Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in th
e
SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.That is the service name, and it hasn't changes since version 6.0.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01D3B95C-611D-4EC3-BF67-C5D8D5C46A75@.microsoft.com...
> Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
> CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in
the
> SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
> SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
> MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
>|||So you're saying that SQL Server Agent, SQL Server Analysis Services and SQL
Server Reporting Services are all running under the MSSQLServer Service...I
don't think so. This is the "name" of the instance and I'm not sure why.
"Scott" wrote:
> Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
> CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in
the
> SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
> SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
> MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
>|||"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4403E7F6-9F4C-4B51-B0D0-9B950725D36E@.microsoft.com...
> So you're saying that SQL Server Agent, SQL Server Analysis Services and
> SQL
> Server Reporting Services are all running under the MSSQLServer
> Service...I
> don't think so. This is the "name" of the instance and I'm not sure why.
>
This is the "name" of the default instance. If you installed a named
instance of SQL Server you would see the instance name instead. It's really
just there so you can identify all the services related to that instance.
David
Showing posts with label install. Show all posts
Showing posts with label install. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Default Instance Named MSSQLSERVER
Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
That is the service name, and it hasn't changes since version 6.0.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01D3B95C-611D-4EC3-BF67-C5D8D5C46A75@.microsoft.com...
> Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
> CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
> SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
> SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
> MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
>
|||So you're saying that SQL Server Agent, SQL Server Analysis Services and SQL
Server Reporting Services are all running under the MSSQLServer Service...I
don't think so. This is the "name" of the instance and I'm not sure why.
"Scott" wrote:
> Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
> CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
> SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
> SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
> MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
>
|||"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4403E7F6-9F4C-4B51-B0D0-9B950725D36E@.microsoft.com...
> So you're saying that SQL Server Agent, SQL Server Analysis Services and
> SQL
> Server Reporting Services are all running under the MSSQLServer
> Service...I
> don't think so. This is the "name" of the instance and I'm not sure why.
>
This is the "name" of the default instance. If you installed a named
instance of SQL Server you would see the instance name instead. It's really
just there so you can identify all the services related to that instance.
David
CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
That is the service name, and it hasn't changes since version 6.0.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01D3B95C-611D-4EC3-BF67-C5D8D5C46A75@.microsoft.com...
> Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
> CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
> SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
> SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
> MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
>
|||So you're saying that SQL Server Agent, SQL Server Analysis Services and SQL
Server Reporting Services are all running under the MSSQLServer Service...I
don't think so. This is the "name" of the instance and I'm not sure why.
"Scott" wrote:
> Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
> CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
> SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
> SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
> MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
>
|||"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4403E7F6-9F4C-4B51-B0D0-9B950725D36E@.microsoft.com...
> So you're saying that SQL Server Agent, SQL Server Analysis Services and
> SQL
> Server Reporting Services are all running under the MSSQLServer
> Service...I
> don't think so. This is the "name" of the instance and I'm not sure why.
>
This is the "name" of the default instance. If you installed a named
instance of SQL Server you would see the instance name instead. It's really
just there so you can identify all the services related to that instance.
David
Default Instance Named MSSQLSERVER
Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.That is the service name, and it hasn't changes since version 6.0.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01D3B95C-611D-4EC3-BF67-C5D8D5C46A75@.microsoft.com...
> Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
> CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
> SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
> SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
> MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
>|||So you're saying that SQL Server Agent, SQL Server Analysis Services and SQL
Server Reporting Services are all running under the MSSQLServer Service...I
don't think so. This is the "name" of the instance and I'm not sure why.
"Scott" wrote:
> Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
> CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
> SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
> SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
> MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
>|||"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4403E7F6-9F4C-4B51-B0D0-9B950725D36E@.microsoft.com...
> So you're saying that SQL Server Agent, SQL Server Analysis Services and
> SQL
> Server Reporting Services are all running under the MSSQLServer
> Service...I
> don't think so. This is the "name" of the instance and I'm not sure why.
