Correct. A big difference between Access and, say, Word is that in Access
you are creating an application, while Word *is* an application. When you
open Word you can start a new document, then save it. When you start another
document you have the same functionality as you had for the first one,
because that is what the application gives you. This is imprecise in that
Word allows the use of templates with different functionality than the
default one, but that is beside the point.
In Access, all you have when you start a new database are the tools to create
it. You need to make tables to store the data; queries to sort, filter, and
so forth; form to interact with the data; reports for printing; and code
modules as needed.
If you have Word installed on your computer you can open a Word document in a
shared location, because Word is the application that allows you to open such
files. The data, in a sense, is separate from the application. The doc file
is not the application. Same with Access. The data (back end) is in a
shared location, and you install the application (the front end) on your
computer. If the developer needs to change something in the program, that
can be done independently from the data. When complete, the new front end is
distributed to the users.
Access, unlike Word, allows several users to use an application
simultaneously. This increases the risk of corruption, and it makes updates
very difficult. The users either need to be kept out of the application
while development is occurring, which could be inconvenient, or the developer
needs to work on a copy, then transfer data from the old file to the new one.
From a maintenance point of view, if for no other reason, a split database is
really the only way to go.
I'm a little confused. So then the database's forms arent on the BE? And the
tables arent on the FE?
On a network with multiple users, you usually would like to set an FE and BE.
The BE is on your network drive (F: or whatever) and the FE is on each user's
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]