User profile for EdCarden

ATurner said: Hi all, SQL History has replaced tab history, thus it will not be coming back. However, the team is actively reading your feedback on what can be done to improve SQL History. In order to help us prioritize our development efforts, we would like to ask you to provide us with some concrete examples on how SQL history is not meeting your needs. This will help us understand your pain points better and address them more effectively. ATurner - Did you not run this by anyone in legal or public relations first? Your very first sentence has an undertone of sarcasm and frustration. Yes you follow it up with your reading feedback and working on the thing but when you are engaging with your customers about a mess you caused I wouldn't tell them "X has replaced Y and X isn't coming back". You instead could have written something like this: "SQL History has replaced Tab History in such a way that we can't bring Tab History back. Hindsight is always 20/20 and if we could have done it differently we would have but we can't. What we are doing is working on trying to fix SQL history and with your feedback we hope that it will one day be to you what Tab History was if not more." Do you see the difference? Your message comes across like a frustrated parent disciplining their child; not a very good way to engage with your customers. Were you the one that made the call to replace Tab History with SQL History and so now you're frustrated that so many aren't happy with that decision? Or were you the one who created SQL History and so now your angry that so many are calling it garbage? I've enaged with RG employe Steve Jones many times and some where more complaints than compliments yet Steve was always professional. / comments

ATurner said: Hi all,SQL History has replaced tab history, thus it will not be coming back. However, the team is actively reading your feedback on what can be done to improve SQL History. In ...

