473,854 Members | 1,573 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

Once Yukon is released (whenever that might be) does anyone from MS have any
comment on licensing for Yukon and on SQL 2000.

I really don't think anyone with SQL 2000 licenses are going to upgrade
because the database admin or even the developer is going to convince
management it's worth the cost regardless if SQL server can do C# or VB.NET
stored procedures.

This is because the performance is terrible and Oracle has had Java stored
procs for years and practically zippo of their dba's or developer's have
moved to it anyway. SQL is EASY to learn and get started with, regardless
of future architecture needs. PERIOD
There has really got to be a better licensing policy from Microsoft that
will address and compete better with the very low costs of using MySql.

It's going to be very hard to convince a very very small business or start
up to spend for a SQL Server 2000 processor license and all the associated
cost with just building an in-house web server with a database backend when
the hardware at say $1000 and software, just licensing, costs at least
double or triple the cost of hardware.

MS is spending a lot of time trying to go against Oracle and DB2 and a less
time going after the mom and pop and the novice user WHO will eventually
call the shots in what database is used in the future if and once they grow
and become the next eBay.

The SQL server MSDE version and all those other licenses are never mentioned
to the mom and pop or the student or entrepreneur as they can't be used on a
production environment....

*****
If Microsoft wants, they could even further limit the power or a production
verion of SQL Server with an alternative licensing plan, this will make
upgrading a LOT easier and THUS, MORE satisified customers that are using a
stored procs and a good db architecture instead of a risky port from one db
to another....
****

The point is Microsoft needs to address the in-house or co-located
web-server instead of the ISP who offers their service as DSL and cable
modems make internet access more affordable wanting to host their stuff
in-house....THUS, those who know and can and want to do this are definitely
MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE, MORE DEDICATED to actually becoming the next eBay.
Anyone who is REALLY is going to believe in their new business is NOT going
readily host it on some ISP's SQL Server.

Not every business is going to be an eBay...BUT they are STILL BUSINESSES
anyway so why not cater to them and get them to be the best they can be.

PHP and MySQL had better be looked at now or Microsoft will have just a big
of a problem with MySql as they do with Linux.

MSDE is a COMPLETE LICENSING FAILURE as ZERO PEOPLE USE IT for anything,
even development.

Microsoft had better learn to cater to the masses or the masses will take
their business somewhere else. And getting them to switch is going to be an
uphill battle as CPU are only going to get faster.




Jul 21 '05 #1
15 2478
I am for one, and we have two processor licenses on one instance, and a ten
seat license at another. I can not wait for Yukon! It's going to rock.
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
news:ud******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...
Once Yukon is released (whenever that might be) does anyone from MS have any comment on licensing for Yukon and on SQL 2000.

I really don't think anyone with SQL 2000 licenses are going to upgrade
because the database admin or even the developer is going to convince
management it's worth the cost regardless if SQL server can do C# or VB.NET stored procedures.

This is because the performance is terrible and Oracle has had Java stored
procs for years and practically zippo of their dba's or developer's have
moved to it anyway. SQL is EASY to learn and get started with, regardless
of future architecture needs. PERIOD
There has really got to be a better licensing policy from Microsoft that
will address and compete better with the very low costs of using MySql.

It's going to be very hard to convince a very very small business or start
up to spend for a SQL Server 2000 processor license and all the associated
cost with just building an in-house web server with a database backend when the hardware at say $1000 and software, just licensing, costs at least
double or triple the cost of hardware.

MS is spending a lot of time trying to go against Oracle and DB2 and a less time going after the mom and pop and the novice user WHO will eventually
call the shots in what database is used in the future if and once they grow and become the next eBay.

The SQL server MSDE version and all those other licenses are never mentioned to the mom and pop or the student or entrepreneur as they can't be used on a production environment....

*****
If Microsoft wants, they could even further limit the power or a production verion of SQL Server with an alternative licensing plan, this will make
upgrading a LOT easier and THUS, MORE satisified customers that are using a stored procs and a good db architecture instead of a risky port from one db to another....
****

The point is Microsoft needs to address the in-house or co-located
web-server instead of the ISP who offers their service as DSL and cable
modems make internet access more affordable wanting to host their stuff
in-house....THUS, those who know and can and want to do this are definitely MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE, MORE DEDICATED to actually becoming the next eBay.
Anyone who is REALLY is going to believe in their new business is NOT going readily host it on some ISP's SQL Server.

