Using different versions with several users

Im in a small office where the users are on several different versions of
Access. Some are using 97, some use 2000, and some use 2003. I need to build
a database, and I want to be sure before I start that everyone will be able
to use it. Do I need to build it in the earliest version that we use (97)? If
I were to build it in 2000 would everyone be able to use it? I plan to set it
up as split front end back end.

Thanks

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

The back-end will definitely have to be in Access 97, or else the users with
only Access 97 won't be able to get to the data.

Build the front-end in Access 97, and once it's done, convert the front-end
to Access 2000 format. Distribute the Access 97 version to those who only
have Access 97, and the Access 2000 version to everyone else.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"ThomasK via AccessMonster.com" u16264@uwe wrote in message
news:8e91c7f89bda9@uwe...
Im in a small office where the users are on several different versions of
Access. Some are using 97, some use 2000, and some use 2003. I need to
build
a database, and I want to be sure before I start that everyone will be
able
to use it. Do I need to build it in the earliest version that we use (97)?
If
I were to build it in 2000 would everyone be able to use it? I plan to set
it
up as split front end back end.

Thanks

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

Great, thank you. Just what I needed to know.

Douglas J. Steele wrote:
The back-end will definitely have to be in Access 97, or else the users with
only Access 97 won't be able to get to the data.

Build the front-end in Access 97, and once it's done, convert the front-end
to Access 2000 format. Distribute the Access 97 version to those who only
have Access 97, and the Access 2000 version to everyone else.

Im in a small office where the users are on several different versions of
Access. Some are using 97, some use 2000, and some use 2003. I need to
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]

Thanks

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

Not completely true. IF you want everyone to use the DB and access all the
internals like edit the forms, or tables you will need to save it as the
"lowest" Access version you will be working with.

But the way around that is to make a Runtime program out of it. With the
Runtime you can put it on a computer and not even have Access on it.

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote:

The back-end will definitely have to be in Access 97, or else the users with
only Access 97 won't be able to get to the data.

Build the front-end in Access 97, and once it's done, convert the front-end
to Access 2000 format. Distribute the Access 97 version to those who only
have Access 97, and the Access 2000 version to everyone else.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"ThomasK via AccessMonster.com" u16264@uwe wrote in message
news:8e91c7f89bda9@uwe...
Im in a small office where the users are on several different versions of
Access. Some are using 97, some use 2000, and some use 2003. I need to
build
a database, and I want to be sure before I start that everyone will be
able
to use it. Do I need to build it in the earliest version that we use (97)?
If
I were to build it in 2000 would everyone be able to use it? I plan to set
it
up as split front end back end.

Thanks

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

While the runtime is an option, it's definitely not correct that you don't
need to have Access on the computer: that's what the runtime is!

However, if the users already have a full version of Access on their
workstation, there's no real advantage to installing the runtime as well: it
can lead to problems with Windows determining which version to associate
with the .mdb file extension.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"Kevbro7189" wrote in message
news
Not completely true. IF you want everyone to use the DB and access all
the
internals like edit the forms, or tables you will need to save it as the
"lowest" Access version you will be working with.

But the way around that is to make a Runtime program out of it. With the
Runtime you can put it on a computer and not even have Access on it.

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote:

The back-end will definitely have to be in Access 97, or else the users
with
only Access 97 won't be able to get to the data.

Build the front-end in Access 97, and once it's done, convert the
front-end
to Access 2000 format. Distribute the Access 97 version to those who only
have Access 97, and the Access 2000 version to everyone else.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"ThomasK via AccessMonster.com" u16264@uwe wrote in message
news:8e91c7f89bda9@uwe...
Im in a small office where the users are on several different versions
of
Access. Some are using 97, some use 2000, and some use 2003. I need to
build
a database, and I want to be sure before I start that everyone will be
able
to use it. Do I need to build it in the earliest version that we use
(97)?
If
I were to build it in 2000 would everyone be able to use it? I plan to
set
it
up as split front end back end.

Thanks

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

The advantage of Runtime is you can run a program built in Access 97, 2007 or
whatever, on a computer that has a different version of Access, or no Access
installed. When packaging the program you build you have the option to run
it as a standalone program, or use part or the entire installed Access
program.



"Douglas J. Steele" wrote:

While the runtime is an option, it's definitely not correct that you don't
need to have Access on the computer: that's what the runtime is!

However, if the users already have a full version of Access on their
workstation, there's no real advantage to installing the runtime as well: it
can lead to problems with Windows determining which version to associate
with the .mdb file extension.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"Kevbro7189" wrote in message
news
Not completely true. IF you want everyone to use the DB and access all
the
internals like edit the forms, or tables you will need to save it as the
"lowest" Access version you will be working with.

But the way around that is to make a Runtime program out of it. With the
Runtime you can put it on a computer and not even have Access on it.

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote:

The back-end will definitely have to be in Access 97, or else the users
with
only Access 97 won't be able to get to the data.

Build the front-end in Access 97, and once it's done, convert the
front-end
to Access 2000 format. Distribute the Access 97 version to those who only
have Access 97, and the Access 2000 version to everyone else.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"ThomasK via AccessMonster.com" u16264@uwe wrote in message
news:8e91c7f89bda9@uwe...
Im in a small office where the users are on several different versions
of
Access. Some are using 97, some use 2000, and some use 2003. I need to
build
a database, and I want to be sure before I start that everyone will be
able
to use it. Do I need to build it in the earliest version that we use
(97)?
If
I were to build it in 2000 would everyone be able to use it? I plan to
set
it
up as split front end back end.

Thanks

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

"Kevbro7189" wrote:

The advantage of Runtime is you can run a program built in Access 97, 2007 or
whatever, on a computer that has a different version of Access, or no Access
installed. When packaging the program you build you have the option to run
it as a standalone program, or use part or the entire installed Access
program. There is no .mdb extention with runtime.



"Douglas J. Steele" wrote:

While the runtime is an option, it's definitely not correct that you don't
need to have Access on the computer: that's what the runtime is!

However, if the users already have a full version of Access on their
workstation, there's no real advantage to installing the runtime as well: it
can lead to problems with Windows determining which version to associate
with the .mdb file extension.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"Kevbro7189" wrote in message
news
Not completely true. IF you want everyone to use the DB and access all
the
internals like edit the forms, or tables you will need to save it as the
"lowest" Access version you will be working with.

But the way around that is to make a Runtime program out of it. With the
Runtime you can put it on a computer and not even have Access on it.

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote:

The back-end will definitely have to be in Access 97, or else the users
with
only Access 97 won't be able to get to the data.

Build the front-end in Access 97, and once it's done, convert the
front-end
to Access 2000 format. Distribute the Access 97 version to those who only
have Access 97, and the Access 2000 version to everyone else.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"ThomasK via AccessMonster.com" u16264@uwe wrote in message
news:8e91c7f89bda9@uwe...
Im in a small office where the users are on several different versions
of
Access. Some are using 97, some use 2000, and some use 2003. I need to
build
a database, and I want to be sure before I start that everyone will be
able
to use it. Do I need to build it in the earliest version that we use
(97)?
If
I were to build it in 2000 would everyone be able to use it? I plan to
set
it
up as split front end back end.

Thanks

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com