Database using Access 2.0

Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we could 
import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS they said we 
couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we don't have that 
software.  What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for software 
development?

Thanks,
Linda 


0
LMB
8/14/2006 2:43:27 AM
access.conversion 3037 articles. 0 followers. Follow

18 Replies
596 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 14

Hi Linda

I doubt there are many new programs being written in Access 2. It was a 
great piece of software, and many databases were writing using it. I don't 
know Church Windows, but I am guessing that it was written back in the 
Access 2 days (around 1994), and the people you purchased it from are still 
supplying and supporting it.

Depending how they have set it up (security etc), you may be able to use a 
later version (e.g. Access 97) to link the tables in the CW database, and 
run a series of append queries to add records to the file (assuming you can 
get them out of Greentree CDMS.) If the database is written really well and 
not using Access security, that might be feasible. But last time a client 
asked me to do that with them, it ended up being really time consuming as 
the amount of unnormalized stuff being stored in that accounting program was 
unbelievable. Unless your church has thousands of people, it might be 
simpler to just enter the data.

-- 
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP.  Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message
news:uRnpwt0vGHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we could 
> import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS they said we 
> couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we don't have that 
> software.  What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for 
> software development?
>
> Thanks,
> Linda 


0
Allen
8/14/2006 3:10:51 AM
> What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for software
> development?
>
None, except existing software (which may be a good reason!). A2.0 works fine
if you have someone to support it. These days, you'd be hard pressed to find
anyone (besides the odd Allen!) who even wants to know about it.

Even all the coding has changed, though A2.0 coding is mostly still
legacy-supported. But it will give any NEWER "Access Developer" the hiccups.
Anything from A97 onwards is basically the same coding.

A2.0 is a short-term solution. Since you seem to be in touch with the supplier
then they should be able to offer a later version (not necessarily drastically
changed). It depends on whether you expect the supplier to maintain it, or
whether you obtained it with source code and might potentially get someone
else to maintain it.

So far as I know, A2.0 works as fine as it ever did on all current Windows. I
still have some myself. I would not recommend it nowadays for any new
purchase. Mainly because I'd then be irreplaceable!!!

Chris


0
Chris
8/14/2006 9:08:41 AM
Thanks, Allen and Chris.  The lady that helped the church decide on the 
program feels bad because the application used is Access 2.0 but I thought I 
read somewhere that it worked better than then newer versions for some 
reason that I can't recall.  I was thinking it may have been in one of the 
access groups but I couldn't find it anywhere.  I wanted to put her mind at 
ease.  I think it's going to be ok because the company does support the 
application and we get updates as they come out so I don't see a problem 
other than the one import issue.

Linda

"LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
news:uRnpwt0vGHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we could 
> import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS they said we 
> couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we don't have that 
> software.  What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for 
> software development?
>
> Thanks,
> Linda
> 


0
LMB
8/14/2006 1:27:36 PM
I would not use Access 2 for a new application today (though I believe we 
still have quite a few customers using Access 2 solutions that we developed 
in the past). But I can think of a few arguments that could be put forward 
in its favour. It is fast, small (you could deploy a run-time installation 
using four diskettes) and it will run on old, under-powered hardware and 
older versions of Windows.

I've just been reading a magazine article which says there are an estimated 
70 million Windows 98 users. Of course, you don't have to go all the way 
back to Access 2 to be compatible with Windows 98, but that figure does help 
to illustrate why adopting the latest version is not always the best 
decision.

Did you ask the vendor for their reasons?