Not every business is going to be an eBay...BUT they are STILL BUSINESSES
anyway so why not cater to them and get them to be the best they can be.

PHP and MySQL had better be looked at now or Microsoft will have just a big of a problem with MySql as they do with Linux.

MSDE is a COMPLETE LICENSING FAILURE as ZERO PEOPLE USE IT for anything,
even development.

Microsoft had better learn to cater to the masses or the masses will take
their business somewhere else. And getting them to switch is going to be an uphill battle as CPU are only going to get faster.





Jul 21 '05 #2
Why do you assume that support for VB.NET or C# is the only, or even most
significant, improvement in Yukon? Assuming that is a huge mistake.

I happen to think that you are right about Microsoft needing to find a
better formula for competing with MySQL. However, they have to find a way
to do that while (a) still making good money and (b) still addressing the
high end (which is where all the money actually is). Beyond that I find you
very poorly informed about the licensing of MSDE and about how MySQL is
actually being used by most customers. But, given your style of discussion
I won't be devoting any time to discussing this with you.

--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
news:ud******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...
Once Yukon is released (whenever that might be) does anyone from MS have any comment on licensing for Yukon and on SQL 2000.

I really don't think anyone with SQL 2000 licenses are going to upgrade
because the database admin or even the developer is going to convince
management it's worth the cost regardless if SQL server can do C# or VB.NET stored procedures.

This is because the performance is terrible and Oracle has had Java stored
procs for years and practically zippo of their dba's or developer's have
moved to it anyway. SQL is EASY to learn and get started with, regardless
of future architecture needs. PERIOD
There has really got to be a better licensing policy from Microsoft that
will address and compete better with the very low costs of using MySql.

It's going to be very hard to convince a very very small business or start
up to spend for a SQL Server 2000 processor license and all the associated
cost with just building an in-house web server with a database backend when the hardware at say $1000 and software, just licensing, costs at least
double or triple the cost of hardware.

MS is spending a lot of time trying to go against Oracle and DB2 and a less time going after the mom and pop and the novice user WHO will eventually
call the shots in what database is used in the future if and once they grow and become the next eBay.

The SQL server MSDE version and all those other licenses are never mentioned to the mom and pop or the student or entrepreneur as they can't be used on a production environment....

*****
If Microsoft wants, they could even further limit the power or a production verion of SQL Server with an alternative licensing plan, this will make
upgrading a LOT easier and THUS, MORE satisified customers that are using a stored procs and a good db architecture instead of a risky port from one db to another....
****

The point is Microsoft needs to address the in-house or co-located
web-server instead of the ISP who offers their service as DSL and cable
modems make internet access more affordable wanting to host their stuff
in-house....THUS, those who know and can and want to do this are definitely MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE, MORE DEDICATED to actually becoming the next eBay.
Anyone who is REALLY is going to believe in their new business is NOT going readily host it on some ISP's SQL Server.

Not every business is going to be an eBay...BUT they are STILL BUSINESSES
anyway so why not cater to them and get them to be the best they can be.

PHP and MySQL had better be looked at now or Microsoft will have just a big of a problem with MySql as they do with Linux.

MSDE is a COMPLETE LICENSING FAILURE as ZERO PEOPLE USE IT for anything,
even development.

Microsoft had better learn to cater to the masses or the masses will take
their business somewhere else. And getting them to switch is going to be an uphill battle as CPU are only going to get faster.





Jul 21 '05 #3
I am not here to discuss with you....it's Microsoft who counts....

I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I bothered to read
it.

It's says distribution..n ot production....

It's also readily confused by NEW customers....th at's why MySql is easily
taking off.....


"Hal Berenson" <ha*****@truemo untainconsultin g.com> wrote in message
news:ue******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...
Why do you assume that support for VB.NET or C# is the only, or even most
significant, improvement in Yukon? Assuming that is a huge mistake.

I happen to think that you are right about Microsoft needing to find a
better formula for competing with MySQL. However, they have to find a way
to do that while (a) still making good money and (b) still addressing the
high end (which is where all the money actually is). Beyond that I find you very poorly informed about the licensing of MSDE and about how MySQL is
actually being used by most customers. But, given your style of discussion I won't be devoting any time to discussing this with you.

--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
news:ud******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...
Once Yukon is released (whenever that might be) does anyone from MS have any
comment on licensing for Yukon and on SQL 2000.