>
This is the "name" of the default instance. If you installed a named
instance of SQL Server you would see the instance name instead. It's really
just there so you can identify all the services related to that instance.
David
CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.That is the service name, and it hasn't changes since version 6.0.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01D3B95C-611D-4EC3-BF67-C5D8D5C46A75@.microsoft.com...
> Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
> CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
> SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
> SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
> MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
>|||So you're saying that SQL Server Agent, SQL Server Analysis Services and SQL
Server Reporting Services are all running under the MSSQLServer Service...I
don't think so. This is the "name" of the instance and I'm not sure why.
"Scott" wrote:
> Does anyone know why, when I install SQL Server 2005 Developer (September
> CTP) and select Default Instance during setup that I see the following in the
> SQL Server 2005 Services area of SQL Server Configuration Manager.
> SQL Server Agent (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Analysis Server (MSSQLSERVER)
> SQL Server Reporting Services (MSSQLSERVER)
> The physical box name is DEVDW but it seems the default instance is named
> MSSQLServer which I definitely did not specifiy...I'm very confused.
>|||"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4403E7F6-9F4C-4B51-B0D0-9B950725D36E@.microsoft.com...
> So you're saying that SQL Server Agent, SQL Server Analysis Services and
> SQL
> Server Reporting Services are all running under the MSSQLServer
> Service...I
> don't think so. This is the "name" of the instance and I'm not sure why.
>
This is the "name" of the default instance. If you installed a named
instance of SQL Server you would see the instance name instead. It's really
just there so you can identify all the services related to that instance.
David
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Default Instance
Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
on a named instance, and must be run on the default
instance.
Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?
Hi,
As far as I know, You need to reinstall SQL server to move from named to
default instance.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?
|||You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your databases back by
backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?
|||Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
the Master DB as well?
>--Original Message--
>You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your
databases back by
>backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
>--
>Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
>Mariner, Charlotte, NC
>www.mariner-usa.com
>(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
>I support the Professional Association of SQL Server
(PASS) and it's
>community of SQL Server professionals.
>www.sqlpass.org
>"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
as[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
run[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
server?
>
>.
>
|||Hi,
To restore the SQl Server Logins you have to restore the Master database as
well. This will ensure that your security chain is brought back as same as
old.
Master database can be restored only if you start sql server in single user
mode.
How to start SQl server in single user mode:-
Execute the below command from command prompt
sqlservr.exe -c -m
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19e7e01c44e25$6a834200$a601280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
> the Master DB as well?
> databases back by
> (PASS) and it's
> message
> as
> I
> run
> I
> server?
a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
on a named instance, and must be run on the default
instance.
Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?
Hi,
As far as I know, You need to reinstall SQL server to move from named to
default instance.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?
|||You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your databases back by
backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?
|||Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
the Master DB as well?
>--Original Message--
>You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your
databases back by
>backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
>--
>Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
>Mariner, Charlotte, NC
>www.mariner-usa.com
>(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
>I support the Professional Association of SQL Server
(PASS) and it's
>community of SQL Server professionals.
>www.sqlpass.org
>"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
as[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
run[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
server?
>
>.
>
|||Hi,
To restore the SQl Server Logins you have to restore the Master database as
well. This will ensure that your security chain is brought back as same as
old.
Master database can be restored only if you start sql server in single user
mode.
How to start SQl server in single user mode:-
Execute the below command from command prompt
sqlservr.exe -c -m
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19e7e01c44e25$6a834200$a601280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
> the Master DB as well?
> databases back by
> (PASS) and it's
> message
> as
> I
> run
> I
> server?
Default Instance
Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
on a named instance, and must be run on the default
instance.
Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?Hi,
As far as I know, You need to reinstall SQL server to move from named to
default instance.
--
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?|||You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your databases back by
backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?|||Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
the Master DB as well?
