So has anyone mentioned that Vista includes ADO 6.0?

Everyone has been talking about this DAO revival; I find it kinda funny
when it looks like there is an ADO revival also

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> So has anyone mentioned that Vista includes ADO 6.0?
>
> Everyone has been talking about this DAO revival; I find it kinda funny
> when it looks like there is an ADO revival also

ADO History
http://windowssdk.msdn.microsoft.com.../ms676506.aspx

"ADO 6.0 is functionally equivalent to ADO 2.8."

Without a new Jet OLE DB provider or indeed a revised Jet engine, I
don't think ADO 6.0 represents an ADO revival. FWIW I don't think DAO
will be ready to replace ADO for a few Access versions yet, certainly
not for Access2007.

Jamie.

--

"Jamie Collins" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > So has anyone mentioned that Vista includes ADO 6.0?
> >
> > Everyone has been talking about this DAO revival; I find it kinda funny
> > when it looks like there is an ADO revival also
>
> ADO History
> http://windowssdk.msdn.microsoft.com.../ms676506.aspx
>
> "ADO 6.0 is functionally equivalent to ADO 2.8."
>
> Without a new Jet OLE DB provider or indeed a revised Jet engine, I
> don't think ADO 6.0 represents an ADO revival. FWIW I don't think DAO
> will be ready to replace ADO for a few Access versions yet, certainly
> not for Access2007.
>

Did you mean to write "... I don't think *ADO* will be ready to replace
*DAO* for a few Access versions yet, ..."?

There is more 'marketing' in "ADO 6" than technical differences. Since WinXP
and Win2003 there has been a shift from MDAC being a 'universal' update to
'platform specific' packages. Also M$ is moving away from vendors installed
upgrades and redistributable components.

Changing the package MDAC to DAC (Windows Data Access Components) is merely
the finalization of this migration for data access. DACs will be specific to
each O/S and upgradeable only as part of a MS SP for the O/S. There will not
be a separate DAC install. Each O/S will have its own set of DACs.

The "6" is actually the DAC version and doesn't reference the actual ADO
version included. Why they started with 6 is another MS mystery. They did
the same with VC++/VB when VB 5.1 <g> and VC++ 4 <?> suddenly all became VS
6. Perhaps from "666"? <g>

-ralph

Ralph wrote:
> Did you mean to write "... I don't think *ADO* will be ready to replace
> *DAO* for a few Access versions yet, ..."?

No.

As already pointed out, ADO functionality has not been changed, hasn't
for several years.

Access development has moved away from Jet in favour of a dedicated
Access2007 engine. DAO seems to have been resurrected as Microsoft
Office 2007 Access database engine Object Library (ACEDAO.DLL).

Jamie.

--

"Jamie Collins" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Ralph wrote:
> > Did you mean to write "... I don't think *ADO* will be ready to replace
> > *DAO* for a few Access versions yet, ..."?
>
> No.
>
> As already pointed out, ADO functionality has not been changed, hasn't
> for several years.
>
> Access development has moved away from Jet in favour of a dedicated
> Access2007 engine. DAO seems to have been resurrected as Microsoft
> Office 2007 Access database engine Object Library (ACEDAO.DLL).
>
> Jamie.
>
> --
>

It looks like we have slightly different view of what "replacing" means. DAO
for Jet has always been (within a set of conditions) faster and more stable
than ADO. It still is with the new ADE.

So in light of your leading sentence - "Without a new Jet OLE DB provider or
indeed a revised Jet engine, I don't think ADO 6.0 represents an ADO
revival." Which is true. "ADO 6" is a misnomer and the jury is still out on
what a "ADE OLE DB" might bring to the table. Thus it stands to reason that
*DAO* is in no danger of being replaced, not the other way around.

Your comment "Access development has moved away from Jet in favor of a
dedicated Access2007 engine." is a bit misleading as the ADE in no way
represents an abandonment of "JET". It is more accurately described as a
branch or fork, and more represents the move in development and support from
the SQL Team to the Office Team, than in any fundamental core changes. It is
however, 'dedicated' in the sense that you cannot use the new features
without MSAccess/Office installed or without the new ADEDAO. They didn't
'resurrected' DAO, they expanded it.

