On 11 Mar 2002 at 8:52, Perry Jacobs wrote:

> We have several users that are demanding MS/SQL so we
> converted our app from BDE to ADO under the advise of
> Borland. Then, becuase we still have clients using
> Interbase, we tried connecting to Interbase with the
> same programs using ODBC under ADO and the performance
> was worse than the BDE. So we began looking for ADO
> Providers for Interbase and found problems with all of
> them.
> The only choices I see now are to use a product like
> SQLDirect or to have two sets of components on every
> form, one for ADO and one for Interbase (probably
> IBObjects). It is not practical for all of our
> clients to upgrade to MS/SQL.
> There must be others out there who have multi-database
> applications without multiple sets of source.

I hate that word, upgrade, especially when used in this context, a better term is
cross-grade, because your implying that MS-SQL is in some way better, and that
may be an untrue statement. Not to start an MS vs FB debate here, but having
used a number of databases including FB and MS-SQL, I would put them about
even, technology wise, when you consider that FB runs on just about any modern
platform, (MS-SQL is NT/2K only), and that FB licences are a heck of a lot cheaper
(it's hard to beat free), then I would give FB an advantage. Considering the team
we have here, I would put FB at a definite advantage. If you really have to support
MS-SQL, and your working in C/C++ then SqlDirect is probably the best route to
go....

Paul

Paul Schmidt
Tricat Technologies
paul@...
www.tricattechnologies.com