0 votes

ATurner said: Hi all, SQL History has replaced tab history, thus it will not be coming back. However, the team is actively reading your feedback on what can be done to improve SQL History. In order to help us prioritize our development efforts, we would like to ask you to provide us with some concrete examples on how SQL history is not meeting your needs. This will help us understand your pain points better and address them more effectively. I'll take that bet! Speed, design, ease of use ,beta build and just plain old lack of consideration. At launch SQL History was dog arse slow and more buggy than a pile of dog poop in the middle of summer. I will grant you that a year later and who knows how many updates later it's finally operating at an acceptable speed. One major issue aside from speed was the drastic change in the UI between the 2. Tab History was a fast lightweight tool that at times one might think the thing was able to anticipate what you wanted. Even you guys saw SQL History as enough of being different from Tab History that you changed the name. I don't remember where this was I want to say someone from Red-Gate mentioned that SQL History was a new from the ground up product and not just Tab History with a whole lot of changes and additions. That means it was a different product yet instead of treating it as such you had it replace another product verses being an addition. I believe somewhere someone from RedGate said something along the lines of SQL History using resources (i.e.e files, locations, history, ect) and that's why the 2 couldn't co-exist and because SQL History made some changes to those resources there was no way to let customers pick between the 2. If true that was a design decision that could have been done differently. It looks like from the start the plan was to replace Tab History vs treating SQL HIstory as another product and that too was a choice you guys made not us. SQL History should have been a separate product that instead of taking over resources Tab History used it could have used it's own set and coped from Tab Historys resources what ever is needed so the 2 are separated. Had you done that so your customers could have a choice between the adoption of SQL History would have been a slow and lengthy process because after the messy state SQL History was in at release few would have been willing to give it a chance again anytime soon. Tab History was an easy to use lightweight add-on that was great at what it did. Sure it didn't do as much as SQL History but maybe many or even a majority of your customers were happy with it like that; they weren't looking to to "Office Up" the thing. That's where a simple and effective software tool becomes bloated as the vendor keeps trying to find more things for it to do to justify customers continuing to upgrade. When Tab History was introduced I didn't need to get a How To manual or guide to figure it out. One of software developments biggest issues is that those working on the product know it inside and out so you can't see it the way your customer would, someone who doesn't know the thing like you do so what appears to be common knowledge to you isn't to the customer. Microsoft probably has the biggest screw-up in recent history on this when they pushed out that Ribbon UX in their products but at least for a few years they did make it optional. I'll tell you what I told their feedback dept about the ribbon, when the unwanted change you push out top your customers causes an entire industry of products to come into existence that are solely for the purpose of undoing the change you made and these tools are wanted enough that you can sell them, that should be a huge Red Flag to you, not something you close your eyes and say "nothing to see here, nothing to see here". For you guys it was just a free add-on and your customer base isn't large enough to spawn something like what the RIbbon did but you still followed the same pattern except you didn't give your customers time to pick between the 2. There is also the simple lack of consideration. While Tab history was a free add-on it was a free add-on to a pay to use product so not really "free". It was also very clear to more than just a few of your paying customers that this thing wasn't really ready for release. You pushed out a beta product replacing something people clearly loved, Maybe I missed the memo but where did this demand for a replacement to Tab History come from in the first place? There may have been included in something somewhere in advance that "We are going to take away Tab History when we push this monster out" but it's very obvious many missed said memo and were completely caught off guard. What does it tell you when a portion of your customer base actively chooses to downgrade simply to avoid something you pushed out to them w/o any choice on their part? This may no longer be the case but I remember Tab History being an "optional" add-on meaning the amazing SQL Prompt could be used without being required to use Tab History. I believe the same was true with several other add-ons so that raises the question why was this thing which was clearly not ready for release, not optional? The entire thing was a poorly handled mess that Redgate effectively was able to move past ONLY because of time and fixes so that SQL HIstory is no longer a beta product and most importantly b/c you did this with an add-on and not the core product. Had this stunt been pulled with SQL prompt itself you would have seen a very different result, likely loosing customers to a competitor. SQL prompt may be the best but it's not the only SQL tool out there. IDM's UltraEdit & UltraStudio products are always looking for that next thing they can add to their tools. They've looked at making it possible for their product to connect to data sources and if they had done that when you guys pulled this stunt you can bet I would have said goodbye and I doubt I'd have been the only one. You guys really handled this very poorly, catching your customers off guard and then acting like as if it wasn't a big deal and with (what looked like) little care about it. Sure there was the expected apology that people expect companies have their lawyers draw up when they make a mess of things but today no one see's those as being anything genuine. You're very lucky that some gifted person/people over there were able to fix the kludgy thing and quickly. SQL history is still not as fast or easy to use as Tab History was and I wish I could give specific examples but I like many people usually stumble across those when we're under the gun ourselves and don't have time to pause what we are doing to write up a memo for you guys. In the end you got lucky. Your existing reputation and quality of products (of everything but SQL History) is likely why this wasn't worse for you in terms of customer retention but if you do this kind of thing again I wouldn't count on your customers, your paying customers, being as patient/tolerant. / comments

ATurner said: Hi all,SQL History has replaced tab history, thus it will not be coming back. However, the team is actively reading your feedback on what can be done to improve SQL History. In ...

0 votes

NOTE: YOu guys REALLY need a cancel or Quit button in these forums, I initially had a post that was messed up and there was no way to get rid of the thing so I had to delete the contents and put in the word TEST and POST it simply to get back to a regular REPLY page. / comments

NOTE: YOu guys REALLY need a cancel or Quit button in these forums, I initially had a post that was messed up and there was no way to get rid of the thing so I had to delete the contents and put in...

0 votes

jimVisage1980 said: Rob_IQ said: Its definitly a mess. I was hoping it would be a lot better by now... but it isn't. And Redgate still aren't listening! Come renewal time for SQL Prompt licence this year I might just be saying, "Maybe we should look at another product from a company that doesn't seemingly treat it's loyal customers with indifference" It quite simple, SQL History has it's uses, but Tab History is better at other things that SQL History is not. So just bring back Tab History! I believe that RedGate doesn’t view Tab History as a product or part of one so much as a bonus feature they don't charge extra for so no one has any right to complain about it since it's a freebie. To that end why bother doing what the customers are requesting, just do whatever you want at least so long as its a free add on. I get the feeling that 1 or more persons with influence at RedGaye is behind this nonsense of no we can't bring Tab History back. I believe they also realize if they do then the data they collect of use of SQL Prompt will prove that customers use Tab History more often which would them make SQL HISTORY look like a bad product so just take away the customers ability to choose which one they prefer. I'm not against their initial goal of a more robust and feature rich version of Tab History but they still should have kept both and let the customer determine which one is better / comments

jimVisage1980 said: Rob_IQ said: Its definitly a mess. I was hoping it would be a lot better by now... but it isn't. And Redgate still aren't listening!Come renewal time for SQL P...