-- 
Brendan Reynolds
Access MVP

"LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
news:%23vm$tV6vGHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Allen and Chris.  The lady that helped the church decide on the 
> program feels bad because the application used is Access 2.0 but I thought 
> I read somewhere that it worked better than then newer versions for some 
> reason that I can't recall.  I was thinking it may have been in one of the 
> access groups but I couldn't find it anywhere.  I wanted to put her mind 
> at ease.  I think it's going to be ok because the company does support the 
> application and we get updates as they come out so I don't see a problem 
> other than the one import issue.
>
> Linda
>
> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
> news:uRnpwt0vGHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we could 
>> import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS they said we 
>> couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we don't have that 
>> software.  What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for 
>> software development?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Linda
>>
>
> 


0
Brendan
8/14/2006 2:22:45 PM
Good Idea, I just sent the question.  I'll let you all know what they 
say.......Linda


>
> Did you ask the vendor for their reasons?
>
> -- 
> Brendan Reynolds
> Access MVP
>
> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
> news:%23vm$tV6vGHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks, Allen and Chris.  The lady that helped the church decide on the 
>> program feels bad because the application used is Access 2.0 but I 
>> thought I read somewhere that it worked better than then newer versions 
>> for some reason that I can't recall.  I was thinking it may have been in 
>> one of the access groups but I couldn't find it anywhere.  I wanted to 
>> put her mind at ease.  I think it's going to be ok because the company 
>> does support the application and we get updates as they come out so I 
>> don't see a problem other than the one import issue.
>>
>> Linda
>>
>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>> news:uRnpwt0vGHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we could 
>>> import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS they said 
>>> we couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we don't have that 
>>> software.  What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for 
>>> software development?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Linda
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
LMB
8/14/2006 2:32:03 PM
>>Even all the coding has changed, though A2.0 coding is mostly still
>>legacy-supported. But it will give any NEWER "Access Developer" the 
>>hiccups.
>>Anything from A97 onwards is basically the same coding.

On that subject I recently migrated a system we developed in 1994 using 
Access 1.1 and then 2.0.

The migration was just to demonstrate the old system as opposed to use it 
but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it converted to Access 2003 with 
a great deal of ease with just the references set to VBA, Access 11 Object 
Library and the 2.5/3.5 DAO Compatibility Library.

This was a large reference site so the fact that it almost all works would 
suggest that similar conversions would work with a bit of tweaking.

BTW I tried using 3.6 DAO but errors around Snapshots and Dynasets (whatever 
they were (vbg)) were sprouting up everywhere.

-- 
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited

Small Business Solutions Provider

"Chris Mills" <phad_nospam@cleardotnet.nz> wrote in message 
news:%23RFmSE4vGHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for software
>> development?
>>
> None, except existing software (which may be a good reason!). A2.0 works 
> fine
> if you have someone to support it. These days, you'd be hard pressed to 
> find
> anyone (besides the odd Allen!) who even wants to know about it.
>
> Even all the coding has changed, though A2.0 coding is mostly still
> legacy-supported. But it will give any NEWER "Access Developer" the 
> hiccups.
> Anything from A97 onwards is basically the same coding.
>
> A2.0 is a short-term solution. Since you seem to be in touch with the 
> supplier
> then they should be able to offer a later version (not necessarily 
> drastically
> changed). It depends on whether you expect the supplier to maintain it, or
> whether you obtained it with source code and might potentially get someone
> else to maintain it.
>
> So far as I know, A2.0 works as fine as it ever did on all current 
> Windows. I
> still have some myself. I would not recommend it nowadays for any new
> purchase. Mainly because I'd then be irreplaceable!!!
>
> Chris
>
> 


0
Craig
8/14/2006 3:00:33 PM
Since I just sent the question not too long ago and already have a response, 
I think that's good.  here is the response....


Since Access 2.0 supports 32 bit applications we have decided not to change. 
32 bit applications still dominate the desktop world.  We are currently 
redesigning the financial module which I believe will have a SQL backend.


