Best Version of MS Access to Upgrade to ? (1 Viewer)

[PNGBill]

Hi, I have been away from MS Access for a few years and now want to build a database for our rental properties.
We have Office 2016 Pro and would like advice on best option to upgrade our desk top version or change to 365 ?
Appreciate your feedback

 

[theDBguy]

If your Office 2016 Pro came with Access, you can just use that. If you were going to upgrade your Office to 365 anyway, then you can use the Access version included in it. Either way, you should be fine.

 

[GPGeorge]

Hi, I have been away from MS Access for a few years and now want to build a database for our rental properties.
We have Office 2016 Pro and would like advice on best option to upgrade our desk top version or change to 365 ?
Appreciate your feedback

I dislike using words like "Best" to describe anything that can't be objectively evaluated, and that includes things like "best version" of a software package, or "best baseball team", or "best model of automobile", "best modern painter", and on it goes.

So, when I see a question like this, I want to know whether there are objective factors on which you rank versions of Access. For example, I know some developers rank Access '97 as the "best" still to this day. And others will not consider a subscription-licensed version good at all, so MS 365 is off the table right out of the gate.

What do you consider the factors that matter in your evaluation? Cost? If you have a working, licensed copy of Office 2016 Pro, you might consider that the best because using it doesn't incur additional costs. Or, you may value being on the cutting edge (some refer to it as the bleeding edge) of software, so you'll want the MS365 approach which is, by design, going to deliver the latest and greatest as part of the regular update cycle.

You could rank versions based on features available in one or the other. For example, MS365 supports linked DataVerse tables. If you want to go in that direction, you kind of have to change from Access 2016 to MS 365.

As theDBGuy says, though, Access 2016 should provide the baseline of features and functions you really need. Upgrading should be based on whether there really is some differentiating factor, like linking to DataVerse, that matters for your purposes.

 

[PNGBill]

Appreciate the responses. I have done a lot of access work with v2012 and it is annoying that newer versions require work to be done for vba to work. May go with 365 if continuous updates smooth this issue somewhat.

 

[GPGeorge]

Appreciate the responses. I have done a lot of access work with v2012 and it is annoying that newer versions require work to be done for vba to work. May go with 365 if continuous updates smooth this issue somewhat.

I think you may be conflating two different things. "...newer versions require work to be done for VBA to work". There can be some minor changes, such as being more explicit in qualifying references. That's true. Where we once got away with lax Dims such as:

Dim rst AS Recordset

It is now important to specific

Dim rst AS DAO.Recordset

I regard that as a good thing in any relational database application. Ambiguity is undesirable, clarity is important.

There can always be such improvements, yes, but nothing that should discourage one from migrating to a newer version on that basis alone.

Even there, "v2012" doesn't refer to a whole different code from the most recent version, 2302. It is not significantly different, at least with regard to VBA.

Perhaps, though, you are thinking of differences that arise out of converting from 32 bit Access to 64 bit Access. That does require some updates to handle APIs. And there are other potential problems when an accdb created using 32 bit Access--of any version--with 64 bit Access.

In short, if this is a factor in your choice, it probably belongs well down the list.

Some people might argue, in fact, that the continuous updates in MS365 offer more frequent opportunities to release new bugs.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I have done a lot of access work with v2012 and it is annoying that newer versions require work to be done for vba to work.

As far as I know, there was no A2012 version so I'm not sure what version you are talking about. I'm with George, if you use good practices, you are quite unlikely to run into issues when you upgrade to new versions. There was a huge change between A2.0 and A95 because it went from Access basic to VBA and that caused some rework. But, unless MS decides to replace VBA with something else, your old code should not break with a new version unless you were sloppy with it.

 

[PNGBill]

Thanks Pat, I think the issue may well have been 32 to 64 bit. The earlier version may have been older than 2012. History now as luckily we no longer need the database.
I know with Excel there is a difference between 365 and desktop versions in regard to functions. Wondered if Access also had advantages with 365 over desktop but it doesn't appear so.

 

[ebs17]

In Access, one is far more likely to develop an application for others than in Excel. If you want to use the newest functions (and in Access there are regularly few for a long time), you must learn and master them on the one hand, and your users must have a comparable Access version available.

Being completely up-to-date can also be a problem. The rate of serious errors seems to have increased with updates compared to the past.

I used to be guided by the rule: don't take an Access version as a working version (i.e. for distribution to third parties) until it has its first service pack behind it. The waters are then much calmer.

 

[GPGeorge]

As far as I know, there was no A2012 version so I'm not sure what version you are talking about. I'm with George, if you use good practices, you are quite unlikely to run into issues when you upgrade to new versions. There was a huge change between A2.0 and A95 because it went from Access basic to VBA and that caused some rework. But, unless MS decides to replace VBA with something else, your old code should not break with a new version unless you were sloppy with it.

I probably made the mistake of assuming that was a reference to the current system of naming "versions" for each monthly update cycle, i.e. 2012 would mean December, 2020. 2302 would mean February, 2023.