keep your A97. You will still need it if you are supporting A97
applications. It would be a good idea to place a shortcut on your desktop to
the Access 97 help files, as the A2002 ones are beyond help. :) (You will
be pleased to know that the Access 2003 help files are useable again.)
 
How does A2002 (XP) compare to A2003? Would you recommend
that I skip A2002 and update to A2003?

Thanks for the input!
 
A2003 is a very stable product: although it doesn't have the maturity of
A2002 with the service packs, it is at least as stable and possibly more
stable. The help is much better. And it includes a DAO reference by default
when you create a new database which will save many users grief.

It has one serious flaw. Every time you open your database, you receive a
warning that this is a really unsafe thing to do because it contains code.
What did they *expect* in a database product??? The two solutions are to:
a) set your security settings to Low (explicitly not recommended); or
b) buy a digital certificate, and sign your project again any time you make
a minor change.

(a) actually works fine, but try to tell that to a manager in a workplace.
(b) is okay for huge corporate settings, but useless for small developers or
databases that are constantly being modified.

If you are using Access to develop small projects that will be used by other
people, or projects that are regularly being changed, you probably want to
stay with the older versions. There are some reports of these messages
popping up inappropriately, e.g. even when the security settings are Low and
Jet 4 SP8 is installed.
 
TC, how do you see Access being used?

My concern is for the small business operators and not-for-profit groups who
use Access because it's a darn good database, is within their budget, and
can be maintained in-house. These people have no need for a digital
certificate and are always modifying the database and fine-tuning it. The
digital certificate would always be out of date: even writing the SQL
property of an action query invalidates the certificate.

Given that this is a major component of the Access market, my view is that
MS has applied a very good corporate guideline (secure by default, secure by
design, secure by deployment) in a very inappropriate way.
 
Hi Allen

I think we're talking at cross purposes :-)

I don't know >anything< about how digitial certifcates are used in newer
versions of Access. So I certainly wasn't trying to argue!

I know what a digitial certificate is from a functional viewpoint, and I
know you have to get them from a designated authority (Verisign?). But I
have no idea how easy that is, or whether/what it costs, or what is involved
in attaching them to an Access database.

This issue is probably of interest to other developers also. Could you maybe
give a short overview on how digitial certificates are used in the relevent
versions of ms access? particularly what this involves from a cost &
complexity viewpoint?

TIA,
TC
 
Back
Top