Linda

"Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
news:OSRgj06vGHA.5056@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I would not use Access 2 for a new application today (though I believe we 
>still have quite a few customers using Access 2 solutions that we developed 
>in the past). But I can think of a few arguments that could be put forward 
>in its favour. It is fast, small (you could deploy a run-time installation 
>using four diskettes) and it will run on old, under-powered hardware and 
>older versions of Windows.
>
> I've just been reading a magazine article which says there are an 
> estimated 70 million Windows 98 users. Of course, you don't have to go all 
> the way back to Access 2 to be compatible with Windows 98, but that figure 
> does help to illustrate why adopting the latest version is not always the 
> best decision.
>
> Did you ask the vendor for their reasons?
>
> -- 
> Brendan Reynolds
> Access MVP
>
> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
> news:%23vm$tV6vGHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks, Allen and Chris.  The lady that helped the church decide on the 
>> program feels bad because the application used is Access 2.0 but I 
>> thought I read somewhere that it worked better than then newer versions 
>> for some reason that I can't recall.  I was thinking it may have been in 
>> one of the access groups but I couldn't find it anywhere.  I wanted to 
>> put her mind at ease.  I think it's going to be ok because the company 
>> does support the application and we get updates as they come out so I 
>> don't see a problem other than the one import issue.
>>
>> Linda
>>
>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>> news:uRnpwt0vGHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we could 
>>> import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS they said 
>>> we couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we don't have that 
>>> software.  What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for 
>>> software development?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Linda
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
LMB
8/14/2006 3:06:53 PM
The only real problem we had was with 16-bit OCXs. Because Access 2 didn't 
have a tab control, pretty much all of our Access 2 apps used a 16-bit 
tab-strip OCX. Other than that though, it wasn't too painful.

-- 
Brendan Reynolds
Access MVP

"Craig Alexander Morrison" <cam@microsoft.newsgroups.public.com> wrote in 
message news:%23Rn2lJ7vGHA.4920@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>Even all the coding has changed, though A2.0 coding is mostly still
>>>legacy-supported. But it will give any NEWER "Access Developer" the 
>>>hiccups.
>>>Anything from A97 onwards is basically the same coding.
>
> On that subject I recently migrated a system we developed in 1994 using 
> Access 1.1 and then 2.0.
>
> The migration was just to demonstrate the old system as opposed to use it 
> but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it converted to Access 2003 
> with a great deal of ease with just the references set to VBA, Access 11 
> Object Library and the 2.5/3.5 DAO Compatibility Library.
>
> This was a large reference site so the fact that it almost all works would 
> suggest that similar conversions would work with a bit of tweaking.
>
> BTW I tried using 3.6 DAO but errors around Snapshots and Dynasets 
> (whatever they were (vbg)) were sprouting up everywhere.
>
> -- 
> Slainte
>
> Craig Alexander Morrison
> Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited
>
> Small Business Solutions Provider
>
> "Chris Mills" <phad_nospam@cleardotnet.nz> wrote in message 
> news:%23RFmSE4vGHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for software
>>> development?
>>>
>> None, except existing software (which may be a good reason!). A2.0 works 
>> fine
>> if you have someone to support it. These days, you'd be hard pressed to 
>> find
>> anyone (besides the odd Allen!) who even wants to know about it.
>>
>> Even all the coding has changed, though A2.0 coding is mostly still
>> legacy-supported. But it will give any NEWER "Access Developer" the 
>> hiccups.
>> Anything from A97 onwards is basically the same coding.
>>
>> A2.0 is a short-term solution. Since you seem to be in touch with the 
>> supplier
>> then they should be able to offer a later version (not necessarily 
>> drastically
>> changed). It depends on whether you expect the supplier to maintain it, 
>> or
>> whether you obtained it with source code and might potentially get 
>> someone
>> else to maintain it.
>>
>> So far as I know, A2.0 works as fine as it ever did on all current 
>> Windows. I
>> still have some myself. I would not recommend it nowadays for any new
>> purchase. Mainly because I'd then be irreplaceable!!!
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>
> 


0
Brendan
8/14/2006 3:12:30 PM
Hmm ... perhaps you should be worried after all. That answer doesn't make 
sense. I'm not sure just what they mean by 'supports' in this context, but 
Access 2 is 16-bit. Access 95 was the first 32-bit version of Access.

