Icon View Thread

The following is the text of the current message along with any replies.
Messages 1 to 10 of 11 total
Thread 3.30 and Vista: solved!
Tue, Sep 11 2007 12:02 PMPermanent Link

"Avalon"
For you users of the "old" version. I've just found an annoying problem
using 3.30 under Vista, which required 6 hrs of investigation to solve.
Master/detail tables, when detail uses a double-or-multiple-field index (for
example an integer key to refer to master field + a date field to obtain a
date-sorted detail record list) simply don't work: details results always
empty. The same table/procedure under XP works fine. The solution: check the
"XPSP2" checkbox under the executable properties, and all works again.
Anyone has an explanation for such problem? Note that using a single-field
index for detail works fine even under Vista.

Avalon

Tue, Sep 11 2007 2:22 PMPermanent Link

Tim Young [Elevate Software]

Elevate Software, Inc.

Avatar

Email timyoung@elevatesoft.com

<< For you users of the "old" version. I've just found an annoying problem
using 3.30 under Vista, which required 6 hrs of investigation to solve. >>

Just for the record 3.x is old.  It has been frozen now for 3 years.

<< Master/detail tables, when detail uses a double-or-multiple-field index
(for example an integer key to refer to master field + a date field to
obtain a date-sorted detail record list) simply don't work: details results
always empty. The same table/procedure under XP works fine. The solution:
check the "XPSP2" checkbox under the executable properties, and all works
again.  Anyone has an explanation for such problem? Note that using a
single-field index for detail works fine even under Vista. >>

What language and sort are you using for the table(s) in question ?

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Tue, Sep 11 2007 8:33 PMPermanent Link

"Avalon"
Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote:
> What language and sort are you using for the table(s) in question ?

sort: "default sort order", language "italian" (assigned by default when i
created the table, i guess ; anyway my OS is in italian). May the language
be the key to the mistery? The problem showed up both on an
english-localized Vista and an italian one, while on XP those indexes worked
fine.

By the way i know that 3.30 *is* old, but the effort to convert/upgrade all
our complex management applications to EDB would be too much, especially
considering the need to deploy specific database-conversion procedures,
teach hundreds of customers to run them, deploy and test the new apps, with
the need to adjust here and there due to the new features of EDB etc. - and
in the end applications would run exactly as 3.30 ones, with no major
advantages for customers.

Avalon

Wed, Sep 12 2007 3:02 AMPermanent Link

Roy Lambert

NLH Associates

Team Elevate Team Elevate

Avalon


"would run exactly as" ... "with no major advantages for customers"

Congratulations - I think you have almost perfectly described updating to Vista Smiley

Roy Lambert

ps you have missed out more slowly and more awkwardly though
Wed, Sep 12 2007 7:43 AMPermanent Link

"Robert"

"Roy Lambert" <roy.lambert@skynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:674BA0B4-913F-4E5A-AC7B-01A8F97561D5@news.elevatesoft.com...
> Avalon
>
>
> "would run exactly as" ... "with no major advantages for customers"
>
> Congratulations - I think you have almost perfectly described updating to
> Vista Smiley
>
> Roy Lambert
>
> ps you have missed out more slowly and more awkwardly though

True, but you know it's useless to fight these robber barons like Bill Gates
or Tim. They use their immense financial power to force you to upgrade,
sooner or later.

Seriously, I'm testing Vista in preparation for my customers starting to
upgrade. My personal opinion on Vista vs XP is irrelevant. If the customers
upgrade, I have to be ready.

DBISAM V3 had pretty mcuh all the functionality I needed, but it had a
couple of nasty bugs that would never get fixed, plus IMO running with a
database that is not supported anymore is unacceptable, so I had to bite the
bullet and upgrade.

Robert

Wed, Sep 12 2007 1:08 PMPermanent Link

Tim Young [Elevate Software]

Elevate Software, Inc.

Avatar

Email timyoung@elevatesoft.com


<< sort: "default sort order", language "italian" (assigned by default when
i created the table, i guess ; anyway my OS is in italian). May the language
be the key to the mistery? >>

It's possible, but I don't know for sure.   I'm going to do some tests here
on a Vista test machine (we don't actually use Vista yet) and see if I can
replicate it just to see what the exact cause is.

<< By the way i know that 3.30 *is* old, but the effort to convert/upgrade
all our complex management applications to EDB would be too much, especially
considering the need to deploy specific database-conversion procedures,
teach hundreds of customers to run them, deploy and test the new apps, with
the need to adjust here and there due to the new features of EDB etc. - and
in the end applications would run exactly as 3.30 ones, with no major
advantages for customers. >>

That's actually not true.  EDB has many advantages over DBISAM in terms of
less chance of corruption of the database structures due to the new catalog
format, faster repairs (if necessary), faster execution of queries and
filters, better/faster remote operation, better EDB Manager for
interactively working with databases, etc.

As for migration, the DBISAM 3.x -> EDB migration is very simple to execute,
and can be done from within the new EDB application itself.

It is definitely true that a conversion from DBISAM 3.x to EDB is not
exactly a light undertaking, but there are many good reasons for doing so,
not the least of which is that you won't be out in the cold in terms of
support.  There's really only so much we can do for you if you're using
DBISAM 3.x or older.  Even upgrading to DBISAM 4.x would be an improvement
in terms of our ability to support you.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Wed, Sep 12 2007 1:38 PMPermanent Link

"Avalon"
Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote:
> It's possible, but I don't know for sure.   I'm going to do some
> tests here on a Vista test machine (we don't actually use Vista yet)
> and see if I can replicate it just to see what the exact cause is.

Thanks Tim! it would also be interesting to know what the Vista "XP SP 2
compatibility mode" involves for applicazions (locales, others?). Probably
it's documented somewhere, but have no time to search for it.

> That's actually not true.  EDB has many advantages over DBISAM in
> terms of less chance of corruption of the database structures due to
> the new catalog format, faster repairs (if necessary),

we sell a separate specific application for automated backups of our
customers data, and give maintenance/repair service on request, so a more
reliable database to us would mean only paradoxally a loss of money
(semiserious grin).

> faster
> execution of queries and filters, better/faster remote operation,
> better EDB Manager for interactively working with databases, etc.
> As for migration, the DBISAM 3.x -> EDB migration is very simple to
> execute, and can be done from within the new EDB application itself.

yes i'm aware of all these features, i've followed the developement and find
EDB definitely a great product as of features, documentations and support,
but the leap in terms of code adaptations is too high, and we can't ask for
such upgrade any money to our customers, so at least for legacy applications
we'll continue with 3.30 until possible.

For future new applications i'd rather prefer to jump to EDB instead of
passing through the pain of upgrading to 4.x and then EDB, but at the moment
we're mainly supporting and developing legacy apps, and haven't in target
any new app, so the decision is rather in the future.

Avalon

Wed, Sep 12 2007 1:40 PMPermanent Link

"Avalon"
Roy Lambert wrote:
> "would run exactly as" ... "with no major advantages for customers"
>
> Congratulations - I think you have almost perfectly described
> updating to Vista Smiley

or D2007, actually Wink(i find nothing i can't "live without" in D2007 to
upgrade to it, let's see the news with the next Highlander)

> ps you have missed out more slowly and more awkwardly though

yes lol

Avalon

Thu, Sep 13 2007 3:14 PMPermanent Link

Tim Young [Elevate Software]

Elevate Software, Inc.

Avatar

Email timyoung@elevatesoft.com

Avalon,

<< Thanks Tim! it would also be interesting to know what the Vista "XP SP 2
compatibility mode" involves for applicazions (locales, others?). Probably
it's documented somewhere, but have no time to search for it. >>

I've looked and looked, and so far I haven't found any definitive MS paper
on it like what they had for the Win32 -> .NET API conversion chart.

<< we sell a separate specific application for automated backups of our
customers data, and give maintenance/repair service on request, so a more
reliable database to us would mean only paradoxally a loss of money
(semiserious grin). >>

No comment. Smiley

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Fri, Jan 11 2008 6:29 PMPermanent Link

Jan Hornstrup
Hi Avalon.

It is correct, that checking the XPSP2 will solve all strange behaivor of DBISAM-3 tables and SQL.

BUT - BUT - BUT     

unfortunately this features is not enabled, when the executeable program is stored on a shared network drive. It only work, when the program is on a local harddrive !!!

If you have any solution to this, PLEASE let me know as I also have 100's of installations to update.

Brgds

Jan Hornstrup
Denmark
Email: jhc@soft-team.dk





"Avalon" <funny@funny.com> wrote:

For you users of the "old" version. I've just found an annoying problem
using 3.30 under Vista, which required 6 hrs of investigation to solve.
Master/detail tables, when detail uses a double-or-multiple-field index (for
example an integer key to refer to master field + a date field to obtain a
date-sorted detail record list) simply don't work: details results always
empty. The same table/procedure under XP works fine. The solution: check the
"XPSP2" checkbox under the executable properties, and all works again.
Anyone has an explanation for such problem? Note that using a single-field
index for detail works fine even under Vista.

Avalon

Page 1 of 2Next Page »
Jump to Page:  1 2
Image