I think when you start mixing a few versions of office for applications
that have forms and code etc, I think it's time to probably split the
database.
A number of years ago a client of mine was upgrading all the computers from
old versions of windows (windoww 98), and office 97. to win xp, and office
2003.
The Consulting people doing the conversion and upgrading of all the desktops
warned how problematic access was going to be.
As it turned out, our applications (access) actually upgraded better than
almost every other software vendor in the building. We actually had less
problems than probably any other of the vendors.
The reasons why things went so smoothly for us is because we ran a split
database, and I suspect that the vendor did not realize we knew ow to set up
a MS access correctly in a professional manner.
So, as each new desktop was replaced and upgraded to access 2003, we simply
provided the 4-5 access applications in a2003 format. (in fact, we Install
the software on each pc, and I also highly recommend that you use a mde).
The back files remained in access 97 format. Of course, once all the
machines in the building did finally get upgraded (it took a long time), I
then simply upgraded the backend to access 2003.
What is amazing is virtually all of the other software vendors had absolute
hell, and head of all kinds and numerous compatibility problems in trying to
run the old versions at the same time as the new versions. Keep in mind with
a number of desktops that they had, this was going to occur over a period of
many months, so all of the workers in the building could not simply be
pushed to use to the new version untill they got a new computer.
The end result of this was in our case we had virtually NO problems running
in the mixed enviroment. The IT company was very impressed, because in
their past experience it was extremely problematic to try and run different
versions of access at the same time.
The so called lesson that we learned here is that simply splitting your
database allows you to easily and reliabley run different versions of access
at the same time in a mixed environment. It just too much risk to allow
different versions of access opening an application, and then trying to
compile an executable code designed in a different version. I recommend you
avoid allowing different versions of access to open the front end.
Very simply put, the people running access 2007 should receive an access
2007 front end. These front end should be installed on EACH computer like
every other piece of software you have. The people running access 2000, or
2003, should in turn receive an access 2003 or 2000 front end (And again,
keep in mind that these databases need to be installed on each user's
WorkStation, not on a shared folder on the server side). only the backend
part should remain on the shared server folder.
In most office environments, running a split database is highly recommended.
When you start to introduce different versions of access, then it's really
almost a requirement, far more than just a simple recommendation to run a
split database in this environment.
In the following article I not only tell you that you should split a
database, I also try to explain why you want to split a database, and why it
increases the reliability and reduces you support cost by a large amount.
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal/Articles/split/index.htm
At the end of the day, you really don't have to split your database, but
you're gonna spend a lot more time on support problems, and diminish the
users confidence in using your applications due to the high number of
problems. Often, when you break the users confidence in your applications,
it can be extremely difficult to recover that confidence, and the end result
is that you actually lose the ability to get support from management and
people in Your organization to use your software.
The end result of this process means that often the software development is
then taken away from you, and given to an outside vendor that has a track
record of not having so many problems. I guess in a nutshell I'm really
trying to say that you want to use the MOST reliable approach as possible,
and this will ensure that your efforts and application will live on, and be
endorsed by your users as a reliable and solid solution, not something that
is constantly crashing and causing all kinds of problems.
