Dave,
>> Is it possible to have a stipped down version of the
>> download? Having to
>> pull down 4+mb via a modem each time is rather painful. I'm
>> not sure what
>> all the .cap file contains, but the executable is only 600+kb. After
>> installing the first time, all the other m$ stuff should be
>> ok?
>
>I used to do this with the 6.3.x series. Unfortunately it's not as straight
>forward as you might think, because there are about 6 custom ocx's in the
>package that often get updated as well - which require registration - as
>well as new versions of the runtimes when service packs are released.
>
>The best way to go about it might be to produce an update containing only
>the files updated since the previous release. This has two drawbacks:
>
>1) Relies on the user to extract the files to the correct place and manually
>register them where necessary.
>
>2) Will only allow (in some cases) upgrading from the immediately previous
>version.
>
>If we can get some thoughts from other users about the best way to go I'll
>start to do this.
There is a tool from Pocket Soft Inc., http://www.pocketsoft.com called
.RTPatch. This will compare two files & create a patch file that when
executed, applies all the differences from one to the other. This could be
used against the .zip file. It does require that the user patch the correct
file. So I would suggest making available each patch file when created, as
well as the previous patch files. The users can select the correct one. Or
when all else fails, pull down the big one. You have to inquire about
pricing. It's not listed on their web page. Maybe someone knows of a
freeware counterpart?
>>BTW, *very*
>> nice tool. The table viewer is most useful, but you know what
>> is next. If
>> we could just edit those values.....nothing fancy, just basic table
>> maintenance. Then I could use just one tool ;-)
>
>Thanks. When you say 'edit those values' do you mean the table data or the
>table info (NO. Triggers, Has Indexes etc.)? If you mean the former, we do
Yes, just table data would be wonderful ;-)
>have a nice data control that we could use - I'll look into it. If you mean
>the latter then my advice is that you almost certainly don't want to be
>playing with those values!
Cheers!
Ken