Liz Doering
liz at symphonyinfo.com
Fri Mar 5 08:23:38 CST 2004
I hunted around for an option that governed this, but I didn't find one--did I miss something? Having a 'local copy' is the part that caused the problem. -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Susan Harkins Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 5:21 PM To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' Subject: RE: [AccessD] Database Un-splitter: New 'Feature' from Microsoft 2003 does let you work with a "local" copy of a linked table -- are you sure someone didn't just choose the wrong option? Susan H. I ran smack up against a new 'feature' of Access 2003 today. I have a client who, for reasons of his own, keeps his BE in Access 97. With the purchase of new machines, some of his users have gotten to Access 2003, while others are still using 97. I made a few changes on site last week, using a 2003 machine for development and blithely saving my changes to a 97 version when I was done. Without saying a word, 2003 made a copy of all the BE tables in the new 97 FE. So now my 97 user is working on a copy, disconnected from his server. Of course it took him 3 days' worth of work to notice. I'll be spending Monday cleaning up this fiasco. And several more days, wondering why somebody didn't put a little warning on this process! The one good point: he's gotten over his need to keep 97. Liz Doering Symphony Information Services liz at symphonyinfo.com www.symphonyinfo.com 763-391-7400 -- _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com -- _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com