oh yes, forgot to mention its a terminal server. So on the server I can
install 2003 'right along side of it'? [I like that idea] Also, forgive my
ignorance, does that mean Install to a different folder? Should I choose a
different folder or is windows smart enough to create its own. One other
question (thanks) I recv'd sp2 and sp4 in the box. can I go from sp2
directly
to sp4? I heard I don't want to use sp3.
Really,really appreciate your help.
"bcap" wrote:
> Not sure I understand. The server doesn't *need* Access installed,
unless
> it's a terminal server.
>
> On the users' workstations, I wouldn't uninstall Access 2002, I would
> install 2003 alongside it. Then, if any issues crop up with 2003, you
can
> easily revert to 2002.
>
> You'll need to opt for a "custom install", and at some point you'll be
given
> the option to keep existing versions. Access 2002 and 2003 co-exist
quite
> happily.
>
> "Abbey Normal" <AbbeyNormal@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:985D3425-F0F3-43AF-B1D8-42638AE58DF4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Hi. I have a large database on server, split. I want to upgrade to
Access
> > 2003, and I have a full version. I was going to uninstall 2002 and
install
> > 2003 & sp's, when no one is using it, of course. Is there anything
wrong
> > with
> > that method, or anything I should take into consideration? Thanks,
>
>
>
|