>--Original Message--
>You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your
databases back by
>backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
>--
>Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
>Mariner, Charlotte, NC
>www.mariner-usa.com
>(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
>I support the Professional Association of SQL Server
(PASS) and it's
>community of SQL Server professionals.
>www.sqlpass.org
>"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed
as
>> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003.
I
>> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be
run
>> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
>> instance.
>> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
>> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how
I
>> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL
server?
>
>.
>|||Hi,
To restore the SQl Server Logins you have to restore the Master database as
well. This will ensure that your security chain is brought back as same as
old.
Master database can be restored only if you start sql server in single user
mode.
How to start SQl server in single user mode:-
Execute the below command from command prompt
sqlservr.exe -c -m
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19e7e01c44e25$6a834200$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
> the Master DB as well?
> >--Original Message--
> >You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your
> databases back by
> >backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
> >
> >--
> >Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> >Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> >www.mariner-usa.com
> >(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> >
> >I support the Professional Association of SQL Server
> (PASS) and it's
> >community of SQL Server professionals.
> >www.sqlpass.org
> >
> >"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed
> as
> >> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003.
> I
> >> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be
> run
> >> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> >> instance.
> >>
> >> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> >> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how
> I
> >> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL
> server?
> >
> >
> >.
> >
a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
on a named instance, and must be run on the default
instance.
Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?Hi,
As far as I know, You need to reinstall SQL server to move from named to
default instance.
--
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?|||You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your databases back by
backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?|||Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
the Master DB as well?
>--Original Message--
>You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your
databases back by
>backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
>--
>Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
>Mariner, Charlotte, NC
>www.mariner-usa.com
>(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
>I support the Professional Association of SQL Server
(PASS) and it's
>community of SQL Server professionals.
>www.sqlpass.org
>"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed
as
>> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003.
I
>> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be
run
>> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
>> instance.
>> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
>> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how
I
>> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL
server?
>
>.
>|||Hi,
To restore the SQl Server Logins you have to restore the Master database as
well. This will ensure that your security chain is brought back as same as
old.
Master database can be restored only if you start sql server in single user
mode.
How to start SQl server in single user mode:-
Execute the below command from command prompt
sqlservr.exe -c -m
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19e7e01c44e25$6a834200$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
> the Master DB as well?
> >--Original Message--
> >You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your
> databases back by
> >backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
> >
> >--
> >Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> >Mariner, Charlotte, NC
> >www.mariner-usa.com
> >(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> >
> >I support the Professional Association of SQL Server
> (PASS) and it's
> >community of SQL Server professionals.
> >www.sqlpass.org
> >
> >"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed
> as
> >> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003.
> I
> >> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be
> run
> >> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> >> instance.
> >>
> >> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> >> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how
> I
> >> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL
> server?
> >
> >
> >.
> >
Default Instance
Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
on a named instance, and must be run on the default
instance.
Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?Hi,
As far as I know, You need to reinstall SQL server to move from named to
default instance.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?|||You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your databases back by
backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?|||Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
the Master DB as well?
>--Original Message--
>You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your
databases back by
>backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
>--
>Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
>Mariner, Charlotte, NC
>www.mariner-usa.com
>(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
>I support the Professional Association of SQL Server
(PASS) and it's
>community of SQL Server professionals.
>www.sqlpass.org
>"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
as[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
run[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
server?[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Hi,
To restore the SQl Server Logins you have to restore the Master database as
well. This will ensure that your security chain is brought back as same as
old.
Master database can be restored only if you start sql server in single user
mode.
How to start SQl server in single user mode:-
Execute the below command from command prompt
sqlservr.exe -c -m
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19e7e01c44e25$6a834200$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
> the Master DB as well?
>
> databases back by
> (PASS) and it's
> message
> as
> I
> run
> I
> server?sql
a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
on a named instance, and must be run on the default
instance.
Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?Hi,
As far as I know, You need to reinstall SQL server to move from named to
default instance.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?|||You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your databases back by
backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Our installation of SQL server 2000 has been installed as
> a named instance, and I am trying to install SMS2003. I
> have read in the documentation that SMS2003 cannot be run
> on a named instance, and must be run on the default
> instance.
> Is there any way of switching the named instance to the
> default instance, or does anyone have any ideas on how I
> can overcome this problem without reinstalling SQL server?|||Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
the Master DB as well?
>--Original Message--
>You will have to re-install SQL... But you can get your
databases back by
>backup/restore or sp_detach_db sp_attach_db
>--
>Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
>Mariner, Charlotte, NC
>www.mariner-usa.com
>(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
>I support the Professional Association of SQL Server
(PASS) and it's
>community of SQL Server professionals.
>www.sqlpass.org
>"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> news:19fd601c44e18$8ac5ffb0$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
as[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
run[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
server?[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Hi,
To restore the SQl Server Logins you have to restore the Master database as
well. This will ensure that your security chain is brought back as same as
old.
Master database can be restored only if you start sql server in single user
mode.
How to start SQl server in single user mode:-
Execute the below command from command prompt
sqlservr.exe -c -m
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19e7e01c44e25$6a834200$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Will this restore the security, or will I have to restore
> the Master DB as well?
>
> databases back by
> (PASS) and it's
> message
> as
> I
> run
> I
> server?sql
Default Install of SQLExpress Does NOT Work Well
I have modified one of the ASP.NET 2.0 Starter Kits using and when deploying it to a new server it works great when installed to a server that I have manually installed SQLExpress 2005 first, but if I deploy to a clean server and configure my standard Setup and Deployment project to require .NET 2.0 Runtime and SQLExpress 2005 problems start. The setup program will detect no .NET Framework or SQLExpress 2005 installed and will download and install them from Microsoft as it should. The ASP.NET web app installs correctly. I then grant the ASPNET machine account WRITE access permissions to the web app's App_Data directory where the database files are located for the application. For Windows 2003 Server this account has been renamed to: IIS_WPG.
To allow remote connection to this SQLExpress server, I then run the Surface Area Configuration Tool to allow remote connections via TCP/IP and Named Pipes and I set the SQLBrowser service to a running state with auto-start. The server is then re-started. The now infamous error occurs:
To allow remote connection to this SQLExpress server, I then run the Surface Area Configuration Tool to allow remote connections via TCP/IP and Named Pipes and I set the SQLBrowser service to a running state with auto-start. The server is then re-started. The now infamous error occurs:
Failed to generate a user instance of SQL Server due to failure in retrieving the user's local application data path. Please make sure the user has a local user profile on the computer. The connection will be closed.
The very same app can be XCopyed to another server where SQLExpress has been manually installed and where other ASP.NET web apps using attached DBF files are running merrily along, and it will work perfectly after granting ASPNET or IIS_WPG users write access to the app's data directory. Using local or remote access.
QUESTION? What is it with the default installation of SQLExpress 2005 when triggered via a Setup and Deployment project installer (MyApp.msi) and auto-downloaded from a Microsoft web site during installation of MyApp (ASP.NET 2.0 web application) that causes this.
This is a very bad thing if it is so hard for a web developer to distribute SQLEXpress with their applications and to get it running easily. The fact that the software is free pales against the backdrop of a support nightmare when a client just tries to get a simple web app up and running on a Microsoft IIS server. As a developer you have the intergrated SQL Server Developer Edition that just works, but when the rubber hits the road during deployment and the end user trys to install your "simple" web app and hits these roadblocks he/she justs gives up and moves onto another vendor's product.