-- 
Brendan Reynolds
Access MVP


"LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
news:O77eMN7vGHA.2436@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Since I just sent the question not too long ago and already have a 
> response, I think that's good.  here is the response....
>
>
> Since Access 2.0 supports 32 bit applications we have decided not to 
> change. 32 bit applications still dominate the desktop world.  We are 
> currently redesigning the financial module which I believe will have a SQL 
> backend.
>
>
> Linda
>
> "Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
> news:OSRgj06vGHA.5056@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>I would not use Access 2 for a new application today (though I believe we 
>>still have quite a few customers using Access 2 solutions that we 
>>developed in the past). But I can think of a few arguments that could be 
>>put forward in its favour. It is fast, small (you could deploy a run-time 
>>installation using four diskettes) and it will run on old, under-powered 
>>hardware and older versions of Windows.
>>
>> I've just been reading a magazine article which says there are an 
>> estimated 70 million Windows 98 users. Of course, you don't have to go 
>> all the way back to Access 2 to be compatible with Windows 98, but that 
>> figure does help to illustrate why adopting the latest version is not 
>> always the best decision.
>>
>> Did you ask the vendor for their reasons?
>>
>> -- 
>> Brendan Reynolds
>> Access MVP
>>
>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>> news:%23vm$tV6vGHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Thanks, Allen and Chris.  The lady that helped the church decide on the 
>>> program feels bad because the application used is Access 2.0 but I 
>>> thought I read somewhere that it worked better than then newer versions 
>>> for some reason that I can't recall.  I was thinking it may have been in 
>>> one of the access groups but I couldn't find it anywhere.  I wanted to 
>>> put her mind at ease.  I think it's going to be ok because the company 
>>> does support the application and we get updates as they come out so I 
>>> don't see a problem other than the one import issue.
>>>
>>> Linda
>>>
>>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>>> news:uRnpwt0vGHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we 
>>>> could import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS they 
>>>> said we couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we don't have 
>>>> that software.  What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for 
>>>> software development?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Linda
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
Brendan
8/14/2006 3:17:01 PM
Access 2.0 is 16bit it does not know about 32bit. However it will run on 
most 32bit OS and indeed it runs on some 64bit OS.

-- 
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited

Small Business Solutions Provider

"LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
news:O77eMN7vGHA.2436@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Since I just sent the question not too long ago and already have a 
> response, I think that's good.  here is the response....
>
>
> Since Access 2.0 supports 32 bit applications we have decided not to 
> change. 32 bit applications still dominate the desktop world.  We are 
> currently redesigning the financial module which I believe will have a SQL 
> backend.
>
>
> Linda
>
> "Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
> news:OSRgj06vGHA.5056@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>I would not use Access 2 for a new application today (though I believe we 
>>still have quite a few customers using Access 2 solutions that we 
>>developed in the past). But I can think of a few arguments that could be 
>>put forward in its favour. It is fast, small (you could deploy a run-time 
>>installation using four diskettes) and it will run on old, under-powered 
>>hardware and older versions of Windows.
>>
>> I've just been reading a magazine article which says there are an 
>> estimated 70 million Windows 98 users. Of course, you don't have to go 
>> all the way back to Access 2 to be compatible with Windows 98, but that 
>> figure does help to illustrate why adopting the latest version is not 
>> always the best decision.
>>
>> Did you ask the vendor for their reasons?
>>
>> -- 
>> Brendan Reynolds
>> Access MVP
>>
>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>> news:%23vm$tV6vGHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Thanks, Allen and Chris.  The lady that helped the church decide on the 
>>> program feels bad because the application used is Access 2.0 but I 
>>> thought I read somewhere that it worked better than then newer versions 
>>> for some reason that I can't recall.  I was thinking it may have been in 
>>> one of the access groups but I couldn't find it anywhere.  I wanted to 
>>> put her mind at ease.  I think it's going to be ok because the company 
>>> does support the application and we get updates as they come out so I 
>>> don't see a problem other than the one import issue.
>>>
>>> Linda
>>>
>>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>>> news:uRnpwt0vGHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we 
>>>> could import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS they 
>>>> said we couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we don't have 
>>>> that software.  What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for 
>>>> software development?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Linda
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
Craig
8/14/2006 3:28:33 PM
Being late into Access 97 (we had a bad experience with the Access 95 Beta) 
I almost overdosed on the tab control. (vbg)

