User profile for mrichmon

It is more of a concern with SQLDataCompare than with SQLCompare, as there are more options that vary there. I don't think you could have them "sensibly set" in a way that would meet each person's needs. Depending on the environment each person who uses your project will have their own settings they want. I mentioned this during the Beta testing and several people who were also doing Beta testing agreed. The clone is not very convinient workaround - it is clumsy in my opinion, but can be used until the product is fixed. / comments

It is more of a concern with SQLDataCompare than with SQLCompare, as there are more options that vary there. I don't think you could have them "sensibly set" in a way that would meet each person's ...

0 votes

Postponing until 5.1 is not a problem, I just thought it should eventually be included, even if it doesn't make it into the intial 5.0 release, especially with how many people seem to comment on it (myself included) [image] / comments

Postponing until 5.1 is not a problem, I just thought it should eventually be included, even if it doesn't make it into the intial 5.0 release, especially with how many people seem to comment on it...

0 votes

Thank you for the response. I really appreciate it, and as I said I was trying to be constructive. [image] You are correct that most users (including myself) usually hide equal objects. I do not object to them being there. In fact in Data Compare, I really like that you show even objects that were not compared due to a missing key. That is such a huge improvement. However, It would be nice to be able to remove the grouping up above - at least of the 3 different types (missing, additional, different) - even if equal remained a separate group. Or maybe if the headers could be made thinner - they just are way too bulky if you have only one or two objects in the difference list. They aren't as clumsy if you have large amounts of differences in a section, but if you are constantly keeping databases synch'd you most likely have only a few differences and then the headers overtake the actual data. It seems it should not be too hard since you have that ability for the bottom section (the script) I do understand the more objects and the purpose of the sidebar - I see it being much more useful for new users as well. However, I think it would be a nice option to allow advanced users to choose to display them as a thin toolbar across the top. That way once you are used to the icons (especially since they are visible next to the objects being compared) you can choose to have the quick toolbar, but when you want a detailed list you could still choose to have the side panel. It could be a simple option like "Show filters toolbar" in the option menu. Just something to consider. The idea of closing a project is very nice. I also like that the projects auto-save when you close the program. >>We've changed the behaviour of the copy actions button. What does that mean? DOes it mean you added the ability to add the "Copy SQL Script"? It is interesting that you feel the new look in Data Compare is easier for new users to "get grips with". I am a relatively new user (have only been using your products since last Fall). I was also the one to evaluate products to determine which one to use for our office. I found the old interface so intuitive over competitors. I am having a very hard time with this new one. So, I also showed to another programmer in our office. Overall he was very impressed with the new interface, except this portion. He found it very hard to tell where there were differences and I had to point them out. I also ran a test where we specifically introduced a difference and tried to find it. It was VERY hard to do so - for either of us - even knowing where the difference was. Also the bottom section that shows the data difference is very hard to see - even knowing where the difference is. Overall I think that there are many nice improvements, a few things that in practical use become clumsy, and mainly one thing (specifically the Data Compare comparisons) that is much worse. However, I think those could be easily fixed. / comments

Thank you for the response. I really appreciate it, and as I said I was trying to be constructive. You are correct that most users (including myself) usually hide equal objects. I do not objec...

0 votes

So to clarify for people following the thread (and Brian can you confirm this is correct?): The detection process is supposed to check: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Shell\InstallDir The place to change the registry setting: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Red Gate\SQL Compare 4\ViewerType 1 - means SQL Management Studio 0 - means Query Analyzer Yes the ability to change on the fly in version 5 beta is nice and does work well. / comments

So to clarify for people following the thread (and Brian can you confirm this is correct?): The detection process is supposed to check: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\90...

0 votes

Additionally, I just installed SQL 5 Beta on a system with the same setup. Again it tried to launch Query Analyzer - not Management Studio and failed. At least in version 5 Beta, it produced an error, rather than killing the entire synch process. I also tried installing it on the same system we have been discussing. It too did not detect that SQL 2005 is installed. The registry of the viewer type there (for version 5) is also set to 0. This emphasizes to me that the detection process is flawed or has a bug. / comments

Additionally, I just installed SQL 5 Beta on a system with the same setup. Again it tried to launch Query Analyzer - not Management Studio and failed. At least in version 5 Beta, it produced an e...

0 votes

Thank you for the confirmation. I think the detection method needs to be reviewed. As I mentioned this is a brand new system that I just installed - on a brand new hard drive that never had anything installed on it before. After windows was installed, SQL Server 2005 was installed first (at least the client tools - not the full server) Then other software was installed. Then, one of the last installs were the Red Gate products. I checked the registry setting just now - it is not blank. It is set to: C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Binn\VSShell\Common7\IDE As for changing the registry manually, the information provided in the post by T. Kato, is not a complete path to a registry entry. If a change needs to be made in the registry then the full path should be provided. I know how to find it, but others experienceing this problem may not - especially if they are standard users, not used to making registry changes. So, as the forums are one of the major forms of support for the Red Gate products, for the benefit of others who run across this thread, I think a Red Gate representative should confirm the complete path to the registry entry as well as the entry and value to set to work around this bug. I also repsectfully suggest that the detection method should be reviewed. / comments

Thank you for the confirmation. I think the detection method needs to be reviewed. As I mentioned this is a brand new system that I just installed - on a brand new hard drive that never had anythin...

0 votes

It is not strange. That you think so makes me think you are not very familiar with computers. I am not going to change any registry settings unless an officail person from Red Gate states that is the solution. Additionally it is a bug. I think it needs to be addressed. If you are not from Red Gate, then please do not comment any further as you are making incorrect assumptions. / comments

It is not strange. That you think so makes me think you are not very familiar with computers. I am not going to change any registry settings unless an officail person from Red Gate states that is t...

0 votes

I am sorry but none of those situations apply. This is a brand new system. SQL Server 2005 was installed first. Then SQL Compare was installed. There is no way is should "remember" Query Analyzer since that was never installed on this machine. / comments

I am sorry but none of those situations apply. This is a brand new system. SQL Server 2005 was installed first. Then SQL Compare was installed. There is no way is should "remember" Query Analyzer ...

0 votes

A few comments... I have found that SQL Compare, like previous versions does not seem to recognize instances. It lists the server, but you must add in the instance notation. Additionally, for default instance or multi instance, when it recognizes servers that have SQL server installed on a non-standard port - it lists the server in the drop-down, but you must modify it to include the non-standard port before you click the dropdown for databases. Otherwise it takes some time to time-out before you can add in the port. I don't know if you can actually do anything for non-standard ports, but it seems strange that it can see that the server is a SQL server (so it must somehow look on other ports?) / comments

A few comments... I have found that SQL Compare, like previous versions does not seem to recognize instances. It lists the server, but you must add in the instance notation. Additionally, for defa...

0 votes

Also, After I have altereted the entry to my nonstandard port or altereted it to include the instance, the next time I go to create a new project - the drop-down menus of the servers still include the same as before - just the server name and I have to re-enter instances or re-enter non-standrad ports. It would be nice if it at least rememebered changes to the list that the user entered if it cannot detect that information on its own. Another idea (at least for the non-standard ports) is what if there was an application option that allowed you to specify the "default" port that should be examined? / comments

Also, After I have altereted the entry to my nonstandard port or altereted it to include the instance, the next time I go to create a new project - the drop-down menus of the servers still include...

0 votes

How can we help you today?

mrichmon

Comments