Note to MS SQL Team: Distribute a product such as SQLExpress with the default settings set to allow the most reasonable security footprint for an intended audience. Default it to allow TCP/IP access for remote connections, and enable the SQLBrowser by default. Microsoft's focus on "security" goes way too far when the default installation of your products won't work out of the box without 3-4 days of searching the web for some arcane command settings. Do not ship a product such as this locked down for the FBI/CIA/Interpol/The Royal Canadian Mounted Police etc. They won't be shipping simple web applications that use it to small and medium sized businesses. They will however, use SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition and you can reasonably expect that they would have on their IT staff someone who knows how to "open up" the database from a security viewpoint. Your "free" product must work in a reliable, no-touch mode right from the box for the small developer to interested in shipping it with their software products. SQLExpress 2005 is an excellent product and a great step up from MSDE 2000, but when it doesn't work, it can bring a small development shop to its knees. I had a well-tested and running ASP.NET web application that used SQLExpress rejected by upload.com because when they went to verify that the application ran it was installed onto a clean machine and the .MSI installer triggered a download of .NET 2.0 Framework and SQLExpress. Developers such as myself look stupid trying to explain to an upload.com QA team that "the program really runs; honestly...", you just have to stand on one foot, touch your nose with your left hand, while learning to use the included Surface Area Configuration tool.
Assume little to no knowledge on the part of the end user installing an application, and configure your default settings of a low-end product from that perspective. The end user in a small business tring a demo web application should not have to worry about port numbers, surface area configuration tools, or any of that, they just want a product to work well.
By the way, don't get the impression that I am mad or otherwise frustrated from using this product...
That pretty much says it all... seems issues have not been addressed since Nov 2005... Do you have any tips regarding remote connections since you have dealth with many of the issues earlier...
Default Install of SQLExpress Does NOT Work Well
I have modified one of the ASP.NET 2.0 Starter Kits using and when deploying it to a new server it works great when installed to a server that I have manually installed SQLExpress 2005 first, but if I deploy to a clean server and configure my standard Setup and Deployment project to require .NET 2.0 Runtime and SQLExpress 2005 problems start. The setup program will detect no .NET Framework or SQLExpress 2005 installed and will download and install them from Microsoft as it should. The ASP.NET web app installs correctly. I then grant the ASPNET machine account WRITE access permissions to the web app's App_Data directory where the database files are located for the application. For Windows 2003 Server this account has been renamed to: IIS_WPG.
To allow remote connection to this SQLExpress server, I then run the Surface Area Configuration Tool to allow remote connections via TCP/IP and Named Pipes and I set the SQLBrowser service to a running state with auto-start. The server is then re-started. The now infamous error occurs:
To allow remote connection to this SQLExpress server, I then run the Surface Area Configuration Tool to allow remote connections via TCP/IP and Named Pipes and I set the SQLBrowser service to a running state with auto-start. The server is then re-started. The now infamous error occurs:
Failed to generate a user instance of SQL Server due to failure in retrieving the user's local application data path. Please make sure the user has a local user profile on the computer. The connection will be closed.
The very same app can be XCopyed to another server where SQLExpress has been manually installed and where other ASP.NET web apps using attached DBF files are running merrily along, and it will work perfectly after granting ASPNET or IIS_WPG users write access to the app's data directory. Using local or remote access.
QUESTION? What is it with the default installation of SQLExpress 2005 when triggered via a Setup and Deployment project installer (MyApp.msi) and auto-downloaded from a Microsoft web site during installation of MyApp (ASP.NET 2.0 web application) that causes this.
This is a very bad thing if it is so hard for a web developer to distribute SQLEXpress with their applications and to get it running easily. The fact that the software is free pales against the backdrop of a support nightmare when a client just tries to get a simple web app up and running on a Microsoft IIS server. As a developer you have the intergrated SQL Server Developer Edition that just works, but when the rubber hits the road during deployment and the end user trys to install your "simple" web app and hits these roadblocks he/she justs gives up and moves onto another vendor's product.