I really don't think anyone with SQL 2000 licenses are going to upgrade
because the database admin or even the developer is going to convince
management it's worth the cost regardless if SQL server can do C# or

VB.NET
stored procedures.

This is because the performance is terrible and Oracle has had Java stored procs for years and practically zippo of their dba's or developer's have
moved to it anyway. SQL is EASY to learn and get started with, regardless of future architecture needs. PERIOD
There has really got to be a better licensing policy from Microsoft that
will address and compete better with the very low costs of using MySql.

It's going to be very hard to convince a very very small business or start up to spend for a SQL Server 2000 processor license and all the associated cost with just building an in-house web server with a database backend

when
the hardware at say $1000 and software, just licensing, costs at least
double or triple the cost of hardware.

MS is spending a lot of time trying to go against Oracle and DB2 and a

less
time going after the mom and pop and the novice user WHO will eventually
call the shots in what database is used in the future if and once they

grow
and become the next eBay.

The SQL server MSDE version and all those other licenses are never

mentioned
to the mom and pop or the student or entrepreneur as they can't be used on a
production environment....

*****
If Microsoft wants, they could even further limit the power or a production
verion of SQL Server with an alternative licensing plan, this will make
upgrading a LOT easier and THUS, MORE satisified customers that are

using a
stored procs and a good db architecture instead of a risky port from one

db
to another....
****

The point is Microsoft needs to address the in-house or co-located
web-server instead of the ISP who offers their service as DSL and cable
modems make internet access more affordable wanting to host their stuff
in-house....THUS, those who know and can and want to do this are

definitely
MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE, MORE DEDICATED to actually becoming the next eBay.
Anyone who is REALLY is going to believe in their new business is NOT

going
readily host it on some ISP's SQL Server.

Not every business is going to be an eBay...BUT they are STILL

BUSINESSES anyway so why not cater to them and get them to be the best they can be.

PHP and MySQL had better be looked at now or Microsoft will have just a

big
of a problem with MySql as they do with Linux.

MSDE is a COMPLETE LICENSING FAILURE as ZERO PEOPLE USE IT for anything,
even development.

Microsoft had better learn to cater to the masses or the masses will take their business somewhere else. And getting them to switch is going to be

an
uphill battle as CPU are only going to get faster.






Jul 21 '05 #4
>>> I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I bothered to
read it.

Actually you don't - I know Hal and who he used to work for and you know a
fraction of a percent compared to him on anything SQL Server/MSDE.
It's says distribution..n ot production....


What do you think distribution is? You don't distribute to development, you
distribute to production!

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
Jul 21 '05 #5
READ CAREFULLY

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp

Common Rules and Guidelines
Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access licenses
(CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL Server
2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
Typical Smart A** MVP.......

"Tony Rogerson" <to**********@s qlserver.eu.com > wrote in message
news:eV******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I bothered to read it.

Actually you don't - I know Hal and who he used to work for and you know a
fraction of a percent compared to him on anything SQL Server/MSDE.
It's says distribution..n ot production....

What do you think distribution is? You don't distribute to development,

you distribute to production!

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)

Jul 21 '05 #6
This is solved easiest by simply sending a letter to Microsoft's legal
affair's group. However, this may not be necessary. If you take the time to
read the actually licensing paragraph it says:
Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access licenses (CALs) when INTERACTING with > SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.

It does not pertain to your own application using MSDE. It pertains to
whether or not in your use of MSDE you utilize its features (i.e.,
replication) to then connect to a SQL Server in a production environment. In
which case, you need CALs, unless of course, you are like the bulk of the
license base which has moved to the CPU based licensing methods.
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
news:O4******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl... READ CAREFULLY

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp

Common Rules and Guidelines
Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access licenses (CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
Typical Smart A** MVP.......

"Tony Rogerson" <to**********@s qlserver.eu.com > wrote in message
news:eV******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
>> I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I bothered to

read it.

Actually you don't - I know Hal and who he used to work for and you know a fraction of a percent compared to him on anything SQL Server/MSDE.
>> It's says distribution..n ot production....


What do you think distribution is? You don't distribute to development,

you
distribute to production!

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)


Jul 21 '05 #7
Yes, that's the problem...in a production environment, you just might want
to connect via enterprise manager OR the mom and pop might just want to look
at the tables and see what they bought.....

In a PRODUCTION environment...Y OU need Enterprise Manager or Query
Analyzer...the KEY word is PRODUCTION....w hich means can't go down when you
need it...which means 24/7..no screwups....