I now love the 7 nested levels of subform using 1 or 2 just for layout and 
to open groups of forms and subforms.

-- 
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited

Small Business Solutions Provider

"Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
news:ei8gUQ7vGHA.4868@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> The only real problem we had was with 16-bit OCXs. Because Access 2 didn't 
> have a tab control, pretty much all of our Access 2 apps used a 16-bit 
> tab-strip OCX. Other than that though, it wasn't too painful.
>
> -- 
> Brendan Reynolds
> Access MVP
>
> "Craig Alexander Morrison" <cam@microsoft.newsgroups.public.com> wrote in 
> message news:%23Rn2lJ7vGHA.4920@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>Even all the coding has changed, though A2.0 coding is mostly still
>>>>legacy-supported. But it will give any NEWER "Access Developer" the 
>>>>hiccups.
>>>>Anything from A97 onwards is basically the same coding.
>>
>> On that subject I recently migrated a system we developed in 1994 using 
>> Access 1.1 and then 2.0.
>>
>> The migration was just to demonstrate the old system as opposed to use it 
>> but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it converted to Access 2003 
>> with a great deal of ease with just the references set to VBA, Access 11 
>> Object Library and the 2.5/3.5 DAO Compatibility Library.
>>
>> This was a large reference site so the fact that it almost all works 
>> would suggest that similar conversions would work with a bit of tweaking.
>>
>> BTW I tried using 3.6 DAO but errors around Snapshots and Dynasets 
>> (whatever they were (vbg)) were sprouting up everywhere.
>>
>> -- 
>> Slainte
>>
>> Craig Alexander Morrison
>> Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited
>>
>> Small Business Solutions Provider
>>
>> "Chris Mills" <phad_nospam@cleardotnet.nz> wrote in message 
>> news:%23RFmSE4vGHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for software
>>>> development?
>>>>
>>> None, except existing software (which may be a good reason!). A2.0 works 
>>> fine
>>> if you have someone to support it. These days, you'd be hard pressed to 
>>> find
>>> anyone (besides the odd Allen!) who even wants to know about it.
>>>
>>> Even all the coding has changed, though A2.0 coding is mostly still
>>> legacy-supported. But it will give any NEWER "Access Developer" the 
>>> hiccups.
>>> Anything from A97 onwards is basically the same coding.
>>>
>>> A2.0 is a short-term solution. Since you seem to be in touch with the 
>>> supplier
>>> then they should be able to offer a later version (not necessarily 
>>> drastically
>>> changed). It depends on whether you expect the supplier to maintain it, 
>>> or
>>> whether you obtained it with source code and might potentially get 
>>> someone
>>> else to maintain it.
>>>
>>> So far as I know, A2.0 works as fine as it ever did on all current 
>>> Windows. I
>>> still have some myself. I would not recommend it nowadays for any new
>>> purchase. Mainly because I'd then be irreplaceable!!!
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
Craig
8/14/2006 3:31:10 PM
OH..see I have no clue what that means so I just believed him.


"Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
news:Osuv0S7vGHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hmm ... perhaps you should be worried after all. That answer doesn't make 
> sense. I'm not sure just what they mean by 'supports' in this context, but 
> Access 2 is 16-bit. Access 95 was the first 32-bit version of Access.
>
> -- 
> Brendan Reynolds
> Access MVP
>
>
> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
> news:O77eMN7vGHA.2436@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Since I just sent the question not too long ago and already have a 
>> response, I think that's good.  here is the response....
>>
>>
>> Since Access 2.0 supports 32 bit applications we have decided not to 
>> change. 32 bit applications still dominate the desktop world.  We are 
>> currently redesigning the financial module which I believe will have a 
>> SQL backend.
>>
>>
>> Linda
>>
>> "Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
>> news:OSRgj06vGHA.5056@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>I would not use Access 2 for a new application today (though I believe we 
>>>still have quite a few customers using Access 2 solutions that we 
>>>developed in the past). But I can think of a few arguments that could be 
>>>put forward in its favour. It is fast, small (you could deploy a run-time 
>>>installation using four diskettes) and it will run on old, under-powered 
>>>hardware and older versions of Windows.
>>>
>>> I've just been reading a magazine article which says there are an 
>>> estimated 70 million Windows 98 users. Of course, you don't have to go 
>>> all the way back to Access 2 to be compatible with Windows 98, but that 
>>> figure does help to illustrate why adopting the latest version is not 
>>> always the best decision.
>>>
>>> Did you ask the vendor for their reasons?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Brendan Reynolds
>>> Access MVP
>>>
>>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>>> news:%23vm$tV6vGHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Thanks, Allen and Chris.  The lady that helped the church decide on the 
>>>> program feels bad because the application used is Access 2.0 but I 
>>>> thought I read somewhere that it worked better than then newer versions 
>>>> for some reason that I can't recall.  I was thinking it may have been 
>>>> in one of the access groups but I couldn't find it anywhere.  I wanted 
>>>> to put her mind at ease.  I think it's going to be ok because the 
>>>> company does support the application and we get updates as they come 
>>>> out so I don't see a problem other than the one import issue.
>>>>
>>>> Linda
>>>>
>>>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>>>> news:uRnpwt0vGHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we 
>>>>> could import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS 
>>>>> they said we couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we 
>>>>> don't have that software.  What would be the benefit of still using 
>>>>> Access 2.0 for software development?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Linda
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
LMB
8/14/2006 5:56:28 PM
Even if it was true, it still would not have answered the question in any 
meaningful way.

On the other hand, I shouldn't jump to conclusions about an application that 
I haven't seen, based on one person's answer to a single question. I hope my 
'perhaps you should be worried' comment hasn't unduly alarmed you. If the 
app meets your needs, then there may not necessarily be any great cause for 
concern. The answer you received makes me suspicious, but it doesn't 
conclusively prove anything.