Note to MS SQL Team: Distribute a product such as SQLExpress with the default settings set to allow the most reasonable security footprint for an intended audience. Default it to allow TCP/IP access for remote connections, and enable the SQLBrowser by default. Microsoft's focus on "security" goes way too far when the default installation of your products won't work out of the box without 3-4 days of searching the web for some arcane command settings. Do not ship a product such as this locked down for the FBI/CIA/Interpol/The Royal Canadian Mounted Police etc. They won't be shipping simple web applications that use it to small and medium sized businesses. They will however, use SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition and you can reasonably expect that they would have on their IT staff someone who knows how to "open up" the database from a security viewpoint. Your "free" product must work in a reliable, no-touch mode right from the box for the small developer to interested in shipping it with their software products. SQLExpress 2005 is an excellent product and a great step up from MSDE 2000, but when it doesn't work, it can bring a small development shop to its knees. I had a well-tested and running ASP.NET web application that used SQLExpress rejected by upload.com because when they went to verify that the application ran it was installed onto a clean machine and the .MSI installer triggered a download of .NET 2.0 Framework and SQLExpress. Developers such as myself look stupid trying to explain to an upload.com QA team that "the program really runs; honestly...", you just have to stand on one foot, touch your nose with your left hand, while learning to use the included Surface Area Configuration tool.
Assume little to no knowledge on the part of the end user installing an application, and configure your default settings of a low-end product from that perspective. The end user in a small business tring a demo web application should not have to worry about port numbers, surface area configuration tools, or any of that, they just want a product to work well.
By the way, don't get the impression that I am mad or otherwise frustrated from using this product...
That pretty much says it all... seems issues have not been addressed since Nov 2005... Do you have any tips regarding remote connections since you have dealth with many of the issues earlier...
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Default base
Hi,
On first sqlserver install, what's the default base to test connect
with JDBC please ?
Is it "system" base with sa/master password ?
Thanks,
--
Jean-Luc M."Jean-Luc M." <alphomega@.free.fr> wrote in message
news:mn.5bb97d537c60e520.28556@.free.fr...
> Hi,
> On first sqlserver install, what's the default base to test connect with
> JDBC please ?
> Is it "system" base with sa/master password ?
> Thanks,
> --
> Jean-Luc M.
By default, you are 'in' the master database when you connect to MSSQL. If
you have just installed MSSQL, then you can either connect with the sa
account if you chose mixed mode authentication, or a Windows user in the
local administrators group is you chose Windows-only authentication. But I
guess if you're using JDBC, then you'll probably need to use the sa account.
Simon|||>
> By default, you are 'in' the master database when you connect to MSSQL. If
> you have just installed MSSQL, then you can either connect with the sa
> account if you chose mixed mode authentication, or a Windows user in the
> local administrators group is you chose Windows-only authentication. But I
> guess if you're using JDBC, then you'll probably need to use the sa account.
Thanks a lot !
--
Jean-Luc M.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Deciding which Database Server to install a new database
We have 3 Microsoft SQL 2000 servers. All of them have smiliar hardware configuration. I need to identify a database server to install a new database instance. I believe my decision should be based on available memory and processor workload at any given time. I need your help to identify the right server. Thank you.
Well, use perfmon to get a baseline from your servers and see how they are utilized. Make sure that you monitor a timespan which represents a common usage scenario. in addition make sure which licencse type your are using on the servers.
Jens K. Suessmeyer
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Debuggin in 2005
Can you debug on a local install in 2005?
NO, you must use Visual Studio 2005 w/SQL Server 2005 to obtain debugging capabilities for tsql, clr, SSIS, and others.
you should be able to use just the Business Intelligence Development Studio (comes with sql server 2005) to debug locally though w/o the full blown VS 2005 product. Select View/Server Explorer, connect to your local sql server, expand stored procs and select step into etc.
|||i doubt (never tried it) that the new advanced Express edition's BI studio has debugging but you could try it. If your not using Express your "golden" as you have BI studio allready. Regardless, you can navigate to the below link for http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx on the BI Studio and other features per edition of SQL Server 2005.|||did this help?Friday, February 17, 2012
Debugger does not work after install xp service pack 2
Urgent. can't debug while we could before the "upgarde". WE waited a year
waiting for Microsoft to get all the bugs out. Well, guess the bugs aren't
out yet.
