Questions about new version

Brian DonahueBrian Donahue Posts: 6,590 New member
edited November 27, 2002 11:05AM in SQL Compare Previous Versions
Hi Alex,

Thanks for your enquiry. I regret that it took so long for you to get a
response on this issue.
According to the help file for SQL Compare 2.02, the enhancements in the
software have to do with bug fixes, optimized code, and better integration
with SQL Server 2000.
The overwhelming reason to upgrade SQL Comapre is speed. I had run
comaprisons on two 5.37MB databases, and came out with the following
results:

SQL Compare 1.61: 1 minute, 44 seconds.
SQL Compare 2.02: 31 seconds.

The speedup is caused by the order in which the database objects are
scripted. As you can see, if you have a large database you can save a
considerable amount of time by upgrading to the latest version.

Don't hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.

Regards,

Brian Donahue
Technical Support Engineer
Red Gate Software Ltd.
T +44 870 1600 037
E mailto:[email protected]

"Alex Telford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> I orignally sent these questions to red-gate support but I never received
a
> reply so I will try here and see if anyone is listening...
>
> I am now able to download the new version, the problem I have now is that
it
> says I would have to pay for a new version of SQL Compare, I have v1.61
> (according to help|About) . I can find nothing on the website explaining
to
> me what new features I would get if I upgrade to v2.01. I downloaded the
> help file to see if that was any use but that is even older than the help
> file I have for v1.61, the version history in the downloadable help file
> only goes up to v1.51. Is there any documentation available on the newer
> version that I can get access to?
>
> Can anyone tell me what new features are in v2.01 that would make it worth
> my while to pay for? If there are no new features, but bug fixes and code
> optimizations then why should I have to pay for that?
>
> Thank you
> Alex
>
>
This discussion has been closed.