-- 
Brendan Reynolds
Access MVP


"LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
news:eg6N%23r8vGHA.4756@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> OH..see I have no clue what that means so I just believed him.
>
>
> "Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
> news:Osuv0S7vGHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hmm ... perhaps you should be worried after all. That answer doesn't make 
>> sense. I'm not sure just what they mean by 'supports' in this context, 
>> but Access 2 is 16-bit. Access 95 was the first 32-bit version of Access.
>>
>> -- 
>> Brendan Reynolds
>> Access MVP
>>
>>
>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>> news:O77eMN7vGHA.2436@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Since I just sent the question not too long ago and already have a 
>>> response, I think that's good.  here is the response....
>>>
>>>
>>> Since Access 2.0 supports 32 bit applications we have decided not to 
>>> change. 32 bit applications still dominate the desktop world.  We are 
>>> currently redesigning the financial module which I believe will have a 
>>> SQL backend.
>>>
>>>
>>> Linda
>>>
>>> "Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:OSRgj06vGHA.5056@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>I would not use Access 2 for a new application today (though I believe 
>>>>we still have quite a few customers using Access 2 solutions that we 
>>>>developed in the past). But I can think of a few arguments that could be 
>>>>put forward in its favour. It is fast, small (you could deploy a 
>>>>run-time installation using four diskettes) and it will run on old, 
>>>>under-powered hardware and older versions of Windows.
>>>>
>>>> I've just been reading a magazine article which says there are an 
>>>> estimated 70 million Windows 98 users. Of course, you don't have to go 
>>>> all the way back to Access 2 to be compatible with Windows 98, but that 
>>>> figure does help to illustrate why adopting the latest version is not 
>>>> always the best decision.
>>>>
>>>> Did you ask the vendor for their reasons?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Brendan Reynolds
>>>> Access MVP
>>>>
>>>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>>>> news:%23vm$tV6vGHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Thanks, Allen and Chris.  The lady that helped the church decide on 
>>>>> the program feels bad because the application used is Access 2.0 but I 
>>>>> thought I read somewhere that it worked better than then newer 
>>>>> versions for some reason that I can't recall.  I was thinking it may 
>>>>> have been in one of the access groups but I couldn't find it anywhere. 
>>>>> I wanted to put her mind at ease.  I think it's going to be ok because 
>>>>> the company does support the application and we get updates as they 
>>>>> come out so I don't see a problem other than the one import issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linda
>>>>>
>>>>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:uRnpwt0vGHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we 
>>>>>> could import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS 
>>>>>> they said we couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we 
>>>>>> don't have that software.  What would be the benefit of still using 
>>>>>> Access 2.0 for software development?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Linda
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
Brendan
8/14/2006 7:29:30 PM
Not to worry.  I just do the software installs and general tech support for 
the church.  We had a church database managment system that they had been 
using for years and it seemed fine to me but the new manager wanted to get 
something new.  They purchased it in November and are still updating both 
systems and using features from one that aren't on the other because the 
manager doesn't want any records copied from one to the other, he wants to 
wait until all the people have filled out their "update your information" 
sheets turned in..haha good luck!.  My query was to help the lady not feel 
so bad about knowing it was based on access 2.0 that is knowledgeable about 
database design who was on the committe to decide which program to buy.  I 
don't think she had that much say anyway because she agreed with me that the 
other database was fine, the users just needed to read the book.

Thanks, Brendan


"Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
news:ey2s5f9vGHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Even if it was true, it still would not have answered the question in any 
> meaningful way.
>
> On the other hand, I shouldn't jump to conclusions about an application 
> that I haven't seen, based on one person's answer to a single question. I 
> hope my 'perhaps you should be worried' comment hasn't unduly alarmed you. 
> If the app meets your needs, then there may not necessarily be any great 
> cause for concern. The answer you received makes me suspicious, but it 
> doesn't conclusively prove anything.
>
> -- 
> Brendan Reynolds
> Access MVP
>
>
> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
> news:eg6N%23r8vGHA.4756@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> OH..see I have no clue what that means so I just believed him.
>>
>>
>> "Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
>> news:Osuv0S7vGHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Hmm ... perhaps you should be worried after all. That answer doesn't 
>>> make sense. I'm not sure just what they mean by 'supports' in this 
>>> context, but Access 2 is 16-bit. Access 95 was the first 32-bit version 
>>> of Access.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Brendan Reynolds
>>> Access MVP
>>>
>>>
>>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>>> news:O77eMN7vGHA.2436@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Since I just sent the question not too long ago and already have a 
>>>> response, I think that's good.  here is the response....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since Access 2.0 supports 32 bit applications we have decided not to 
>>>> change. 32 bit applications still dominate the desktop world.  We are 
>>>> currently redesigning the financial module which I believe will have a 
>>>> SQL backend.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linda
>>>>
>>>> "Brendan Reynolds" <brenreyn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in 
>>>> message news:OSRgj06vGHA.5056@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I would not use Access 2 for a new application today (though I believe 
>>>>>we still have quite a few customers using Access 2 solutions that we 
>>>>>developed in the past). But I can think of a few arguments that could 
>>>>>be put forward in its favour. It is fast, small (you could deploy a 
>>>>>run-time installation using four diskettes) and it will run on old, 
>>>>>under-powered hardware and older versions of Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just been reading a magazine article which says there are an 
>>>>> estimated 70 million Windows 98 users. Of course, you don't have to go 
>>>>> all the way back to Access 2 to be compatible with Windows 98, but 
>>>>> that figure does help to illustrate why adopting the latest version is 
>>>>> not always the best decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you ask the vendor for their reasons?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Brendan Reynolds
>>>>> Access MVP
>>>>>
>>>>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:%23vm$tV6vGHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Thanks, Allen and Chris.  The lady that helped the church decide on 
>>>>>> the program feels bad because the application used is Access 2.0 but 
>>>>>> I thought I read somewhere that it worked better than then newer 
>>>>>> versions for some reason that I can't recall.  I was thinking it may 
>>>>>> have been in one of the access groups but I couldn't find it 
>>>>>> anywhere. I wanted to put her mind at ease.  I think it's going to be 
>>>>>> ok because the company does support the application and we get 
>>>>>> updates as they come out so I don't see a problem other than the one 
>>>>>> import issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linda
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:uRnpwt0vGHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we 
>>>>>>> could import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS 
>>>>>>> they said we couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we 
>>>>>>> don't have that software.  What would be the benefit of still using 
>>>>>>> Access 2.0 for software development?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Linda
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
LMB
8/14/2006 9:12:48 PM
Anyway, I don't have a problem with A2.0 PROVIDED it is supported by a
supporter (!), which seems to be so in this case. A2.0 (and for that matter
A97...) is no longer supported by Microsoft (do they support the current
version?<vbg>)