Anyone know how to solve problem. Using Windows 2000 Server, XP Pro
workstations and sQl Server 2000 with svpk 3a.
I get this message:"Server: Msg 504, Level 16, State 1, Procedure
sp_sdidebug, Line 1
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Unable to connect to debugger
on FPFSPM49 (Error = 0x800706ba). Ensure that client-side components, such a
s
SQLDBREG.EXE, are installed and registered on EDW5840003M6Y. Debugging
disabled for connection 61.
"
I followed the instructions in Books online best as possible. However, "you
cannot register sqldbreg as they say to as it is not a dll or ocx"
It worked fine, before this install of xp sv pack 2.
--
Matthew MarkHi
There are many posts regarding this and there is a hotfix to it:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/839280
This will also be included in SQL Server Pack 4.
John
"matthewmark" <matthewmark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:64B85E46-5B86-4491-BCCD-6E9FA3A9F80C@.microsoft.com...
> Urgent. can't debug while we could before the "upgarde". WE waited a year
> waiting for Microsoft to get all the bugs out. Well, guess the bugs aren't
> out yet.
> Anyone know how to solve problem. Using Windows 2000 Server, XP Pro
> workstations and sQl Server 2000 with svpk 3a.
> I get this message:"Server: Msg 504, Level 16, State 1, Procedure
> sp_sdidebug, Line 1
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Unable to connect to
> debugger
> on FPFSPM49 (Error = 0x800706ba). Ensure that client-side components, such
> as
> SQLDBREG.EXE, are installed and registered on EDW5840003M6Y. Debugging
> disabled for connection 61.
> "
> I followed the instructions in Books online best as possible. However,
> "you
> cannot register sqldbreg as they say to as it is not a dll or ocx"
> It worked fine, before this install of xp sv pack 2.
> --
> Matthew Mark
waiting for Microsoft to get all the bugs out. Well, guess the bugs aren't
out yet.
Anyone know how to solve problem. Using Windows 2000 Server, XP Pro
workstations and sQl Server 2000 with svpk 3a.
I get this message:"Server: Msg 504, Level 16, State 1, Procedure
sp_sdidebug, Line 1
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Unable to connect to debugger
on FPFSPM49 (Error = 0x800706ba). Ensure that client-side components, such a
s
SQLDBREG.EXE, are installed and registered on EDW5840003M6Y. Debugging
disabled for connection 61.
"
I followed the instructions in Books online best as possible. However, "you
cannot register sqldbreg as they say to as it is not a dll or ocx"
It worked fine, before this install of xp sv pack 2.
--
Matthew MarkHi
There are many posts regarding this and there is a hotfix to it:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/839280
This will also be included in SQL Server Pack 4.
John
"matthewmark" <matthewmark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:64B85E46-5B86-4491-BCCD-6E9FA3A9F80C@.microsoft.com...
> Urgent. can't debug while we could before the "upgarde". WE waited a year
> waiting for Microsoft to get all the bugs out. Well, guess the bugs aren't
> out yet.
> Anyone know how to solve problem. Using Windows 2000 Server, XP Pro
> workstations and sQl Server 2000 with svpk 3a.
> I get this message:"Server: Msg 504, Level 16, State 1, Procedure
> sp_sdidebug, Line 1
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Unable to connect to
> debugger
> on FPFSPM49 (Error = 0x800706ba). Ensure that client-side components, such
> as
> SQLDBREG.EXE, are installed and registered on EDW5840003M6Y. Debugging
> disabled for connection 61.
> "
> I followed the instructions in Books online best as possible. However,
> "you
> cannot register sqldbreg as they say to as it is not a dll or ocx"
> It worked fine, before this install of xp sv pack 2.
> --
> Matthew Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)