0 votes

SQLSi said: Agreed - the new History GUI could've been designed to be more intuitive. My assumption was, red-gate had mistakenly released an older, (never before seen) defunct version of the tab history, but it seems not. The previous GUI was very easy to use in comparison. In the sprit of giving constructive feedback, I'd recommend those responsible have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle Well said. / comments

SQLSi said: Agreed - the new History GUI could've been designed to be more intuitive. My assumption was, red-gate had mistakenly released an older, (never before seen) defunct version of the...

0 votes

tslagter said: SQL Dependency Tracker will do what you want. It can but it's over kill for what I needed. Clearly there's SQL Code for it b/c SQL Server Mgt Studio does it. I've just been shocked that no one that can find has posted what that is. I've found several ways to get a single of direct dependency but nothing that iterates thru an entre set of dependencies like you get when you right -click in SSMS and select View Dependency. SSMS also let's you see the dependency from bottom up to top down / comments

tslagter said: SQL Dependency Tracker will do what you want. It can but it's over kill for what I needed. Clearly there's SQL Code for it b/c SQL Server Mgt Studio does it. I've just been s...

0 votes

FYI - I ended up answering my own question. I had previously tried to use SSMS's View Dependencies feature but I had selected the wrong option; Objects that Depend on SP_Name. When I switched to Objects on which SP_Name depends it gave me exactly what I was looking for. I'm kind of shocked I didn't see this listed 9in my google search) as a way to get this. Now the question is, who does SSMS's View Dependencies feature do it, what T-SQL does it use; and I am assuming that's how it's doing this. NOTE: The View Dependencies does not require any permissions that are above the dbo; no server level permissions. That said it would still be a nice feature to add to SQL Prompt with some addiotnal features/perks like being able to export to Word or even visio, gliffy or other popular diagraming apps. / comments

FYI - I ended up answering my own question. I had previously tried to use SSMS's View Dependencies feature but I had selected the wrong option; Objects that Depend on SP_Name. When I switched to Ob...

0 votes

DanC said: Hi @EdCarden I don't believe we have this feature in the tool, if you'd like to make a feature request please post on the forum here: https://redgate.uservoice.com/forums/94413-sql-prompt Dan - Is this even possible within T-SQL? I've been scouring the net trying to find a way to do this and the best I could find is some code that would show you the first SP call within a SP and that's it. I was fully expecting, when I started searching, that there'd be some built-in way/method to do this. / comments

DanC said: Hi @EdCarden I don't believe we have this feature in the tool, if you'd like to make a feature request please post on the forum here: https://redgate.uservoice.com/forums/94413-sql...

0 votes

jimVisage1980 said: Another thing to consider for those who've reverted to an older version of SQL Prompt in order to get Tab History. The older version will not work with SSMS 19.x [image] Jim - Have you had any issues with SSMS19? I installed it many months back and ended up having to stop using it after about 2 weeks because the thing always connects to the same server regardless of what server I specify. It's like stuck to one server. / comments

jimVisage1980 said: Another thing to consider for those who've reverted to an older version of SQL Prompt in order to get Tab History. The older version will not work with SSMS 19.x Jim -...

0 votes

It's been over 30 days guys and nothing aside from "Were working on it". We all work with code and we know things take time but for something like this I think a monthly update isn't asking for too much. / comments

It's been over 30 days guys and nothing aside from "Were working on it". We all work with code and we know things take time but for something like this I think a monthly update isn't asking for too...

0 votes

How can we help you today?

EdCarden

Comments