And before anyone else reading this thread starts to panic. The ADE still
supports "Jet 4" - all your previous DAO and ADO will still work. The only
thing that seems to have changed is you can't use ADE independently of
MSAccess being installed, and you can't access any new functionality.
Exactly what all this means to future development is yet to fully unfold (Or
at least to me anyway. <g>)

-ralph

because of 'Windows 6.0 = VIsta' and Vienna = 6.1

notice the VI as in the roman numeral 6

4.0 = nt4
5.0 = 2000
5.1 = 2002 (XP - gag)
5.2 = 2003
6.0 = vista




Ralph wrote:
> "Jamie Collins" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > > So has anyone mentioned that Vista includes ADO 6.0?
> > >
> > > Everyone has been talking about this DAO revival; I find it kinda funny
> > > when it looks like there is an ADO revival also
> >
> > ADO History
> > http://windowssdk.msdn.microsoft.com.../ms676506.aspx
> >
> > "ADO 6.0 is functionally equivalent to ADO 2.8."
> >
> > Without a new Jet OLE DB provider or indeed a revised Jet engine, I
> > don't think ADO 6.0 represents an ADO revival. FWIW I don't think DAO
> > will be ready to replace ADO for a few Access versions yet, certainly
> > not for Access2007.
> >
>
> Did you mean to write "... I don't think *ADO* will be ready to replace
> *DAO* for a few Access versions yet, ..."?
>
> There is more 'marketing' in "ADO 6" than technical differences. Since WinXP
> and Win2003 there has been a shift from MDAC being a 'universal' update to
> 'platform specific' packages. Also M$ is moving away from vendors installed
> upgrades and redistributable components.
>
> Changing the package MDAC to DAC (Windows Data Access Components) is merely
> the finalization of this migration for data access. DACs will be specific to
> each O/S and upgradeable only as part of a MS SP for the O/S. There will not
> be a separate DAC install. Each O/S will have its own set of DACs.
>
> The "6" is actually the DAC version and doesn't reference the actual ADO
> version included. Why they started with 6 is another MS mystery. They did
> the same with VC++/VB when VB 5.1 <g> and VC++ 4 <?> suddenly all became VS
> 6. Perhaps from "666"? <g>
>
> -ralph

im not sure that I agree with this:

It looks like we have slightly different view of what "replacing"
means. DAO
for Jet has always been (within a set of conditions) faster and more
stable
than ADO. It still is with the new ADE.


are you talking about execution time or development time?

surely developing solutions using DAO is ridiculous because it's nearly
impossible to switch from SQL to Access to Oracle; etc



Ralph wrote:
> "Jamie Collins" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > Ralph wrote:
> > > Did you mean to write "... I don't think *ADO* will be ready to replace
> > > *DAO* for a few Access versions yet, ..."?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > As already pointed out, ADO functionality has not been changed, hasn't
> > for several years.
> >
> > Access development has moved away from Jet in favour of a dedicated
> > Access2007 engine. DAO seems to have been resurrected as Microsoft
> > Office 2007 Access database engine Object Library (ACEDAO.DLL).
> >
> > Jamie.
> >
> > --
> >
>
> It looks like we have slightly different view of what "replacing" means. DAO
> for Jet has always been (within a set of conditions) faster and more stable
> than ADO. It still is with the new ADE.
>
> So in light of your leading sentence - "Without a new Jet OLE DB provider or
> indeed a revised Jet engine, I don't think ADO 6.0 represents an ADO
> revival." Which is true. "ADO 6" is a misnomer and the jury is still out on
> what a "ADE OLE DB" might bring to the table. Thus it stands to reason that
> *DAO* is in no danger of being replaced, not the other way around.
>
> Your comment "Access development has moved away from Jet in favor of a
> dedicated Access2007 engine." is a bit misleading as the ADE in no way
> represents an abandonment of "JET". It is more accurately described as a
> branch or fork, and more represents the move in development and support from
> the SQL Team to the Office Team, than in any fundamental core changes. It is
> however, 'dedicated' in the sense that you cannot use the new features
> without MSAccess/Office installed or without the new ADEDAO. They didn't
> 'resurrected' DAO, they expanded it.
>
> And before anyone else reading this thread starts to panic. The ADE still
> supports "Jet 4" - all your previous DAO and ADO will still work. The only
> thing that seems to have changed is you can't use ADE independently of
> MSAccess being installed, and you can't access any new functionality.
> Exactly what all this means to future development is yet to fully unfold (Or
> at least to me anyway. <g>)
>
> -ralph

I just still find it humorous

why don't they relaunch Windows 95 while they're at it?