Can anyone here say with 100% certainty that mom and pop OR whoever ever
needs to diagnose or BACKUP or RESTORE will never ever need Enterprise
Manager or Query Analyzer? NOOOOOOO.....

WITH Enterprise Manager, I could TALK them through it OVER the PHONE....BIG
BIG PLUS.......

This is "PRODUCTION " environment...s ay if mom and pop are the only ones
there AND for some reason a BACKUP needs to be done....a LOT easier and LESS
ERROR PRONE with Enterprise Manager.

The problem here is that a LOT of MVP's don't see it from the EYES of the
CUSTOMER....

I want to give MOM and POP something to BELIEVE IN........MSDE may cause
them to lose faith when they need it the most.....

"David Vins" <da*******@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:%2******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP11.phx.gbl.. .
This is solved easiest by simply sending a letter to Microsoft's legal
affair's group. However, this may not be necessary. If you take the time to read the actually licensing paragraph it says:
Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access licenses (CALs) when INTERACTING with > SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition

or SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.

It does not pertain to your own application using MSDE. It pertains to
whether or not in your use of MSDE you utilize its features (i.e.,
replication) to then connect to a SQL Server in a production environment. In which case, you need CALs, unless of course, you are like the bulk of the
license base which has moved to the CPU based licensing methods.
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
news:O4******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...
READ CAREFULLY

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp

Common Rules and Guidelines
Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access licenses
(CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL

Server
2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
Typical Smart A** MVP.......

"Tony Rogerson" <to**********@s qlserver.eu.com > wrote in message
news:eV******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
>>> I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I bothered to read it.

Actually you don't - I know Hal and who he used to work for and you
know a fraction of a percent compared to him on anything SQL Server/MSDE.

>>> It's says distribution..n ot production....

What do you think distribution is? You don't distribute to
development, you
distribute to production!

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)



Jul 21 '05 #8
>>> Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access
licenses
(CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.


Please re-read that, why would you need to connect MSDE to SQL Server? That
would mean you had 2 SQL Servers (MSDE and SQL Server full blown edition).

You would not need to interact with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL
Server 2000 EE.

You can use MSDE in a production environment, it can be distributed for free
so long as you build your website using Web Matrix or have bought something
like SQL Server 2000 Developer edition for $49.

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
Jul 21 '05 #9
nospam:

i don't think you've ever mentioned what type of application "mom and
pop" would like you to develop, but you have mentioned other apps you've
worked on are similar to auction sites. with this in mind, have a look
at the "msde as a database for web applications"

from the msde "appropriat e uses" web page-

MSDE is an ideal solution for low-end Web applications. The following
products and services enable you to redistribute MSDE as a database
server for Web applications:

ASP.NET Web Matrix*
MSDN Universal, Enterprise, and Professional subscriptions
Office XP Developer Edition
SQL Server 2000 Developer, Standard, and Enterprise Editions
Visual Studio .NET Architect, Developer, and Professional Editions
Visual FoxPro 7.0 or 8.0
note, a "production " environment is a term used to define msde once it
has been distributed and installed. there are no limitations for sql
cals here.
as for enterprise manager or query analyzer, those are sql server tools,
not msde tools, so a client license would be required; however, there
are other alternatives:

try some research on:
osql.exe
http://sqlbuddy.sourceforge.net/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/asp-ent-man/
http://www.whitebearconsulting.com/Utilities.htm
jeff clausius
sourcegear corporation
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in
news:u9******** *****@tk2msftng p13.phx.gbl:
Yes, that's the problem...in a production environment, you just might
want to connect via enterprise manager OR the mom and pop might just
want to look at the tables and see what they bought.....

In a PRODUCTION environment...Y OU need Enterprise Manager or Query
Analyzer...the KEY word is PRODUCTION....w hich means can't go down
when you need it...which means 24/7..no screwups....

Can anyone here say with 100% certainty that mom and pop OR whoever
ever needs to diagnose or BACKUP or RESTORE will never ever need
Enterprise Manager or Query Analyzer? NOOOOOOO.....

WITH Enterprise Manager, I could TALK them through it OVER the
PHONE....BIG BIG PLUS.......

This is "PRODUCTION " environment...s ay if mom and pop are the only
ones there AND for some reason a BACKUP needs to be done....a LOT
easier and LESS ERROR PRONE with Enterprise Manager.

The problem here is that a LOT of MVP's don't see it from the EYES of
the CUSTOMER....

I want to give MOM and POP something to BELIEVE IN........MSDE may
cause them to lose faith when they need it the most.....

"David Vins" <da*******@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:%2******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP11.phx.gbl.. .
This is solved easiest by simply sending a letter to Microsoft's
legal affair's group. However, this may not be necessary. If you take
the time

to
read the actually licensing paragraph it says:
> Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access

licenses (CALs) when INTERACTING with > SQL Server 2000 Standard
Edition

or
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.

It does not pertain to your own application using MSDE. It pertains
to whether or not in your use of MSDE you utilize its features (i.e.,
replication) to then connect to a SQL Server in a production
environment.

In
which case, you need CALs, unless of course, you are like the bulk of
the license base which has moved to the CPU based licensing methods.
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com > wrote in message
news:O4******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...
> READ CAREFULLY
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp
>
> Common Rules and Guidelines
> Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access

licenses
> (CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or
> SQL

Server
> 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
>
>
> Typical Smart A** MVP.......
>
>
>
> "Tony Rogerson" <to**********@s qlserver.eu.com > wrote in message
> news:eV******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
> > >>> I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I
> > >>> bothered to > > read it.
> >
> > Actually you don't - I know Hal and who he used to work for and
> > you know
a
> > fraction of a percent compared to him on anything SQL
> > Server/MSDE.
> >
> > >>> It's says distribution..n ot production....
> >
> > What do you think distribution is? You don't distribute to

development, > you
> > distribute to production!
> >
> > --
> > Tony Rogerson
> > SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> > (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
> >
> >
>
>




Jul 21 '05 #10

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

5
2434
by: Lorenzo Braidi | last post by:
Hallo everyone, is there someone who is partecipating to the Microsoft Yukon Beta test and who can send me some picture of the new GUI of Enterprise Manager and Query Analyser? Send it at my own e-mail l.braidi@delfi.it Thanks Lorenzo Braidi
1
3349
by: LizP | last post by:
Hi, guys - looking for a bit of help/advice on moving a database from SQL 7 to SQL 2000. We've a third party application which currently uses a SQL7 database. This database has a number of views which are owned by user INFORMATION_SCHEMA and are set as system tables. This user doesn't actually have a login on the SQL server. We've tried the following to recreate the database on SQL2000, but whatever we try, the views owned by...
6
1414
by: James Liu | last post by:
I did some search and didn't find anything about whether Yokon will support sequence object. Appreciate it if you can reply with some resources. Thanks, James
4
1566
by: Leon_Amirreza | last post by:
Hi, any docs on the microsoft site about the future of .net in the long run? I need to know if .net is going to be the main platform and will fade away API? or will there be just 2 platforms win32 and .net? how about mfc libraryin VC++? will there be newer improved mfc LIB with newer VS or is it going to fade away?
375
18229
by: rkusenet | last post by:
This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp
64
5285
by: John | last post by:
Hi What future does access have after the release of vs 2005/sql 2005? MS doesn't seem to have done anything major with access lately and presumably hoping that everyone migrates to vs/sql. Any comments? Thanks
52
2886
by: malcolm | last post by:
Here are a couple of dramatic requests that I've always thought should be implemented. 1) Uniform null. I wish .NET would implement a uniform value for nulls accross the board. Even into the database (especially with some of the hype about what can be done in Yukon). Before passing this off as an absurd statement, it could be done and would simplify code dramatically. To me, it's one of those things that people just simply don't think...
15
295
by: nospam | last post by:
Once Yukon is released (whenever that might be) does anyone from MS have any comment on licensing for Yukon and on SQL 2000. I really don't think anyone with SQL 2000 licenses are going to upgrade because the database admin or even the developer is going to convince management it's worth the cost regardless if SQL server can do C# or VB.NET stored procedures. This is because the performance is terrible and Oracle has had Java stored...
2
1698
by: PointMan | last post by:
i make a project in vs2005 that use ASPNETDB.MDF and use <asp:LoginView ID="LoginView1" runat="server" > server control for vs2005 in this case , i'd like to use hosting service but this hosting company does not support sql2005 that's why i have to use sql2000 so my quetion is how can i migration this for sql2000??
0
9901
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
9751
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
10682
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
0
10371
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
0
9513
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
1
7915
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules. He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms. Adolph will...
1
4562
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
2
4159
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
3
3187
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.