Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24

    Unanswered: Access 2003 or Access 2010?

    I donít mean to stir up a hornetís nest, and you can one word reply to this question with your answer. However Iím new to Access, databases, and programming in general, so I donít have the perspective to answer this. My employer insists we use Access 2003, and even if weíre using 2010 that we have it in 2003 format. Iíve looked at both, and I can admit when a new technology sucks, I was on XP when Vista came out until Win7. Access 2010 looks slicker, and offers a bunch of features not found in 2003. Obviously being a new hire peon I don't want to challenge the boss on his choice. However I donít know if he just likes 2003, heís been using it for 8 years and doesnít want to change because he's stuck in his ways OR if it really is superior to 2010 and he could care less about the doodads. So is it personal preference or is one version head and shoulders better than the other, like Vista and Win7?
    Last edited by nim6us; 12-02-11 at 14:46. Reason: Spelling

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    520
    Could be for any number of reasons. Some people simply do not like the ribbon menu as opposed the the 'normal' menu.

    There are thing that Access 2010 does better but there are some features in 2003 not found in 2010. One of those features is the workgroup security.

    MS Access Version Comparison - Main differences between Access 2000 through Access 2010 | OpenGate Software
    Darasen

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    I guess the root of my question is really from a differnt cause. They've got me training on Access and VB.NET. I've been told from a couple different DBF members that Access is not on the level Oracle or MS SQL could be and VB.NET is really second teir to say C#. So my question was more, is this just another sign that they're using yesterday's tech or unrelated. I guess in actuality it's not a fair litmus test.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Bottom of The Barrel
    Posts
    6,102
    Provided Answers: 1
    They are using yesterday's tech.

    There might be a really good reason for that. The cost of migrating and/or training both IT and end users on the latest and greatest often outweighs the potential benefits.

    Or he could just hate the ribbon...

    I'd ask him point blank. Accept the requirement, but be curious about it...
    oh yeah... documentation... I have heard of that.

    *** What Do You Want In The MS Access Forum? ***

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    I have heard him curse the ribbon before.... but you're right Teddy, no need to beat around the bush. I'm not challenging him, I'm "exploring possibly better alternatives" and if he takes offense to that I may be in bad company any way.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia USA
    Posts
    2,763
    Provided Answers: 19
    Quote Originally Posted by nim6us View Post
    ...My employer insists we use Access 2003, and even if weíre using 2010 that we have it in 2003 format.
    This sounds as if your organization, like many, may have a mixed bag, as far as the versions of Access it's running. If this is the case, you should, indeed, be developing in 2003 format. Users running 2010 can run 2003 apps, but the reverse is not true.

    And Darasen hit on a couple of very good points! And some of those people who aren't really fond of the 2007/2010 Ribbon and, as well as other features, are experienced Access developers!

    VB.Net was going to make VB6 disappear ten years ago, and yet VB6 is still alive and well in tens if not hundreds of thousands of corporate apps around the country! And I suspect Access 2003 will be around for a long time, as well!

    Version 2003 is a relatively stable app, while Versions 2007 and 2010 still have some many problems to be resolved. And despite all the new 'bells and whistles' associated with the latter two versions, 95+% of everything you learn and use in 2003 will be applicable when/if you eventually do upgrade.

    Linq ;0)>
    Hope this helps!

    The problem with making anything foolproof...is that fools are so darn ingenious!

    All posts/responses based on Access 2003/2007

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    4

    Exclamation Access 2003 depending on use

    Access 2003 is fantastic, simple to use and there are more training videos and manuals (free) out there to use it.
    Unless you need it for a large corporation and you are doing a great deal of networking with other people and sharing and modifying files at the same time from different users - then Access 2010 is a must.
    Access 2010 does have a few minor features like a calc field that help but there is a workaround for that in 2003.

    Hope that helps.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    Thanks all, I think you helped me see why 2003 is indeed still relevant. That's more or less what I was after. Our commercialtic, capitalistic, "have it all now" society tells you that everything new is great and does 10 times more than the old, and that the old is outdated and a waste of time, this is esp telling in the tech field. However I'm finding as I go along that's not really the case. Any bit of software or hardware or anything really, that's built well does serve a purpose. That I shouldn't be so quick to dismiss things for the latest and greatest. That more than anything a true guru is master of past, present, and sometimes future, and knows what is applicable when. It's the naive who only sees the now and nothing else... not to go too fortune cookie on this post.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    13,692
    Provided Answers: 59
    VB.NET and C# are gradually converging.
    ulitmately changing versions (especailly from say VB to .NET) can be longwinded and rtechnically deamnding and expensive.

    Access isn't on the same level as Oracle, MS SQL or DB2. but then again thats comparing Apples with Oranges. Oracle, MS SQL and DB2 cost a heck of a lot more. Access['s nearest competitor is Filemaker not a full blown server DB. mind you Access isn't a database, its an application development environment.. it can talk to virtually any DB. with good design it can be just as rapid as say Oracle forms.
    I'd rather be riding on the Tiger 800 or the Norton

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •