TPS ODBC driver
Glenn Rathke
Hello Howard,
If you are talking about the ODBC driver for the TopSpeed files, you will
need to purchase it from TopSpeed. I believe the price is $200.00 for five
licenses. Yep, can't buy one, have to buy five.
Glenn
Howard Lim wrote in message <01bd2f7e$b40d57c0$497300cf@nlsystem>...
>Where can we get the TPS odbc driver? I've been searching the net for this
>driver but couldn't find one.
>
>Howard
Steve MacLeod
"Howard Lim" <nlsy...@iname.com> wrote:
>Where can we get the TPS odbc driver? I've been searching the net for this
>driver but couldn't find one.
>Howard
Hi Howard
You have to buy it from TopSpeed 1-800-354-5444 Ext 59
Best Regards
sm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve MacLeod Microcomputer Specialist (902)563-1625
Computer Centre University College of Cape Breton
Sydney, N.S. Canada B1P 6L2
--------------------ooOOoo---------------------
Internet: smac...@uccb.ns.ca CIS: 76234,3371
http://w3.uccb.ns.ca/clarion Team TopSpeed Internet
David Leone
Howard Lim wrote:
>
> Where can we get the TPS odbc driver? I've been searching the net for this
> driver but couldn't find one.
>
Howard, this is a real sore spot for me and many others I'm sure.
Topspeed wants to sell there ODBC driver in a 5 pack! This does not do
any good for the developers out there that want to produce software for
the market! Maybe if enough of us complain TopSpeed will see the light!
Here is the answers I received when asking the same question!
Mike Gould wrote:
>
> No, but there is an ODBC driver available. Give
> TopSpeed sales a call for more information on
> the ODBC driver.
>
Ok, So I talked to Topspeed sales, they will not sell a single ODBC
driver to me, they want me to purchase a five pack for $199.00. I can't
beleive that TopSpeed treats their developers this way!
Since I do not know if:
1.) what I'm trying to do will work
2.) The ODBC driver is stabel (preferably BUG FREE)
3.) I can sell the other 4 copies.
I won't purchase the 5 pack. So.... If anyone has a single copy of the
ODBC driver they could sell to me, please let me know.
Thanks And May Your Pen Always Be Accessible!
David P. Leone
webm...@free-hand.com
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Do you use a pen while you are working at your computer?
Have you ever looked for your pen that you knew you just had?
Check out the ultimate pen utility FreeHand at
http://www.free-hand.com :)
Howard Lim
Howard Lim
I really don't get it... Why do topspeed have to sell their odbc driver???
It seems that they're really want to discourage us (developers) to use
their file format. Can't get it... :-(
Howard
David Leone <sun...@wizard.com> wrote in article
<34D532...@wizard.com>...
Bernard Grosperrin
Howard,
Was looong threads on CIS about that when they released it.....It's very
simple. for TPS files, ODBC is absolutly not needed to develop an
application, the only use/need for it is for end users wanting to use your
files on external ( to Cw/Topspeed/you ) applications. So, the end user must
pay for it...That's all. It's not a development tool, it's an end user
toy.... ( at least it's the way they market it....)
Bernard Grosperrin, Alias(Bernie)
BG Consultants
Team Topseed Internet
bgr...@usa.net
Clarion Web Site :http://www.cwsuperpage.com/bernie
Howard Lim a écrit dans le message <01bd303d$5b8dcd40$487300cf@nlsystem>...
Glenn Rathke
It may not be an development tool, however if you are using a TPS file and
you need to do a mass update, this might be a good way to accomplish it,
using SQL.
Glenn
Bernard Grosperrin wrote in message <34d6e...@fortress.uccb.ns.ca>...
David Leone
>Bernard Grosperrin wrote:
>
> Howard,
>
> Was looong threads on CIS about that when they released it.....It's very
> simple. for TPS files, ODBC is absolutly not needed to develop an
> application, the only use/need for it is for end users wanting to use your
> files on external ( to Cw/Topspeed/you ) applications. So, the end user must
> pay for it...That's all. It's not a development tool, it's an end user
> toy.... ( at least it's the way they market it....)
>
It's not a Toy! It is the only way to access the Topspeed databases
through a Non CW Program. CW has a nice interface that is very effective
and fast to use, however some of the file drivers are not compatible
with other API's on the market i.e. dbase indexes are handled
differently and are prone to being corrupted.
In many cases I cannot develope an application totally in CW. (this is
due to the type of applications I write) however Clarion as a front end
to our databases is very nice. With problems with the other drivers
included with CW the only good solution would be to use the TPS file
driver throughout the application.
So if you really needed to access your TPS files through C/C++ would you
call this a toy or would you be screaming that you were forced to
purchase a 5 pack in order to use this development tool?
I recently sent Bruce a email regarding this subject this is what he
said.
>>David,
>>I have passed your message along to our Marketing department.
>>However, I can tell you that we have already discussed this matter in
>>some detail. Our experience has been that a $200 entry price does not
>>present an imposing barrier for creating a worthwhile business
>>relationship between a tool vendor and its customer base.
>>If this were true, there would be no carpenters, because they wouldn't
>>buy saws.
>>Bruce Barrington
>>TopSpeed Corporation
In this case I think it does create a barrier,
First - There are other software platforms that I can go out and use.
I'd prefer to use CW.
Secondly - I'm not alone in this quest to have the capablilty of
purchasing a single license of an ODBC driver at a reasonable cost.
Third - if you purchase a five pack and you distribute it to 4 other
programmers, they are not considered the actual license holders of the
ODBC driver, so they cannot purchase updates or upgrades without having
to re-purchase the whole $200.00 package.
Fourth - If Bruce wants to think that my 11 year relationship with
Clarion/Topspeed is not a worthwhile business relationship that is fine.
Like I said earlier there are other tools that I could be using. I would
rather keep this ongoing relationship with Topspeed.
At this point all I can say is that I am not happy and anyone who reads
this should not be happy about this either. Development tools should be
affordable but mostly as a developer you should not be forced to
purchase 5 licenses when you only need one!
Thanks for you Time, and May Your Pen Always Be Accessible!
David P. Leone
sun...@wizard.com
Arnor Baldvinsson
Hi Bernard,
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:55:40 +0100, "Bernard Grosperrin"
<bgr...@usa.net> wrote:
>Was looong threads on CIS about that when they released it.....It's very
>simple. for TPS files, ODBC is absolutly not needed to develop an
>application, the only use/need for it is for end users wanting to use your
>files on external ( to Cw/Topspeed/you ) applications. So, the end user must
>pay for it...That's all. It's not a development tool, it's an end user
>toy.... ( at least it's the way they market it....)
I think this is a wrong approach. Obviously TS needs to sell it, but
I think the per-user licence is nonsense. The read-only odbc driver
would be extremely good to make integration with other products, for
viewing purposes and IMO should be one-pay purchase. IMO, there
should be a starter package with 5 per-user licences of a read-write
odbc driver and one one-pay read-only licence. Then there could be
5/10/25/50... per-user licence packages. A try-before-you-buy
read-only odbc driver should also be available for free, perhaps with
a fixed date limit, similar as the cwic broker beta releases.
As Mike pointed out in another thread, this per-user licence is
useless for any kind of wide distribution channels like internet
releases etc. Many software packages are offering more and more
integration of data through odbc to for example MS Office etc. so I
think TS should think very carefully about how they want to market
this stuff. Nobody I have heard from is satisfied with the per-site
arrangement.
Best regards,
Arnor Baldvinsson
Allerup Edb
Tel: +45 4675 7122
Fax: +45 4675 7144
Denmark
arno...@post3.tele.dk
http://www.icetips.com
UIN nr.: 2428601
Ben Coleman
>Howard,
>
>Was looong threads on CIS about that when they released it.....It's very
>simple. for TPS files, ODBC is absolutly not needed to develop an
>application, the only use/need for it is for end users wanting to use your
>files on external ( to Cw/Topspeed/you ) applications. So, the end user must
>pay for it...That's all. It's not a development tool, it's an end user
>toy.... ( at least it's the way they market it....)
But the developer is probably going to have to do some tech support for it
- which is a lot easier to do if they have a copy of it to play with.
Having to buy 5 is a bit of overkill for this.
Ben
--
Ben Coleman b...@termnetinc.com |
Senior Systems Analyst |
TermNet Merchant Services, Inc. |
Atlanta, GA |
Tom Foley
My 2 cents next ....
I'd prefer if a single copy of the ODBC driver was included in base package,
rather like the Btrieve driver. This would allow the developer to get some
hands-on experience with the driver, and would only have to purchase runtime
licenses at time of deployment. Again, like Btrieve.
Another point of note, if the ODBC driver were low-cost or free, I think CW
would make greater inroads in the corporate market where heterogeneous
systems abound and thus require openness. If the file system was accessible
through ODBC (without license issues) I'd expect greater sales of CW as the
file system is proven to be viable. I can't blame the VP of Technology who
has enough to do rather than worrying about ODBC licenses.
While I'm at it...<G!>
For better or for worse, Access and mdb's are the corporate standard for
desktop databases nowadays, either Topspeed opens up the driver (via ODBC
and cheaply, and without licensing headaches), publishes the file format
(not likely!), or writes a native driver to Access. Any of these I believe
would help drive sales of the development environment.
I'm sure TS has spent a lot of time deliberating the different pro's and
con's of their marketing strategy and have come up with what is best for
them. What leaves us developers are a bit peeved about the 5-pack issue is
that we've had no explanation as to why that is the best way to go. In other
words we're unaware of how the strategy was formulated, all we know is the
outcome. We've been left out of the equation, or at least it would appear so
given that no explanation of why 5 licenses are required has been
forthcoming.
<Soapbox off>
Tom Foley
P.S. Just had to tell you this...as I pressed send on this message, my
spellchecker (MS Word 7.0) picked up ODBC and suggested "ODDBALL"
.......<ROFL!!!!>
Mick_G
Tom:
This is only an opinion, and in no way is me wagging my finger at TopSpeed
but.... I feel frequently that TopSpeed spends a little two much time trying
to get into the pockets of it's present base of developers, instead of
really going all out to get new developers converted. How many
advertisements have you seen for CW, in for instance Byte? How many have we
seen in any other mainstream magazine. Now I know there are many problems
with economies of scale. But if CW was making big sales of CW to corporate
America, I think they would be giving away the ODBC driver to spread the use
of it in those environments.
The TPS format I think is a superior file format for medium size databases.
But I just got finished seeing the MS Small Business Server, and it is some
product. The cost for entrance is not bad. When you compare the connectivity
gained with the addition of Office for small business, and selling a company
on a one off solution built with CW gets a little more difficult. Now I'm a
died in the wool CW user. I love the product and feel it fits me to a T, but
I used to program with Filepro way back when, and who knows about that
database system other than UNIX people?
Mick
Tom Foley wrote in message <6b7v9m$4...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...
Glenn Rathke
I for one have had extremely good success using the Ascii ODBC driver,
eliminated tons of code.
Thanks
Glenn
Bernard Grosperrin wrote in message <34d7a...@fortress.uccb.ns.ca>...
>Arnor,
>
>I don't want to really comment about that, I just tried to explain the way
>they market it. One more thing : THERE IS NO FREE ODBC DRIVER NOWHERE !
>
>Microsoft drivers are not free, are not freely distributable. If you do so,
>you are in violation with their license agreements. OK, the fees are low,
>very low, but they exists. Beside MIcrosoft, NOBODY release free ODBC
>drivers...It's a way to market tem, but for Sybase SQL Anywhere, for
>example, there is a per seat fee, and ODBC is included with it, but you
>cannot connect freely to their database, and to the best of my knowledge,
>it's the same for every database vendor , unless we are talking about ODBC
>ASCII drivers...? But who care to get ascii via ODBC ?
Glenn Rathke
How does the per seat license work when using SQL AnyWhere with CWIC, since
each user doesn't need any downloaded driver or ODBC driver? I am about to
undertake a CWIC type application and would like to be in compliance with
licensing issues.
Mick_G
I wouldn't even mind a per seat charge. This per user just doesn't work. I
also don't know if I agree that the ODBC driver is not free for Access? I
think if you have the Access distribution kit, I think you can distribute an
Access application without any other charges, including the ODBC. Been a
while since I checked this though.
Mick
Bernard Grosperrin
Graham Harris
Bernard,
I think the problem is with reporting. First, CW itself has very poor
inbuilt reporting, as many people here testify. So you need to be able
to use "best of breed" tools to report on databases maintained by CW.
I don't restrict my view of reporting to the kind of reports you print
on paper- what about database mining?
Second, most programmers get very bored writing "just like that last
report but with different detail fields". It is also very expensive
for an end-user to have to brief a developer to do this stuff where
with other tools he could do the work himself.
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:53:30 +0100, "Bernard Grosperrin"
<bgr...@usa.net> wrote:
>Arnor,
>
>>I know:( There should be a thing called FODBC<g> I would think this
>>will change in the future as database access between program a and
>>program b become, well almost a requirement. DDE is maybe a solution
>>for some, but not all.
>
>
>believe me, I can understand that, but I have some difficulties to
>understand any progammer asking for the ability to have anyone having free
>access to his database....Something free work both side, so it's not only an
>advantage....Thoughts for food.....( or for $..<g> )
Andrew Guidroz II
In article <34da6...@fortress.uccb.ns.ca>, Bernard Grosperrin wrote:
> I have NEVER hit the famous clarion reports limits wall !
.......
> ! OK, it need some work
I agree with both comments above. I, personally, attack reports from more
of a handcoders mentality so I never had much trouble with it. I still use
the templates though. I just don't rely on the built in breaking and
totaling.
- Andrew Guidroz II (GeeTroze)
Every pint bottle should contain a quart.
http://www.coonass.com SnowDog Software
Mick_G
I agree Andrew, I just don't like to do it. :-)>
Mick
Andrew Guidroz II wrote in message ...
Arnor Baldvinsson
Hi Graham,
On Thu, 05 Feb 1998 19:42:31 GMT,
graham...@microphone.prestel.co.uk (Graham Harris) wrote:
>Second, most programmers get very bored writing "just like that last
>report but with different detail fields". It is also very expensive
>for an end-user to have to brief a developer to do this stuff where
>with other tools he could do the work himself.
Agreed! That's why we wrote our Report Designer:) Why in the world
spend time creating 10 reports with exactly the same data, only a
slightly different layout? Why should *we* spend time creating
reports, that we can beforehand almost be certain that only some of
the customers will like? So, we let them do it themselfs;) Have seen
some very nice layouts done in our Report Designer for one of our
client:)
Arnor Baldvinsson
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 07:45:27 CST, Andrew Guidroz II
<caj...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>In article <34da6...@fortress.uccb.ns.ca>, Bernard Grosperrin wrote:
>> I have NEVER hit the famous clarion reports limits wall !
>.......
>> ! OK, it need some work
>
> I agree with both comments above. I, personally, attack reports from more
>of a handcoders mentality so I never had much trouble with it. I still use
>the templates though. I just don't rely on the built in breaking and
>totaling.
Ditto! It's so long since I used a group break in CW that when I got
a call this week from a client asking how to do it, I rather took the
time to describe to him how to do the same thing with two details;)
BUT, that is maybe not the right way to do it;) I mean: Why should
we need to do all this in code and why do we find it easier???