Has anybody any experience with BOTH of these?  I've heard that 2000 has
made some impressive performance gains over 7.0.   Can these gains be
realized using stock ABC templates without 'tweakage'.  Or,  am I in for
months of work on my many many browses in this multi-dll app to see
astonishing speed?

Speaking of browse tweakage.  Am I going to save a time by buying SQL
templates and tweaking the visual interface to conform to the 'look and
feel' of my app... or should I invest in the time to plug SQL intelligence
into my existing stuff?

I sure hope these questions are clear.  If you are unsure about what I am
asking then please feel free to call me an idiot and ask me to clarify.

Thanks

John Austin
InfoStream
Tacoma,  WA

How does SQL work with Clarion? What is the reason for SQL.  I just don't
know!

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:38:08 -0700, "John Austin"

SQL 2000 is simply a drop in replacement for SQL 7, you get the
increases but there are no headaches as far as I am aware.

Shane Vincent

There must be more to it than that, surely?

This is a very interesting and intelligent question (but can I still call
you an idiot John?! <g>).

I have a client who is having problems with his MSSQL 6.5 and his 'MSSQL
experts' are advising a move to '7'.
Perhaps 2000 would be a better option?

As a matter of interest do present Clarion templates (cowboy etc) work fine
on 2000?
I haven't seen them Andy's stuff for ages and must do that sometime.. :)

Ivan

Just to be clear: SQL 2000 is a drop-in replacement for SQL 7, but -
despite the good work of the Clarion MS SQL driver - neither is a
drop-in replacement for TPS files.

There can be quite a lot of work in switching to SQL - at least, if
you're expecting a performance improvement.  But if you've done the
work for SQL 7, you don't need to do it again.

Richard

Yes.

Correct.

Yes.

No.

Well, we now have 40 offices, (we 41 and the last one will be on the new
version soon), in North America all running on our Clarion app on MSSQL
2000.  We did not purchase any 3rd party SQL templates.  All of the SQL
related stuff in our templates, (modified for other things), is pretty much
stock.  We made some minor changes such as fixing the owner variables so the
user does not have to login to the SQL database.  We take care of that for
them when they connect to the database.

SQL 2000 is the way to go.  It fixed a number of issues for us; the largest
being replication issues.  We use the replication engine in SQL to handle
the data replication task.

Rick Smith
Nationwide Advertising Service

Nope.  Install SQL 2000 on the server.  That's it.  Well... you might have
to update the Data Access Components on the workstations.  But that's
provided on the SQL 2000 CD.  Beyond that no mods to the Clarion app are
needed.

I would say his "SQL experts" don't know what they're talking about.  SQL
7.0 was a HUGE improvement over 6.5.  We had 3 offices on 7.0 when we found
out 2000 was coming out.  We tested 2000 and found a few things which we
worked with out Microsoft.  (Support was pretty good actually.  But then we
were talking about 40+ licenses of SQL Server 2000.<g>)  We moved those
offices to SQL 2000 and never looked back.  The other 37, (soon to be 38),
were never on 7.0 but went right to 2000.  I would say your client can
confidently skip version 7.0.  Our 40 offices have been on SQL 2000 for
varying amounts of time; some since Dec. 2000 or Jan. 2001.  Others have
been on it since Feb. 2001.  Other than a few minor glitches with timing to
get 40 offices and a home office all replicating properly and getting our
batch processes timed correctly, we haven't had much trouble with SQL at
all.  The databases themselves seem to be rock solid.

The only thing I can think of that might be an issue is whether or not SQL
2000 can convert a SQL 6.5.  It didn't even sneeze when going from SQL 7.0
to SQL 2000.

We don't have Cowboy's stuff so I can't speak to that.

Rick Smith
Nationwide Advertising Service

Thanks to Rick,  Rich, Ivan, and Shane.

You guys have helped us over the decision hump here.  I'll be posting more
questions - both stupid and good - as we start converting our apps.

John,

MS SQL 6.5 was awful, but 7 corrected and improved MS SQL to make it a true
competitor to Oracle.  SQL 2000 takes it another step without any headaches
in moving from SQL 7.  In fact, I have 7 on one system and 2000 on another
and I can replicate DBs back and forth without a problem.  SQL 2000 does
seem to be more efficient but I've never tried to measure just how
significant that may be.

As for moving from .tps to SQL.  It is a major hassle "by hand."  If you

He, Andy Stapleton, and Arnor Baldvinsson have largely "automated" the
process.  We (six of us) just converted one major accounting system (~90
apps with hundreds of procedures) in roughly 4 weeks.  The process is a
truly awesome timesaver.

Braxton DeGarmo
Rapha Group Software, Inc.
================================

The present front end is VB3.5 & VB5 (I think)  as well as internet
connection and I'm trying to argue a move  to C5.5ee., ABC templates and
Clarionet connection (with blowfish +SSL)

Any comments much appreciated!

Ivan

Thanks for the replies...

Can anyone point out any major headaches with regards to moving from
MSSQL6.5 to MSSQL2000?

Or any counter arguments that I am sure to have as to why the move should be
to MSSQL 7 instead of  to 2000?

Ivan