ok, thanks for your help!
"bcap" wrote:
> Yes, you install it "right alongside"!
>
> You should install to a different folder. IIRC the installation will do
> this for you if you let it, or you can decide the folder yourself.
>
> I don't believe there's any such thing as Office 2003 SP4. I suggest
you
> study your disks a bit more carefully!
>
> SP3 does contain some nasty bugs. Access 2003 SP3 is OK once the hotfix
is
> installed: http://sup****t.microsoft.com/kb/945674/en-us
>
> There's a whole raft of other hotfixes for the other Office 2003 SP3
> programs.
>
>
> "Abbey Normal" <AbbeyNormal@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:7723A5DA-A83C-4E60-96C6-E951731AFE5A@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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,
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
|
