I'm not really sure I understand what subtlety you're trying to make.
How is having a 2003 database linked to the Access 97 tables any different
than splitting into a front-end/back-end?
Realistically, that's your only option: front-ends in both Access 97 and
Access 2003, linked to the back-end in Access 97.

Signature
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)
> I need to have some users be able to update and manipulate database tables
> that are still in Access '97 after they are converterd to Acccess 2003.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> and still link to acess '97 tables whereby they may still update in '97
> tables ?
barker - 22 Jun 2005 17:06 GMT
That's what I thought...You are absolutely correct. I was just making sure I
was not overlooking something. I guess I was'nt sure if you REALLY need to
perform a Database Splitter command to have the same functionality.
Thanks so much!

Signature
Good Lookin' Out!
> I'm not really sure I understand what subtlety you're trying to make.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> > and still link to acess '97 tables whereby they may still update in '97
> > tables ?
Douglas J. Steele - 22 Jun 2005 22:32 GMT
Well, it's certainly not necessary to use the built-in Database Splitter in
Access. In all the applications I've built, I've never used it once...

Signature
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)
> That's what I thought...You are absolutely correct. I was just making
> sure I
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>> > and still link to acess '97 tables whereby they may still update in '97
>> > tables ?