Linking from an Access '97 to Access 2003 database

[Guest]

This may be a stupid question - but is it possible to link tables from an
Access 97 database to an Access 2003 database? The problem is currently we
have two databases that are linked together with a couple of tables. One of
the databases needs to be upgraded, but they do not want the other one to be
upgraded at the same time. Will the links be retained when we upgrade one? Do
we need to relink? Also, the users of the first database will have the Access
2003 application, but will be accessing the 97 database as some point. How
can I prevent them from 'accidently' upgrading the second database?

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Yes, an Access 2003 database can read data from an Access 97 database. The
reverse, however, is not possible.

The links shouldn't be changed by upgrading.

See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/824260/en-us?spid=2509&sid=285 for how
to help prevent upgrades.

 

[Guest]

So despite the two databases being linked before the upgrade as Access 97
databases, the Access 97 database will drop its links when the other database
is upgraded?

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Not sure I understand your question.

Are you saying that you've currently got DatabaseA and DatabaseB in Access
97, that DatabaseA links to DatabaseB and DatabaseB links to DatabaseA and
you're going to upgrade DatabaseA to Access 2003, but leave DatabaseB in
Access 97?

The links from DatabaseB to DatabaseA will continue to be there: they just
won't work.

 

[Guest]

Yes, thats exactly what I mean. Thanks for your help. How would define 'not
work'? Would the data just be static as was just before the upgrade
(effectively breaking the link) Or would I not be able to access the shared
data from the '97 database? I'm not sure if the terminology is right here -
by 'link' I'm referring to a shared table between Database A and Database B.

Then, if it does mess up the links, how would you tackle this problem? Would
you upgrade both databases at the same time? How is developing in '97 as
opposed to 2003? The owner of DatabaseB is adamant that he will not upgrade.

Thanks for you help.

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Access will raise an error, because it will be unable to read the data in
the other database.

If the two databases need to read one another, you have no choice but to
upgrade them together.

 

[Guest]

Thanks Douglas. My other option would be to develop requested changes in
Access '97. I heard that developing in Access '97 was extremely difficult. Is
there really a huge difference between developing in '97 vs. 2003 or newer
versions?

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

In my opinion, development in Access 97 is no different than development in
Access 2003.

 

[John W. Vinson]

Thanks Douglas. My other option would be to develop requested changes in
Access '97. I heard that developing in Access '97 was extremely difficult. Is
there really a huge difference between developing in '97 vs. 2003 or newer
versions?

Huh. I found developing in 2003 to be more complex (because there are more
options, mainly) than 97; 97 is a fully capable, very stable release, probably
the best Microsoft ever released.

You can't do a few things (Web interaction, conditional formatting) as easily,
or sometimes at all, but for the vast bulk of what you would typically do with
a database, A97 is just fine.

Again: the only real concern is for the frontend. A2003 can read the data in
an A97 database perfectly well; A97 CANNOT read A2003 data. It would be quite
reasonable to store your data in an A97 backend and use either A97 (for the
user who doesn't want to upgrade) or A2003 (for other users) for the frontend.

John W. Vinson [MVP]