There are clearly a number of people in the newsgroup still familiar with
A2.0, including at least one of the MS Access Developers, so we can blame him!
(that's a joke, Slainte-blaming you I mean). But LMB seems to have supplier
support, doesn't herself require technical expertese, so why worry, LMB?

In the absence of really negative information, yeah go for it I would say!

Things could be worse, much worse. I could be your technical support :-))
Cheers
Chris


0
Chris
8/15/2006 12:23:15 AM
"Chris Mills" <phad_nospam@cleardotnet.nz> wrote:

>. Mainly because I'd then be irreplaceable!!!

Give me a day or two to make a few smart *ss comments on that one.
<smile>

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
0
Tony
8/15/2006 1:40:38 AM
"Craig Alexander Morrison" <cam@microsoft.newsgroups.public.com>
wrote:

>The migration was just to demonstrate the old system as opposed to use it 
>but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it converted to Access 2003 with 
>a great deal of ease with just the references set to VBA, Access 11 Object 
>Library and the 2.5/3.5 DAO Compatibility Library.
>
>This was a large reference site so the fact that it almost all works would 
>suggest that similar conversions would work with a bit of tweaking.
>
>BTW I tried using 3.6 DAO but errors around Snapshots and Dynasets (whatever 
>they were (vbg)) were sprouting up everywhere.

Ah, those'd be easy to convert.  Find and replace could almost do it.

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
0
Tony
8/15/2006 1:41:32 AM
I'm not sure I've got this the right way around, but

You asked CW to do the import, and they said that it was too
difficult?

And that was because they don't have a copy of Greentree
or Jade?

If you want, you could export all of your Names and Addresses
from Greentree as an Excel spreadsheet, and then ask CW
to import from that.

It is a little more tricky than just sending off your database, because
you will have to do the export yourself, but the CW people should
be able to handle the import, and may even be able to tell you how
to do it yourself.

(david)

"LMB" <RomulanQueen@10Forward.SSTNG> wrote in message
news:uRnpwt0vGHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Our church purchased Church Windows software.  When we asked if we could
> import our members from our existing database Greentree CDMS they said we
> couldn't because CW is an Access 2.0 database and we don't have that
> software.  What would be the benefit of still using Access 2.0 for
software
> development?
>
> Thanks,
> Linda
>
>


0
david
8/19/2006 10:38:35 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces: