Re: why should'nt i use dao 3.51 for this?
From: Joe \ (joe_at_bftsi0.UUCP)
Date: 02/09/04
- Next message: Veign: "Re: 2147418113 - Catastrophic Failure"
- Previous message: Tore Bostrup: "Re: minimizing memory use"
- In reply to: Chris Barber: "Re: why should'nt i use dao 3.51 for this?"
- Next in thread: Chris Barber: "Re: why should'nt i use dao 3.51 for this?"
- Reply: Chris Barber: "Re: why should'nt i use dao 3.51 for this?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 16:30:49 -0800
"Chris Barber" <chris@blue-canoe.co.uk.NOSPAM> wrote in message <news:#bEzVym7DHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
> DAO whilst being fast and targeted directly to MSAccess is just that -
> targeted ONLY for MSAccess.
>
> If you use the comparable ADO code then you can move the DB around and of
> course upscale to MSDE and SQL Server as required.
There are still these oddities called "ODBC drivers", though who knows
if and when Microslop will ever get around to fixing their SQL Server
driver, which is so leaky and slow it might as well have been written
with .NET...
-- Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> "Regged" again? <http://www.xenu.net/> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
- Next message: Veign: "Re: 2147418113 - Catastrophic Failure"
- Previous message: Tore Bostrup: "Re: minimizing memory use"
- In reply to: Chris Barber: "Re: why should'nt i use dao 3.51 for this?"
- Next in thread: Chris Barber: "Re: why should'nt i use dao 3.51 for this?"
- Reply: Chris Barber: "Re: why should'nt i use dao 3.51 for this?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|