Ralph wrote:
> "Jamie Collins" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > Ralph wrote:
> > > Did you mean to write "... I don't think *ADO* will be ready to replace
> > > *DAO* for a few Access versions yet, ..."?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > As already pointed out, ADO functionality has not been changed, hasn't
> > for several years.
> >
> > Access development has moved away from Jet in favour of a dedicated
> > Access2007 engine. DAO seems to have been resurrected as Microsoft
> > Office 2007 Access database engine Object Library (ACEDAO.DLL).
> >
> > Jamie.
> >
> > --
> >
>
> It looks like we have slightly different view of what "replacing" means. DAO
> for Jet has always been (within a set of conditions) faster and more stable
> than ADO. It still is with the new ADE.
>
> So in light of your leading sentence - "Without a new Jet OLE DB provider or
> indeed a revised Jet engine, I don't think ADO 6.0 represents an ADO
> revival." Which is true. "ADO 6" is a misnomer and the jury is still out on
> what a "ADE OLE DB" might bring to the table. Thus it stands to reason that
> *DAO* is in no danger of being replaced, not the other way around.
>
> Your comment "Access development has moved away from Jet in favor of a
> dedicated Access2007 engine." is a bit misleading as the ADE in no way
> represents an abandonment of "JET". It is more accurately described as a
> branch or fork, and more represents the move in development and support from
> the SQL Team to the Office Team, than in any fundamental core changes. It is
> however, 'dedicated' in the sense that you cannot use the new features
> without MSAccess/Office installed or without the new ADEDAO. They didn't
> 'resurrected' DAO, they expanded it.
>
> And before anyone else reading this thread starts to panic. The ADE still
> supports "Jet 4" - all your previous DAO and ADO will still work. The only
> thing that seems to have changed is you can't use ADE independently of
> MSAccess being installed, and you can't access any new functionality.
> Exactly what all this means to future development is yet to fully unfold (Or
> at least to me anyway. <g>)
>
> -ralph

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> because of 'Windows 6.0 = VIsta' and Vienna = 6.1
>
> notice the VI as in the roman numeral 6
>
> 4.0 = nt4
> 5.0 = 2000
> 5.1 = 2002 (XP - gag)
> 5.2 = 2003
> 6.0 = vista
>
>
<snipped>

That's interesting.

-ralph

"Access development has moved away from Jet in favor of a ACCESS DATA
PROJECTS"

this JET / DAO _CRAP_ that you kids talk about is laughable

DAO wasn't included in a couple of version of Windows and MDAC.. right?
it wasn't included in 2 versions of Office.

I dont believe that it is FAIR for Microsoft to pull a GOTCHA like
this.
you don't run around and keep on SHITTING on vb6 developers.

**** YOU MICROSOFT






Ralph wrote:
> "Jamie Collins" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > Ralph wrote:
> > > Did you mean to write "... I don't think *ADO* will be ready to replace
> > > *DAO* for a few Access versions yet, ..."?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > As already pointed out, ADO functionality has not been changed, hasn't
> > for several years.
> >
> > Access development has moved away from Jet in favour of a dedicated
> > Access2007 engine. DAO seems to have been resurrected as Microsoft
> > Office 2007 Access database engine Object Library (ACEDAO.DLL).
> >
> > Jamie.
> >
> > --
> >
>
> It looks like we have slightly different view of what "replacing" means. DAO
> for Jet has always been (within a set of conditions) faster and more stable
> than ADO. It still is with the new ADE.
>
> So in light of your leading sentence - "Without a new Jet OLE DB provider or
> indeed a revised Jet engine, I don't think ADO 6.0 represents an ADO
> revival." Which is true. "ADO 6" is a misnomer and the jury is still out on
> what a "ADE OLE DB" might bring to the table. Thus it stands to reason that
> *DAO* is in no danger of being replaced, not the other way around.
>
> Your comment "Access development has moved away from Jet in favor of a
> dedicated Access2007 engine." is a bit misleading as the ADE in no way
> represents an abandonment of "JET". It is more accurately described as a
> branch or fork, and more represents the move in development and support from
> the SQL Team to the Office Team, than in any fundamental core changes. It is
> however, 'dedicated' in the sense that you cannot use the new features
> without MSAccess/Office installed or without the new ADEDAO. They didn't
> 'resurrected' DAO, they expanded it.
>
> And before anyone else reading this thread starts to panic. The ADE still
> supports "Jet 4" - all your previous DAO and ADO will still work. The only
> thing that seems to have changed is you can't use ADE independently of
> MSAccess being installed, and you can't access any new functionality.
> Exactly what all this means to future development is yet to fully unfold (Or
> at least to me anyway. <g>)
>
> -ralph