Microsoft Sql Server 2005 Instance Wincc Professional V13

Hi Michael In a perfect world, yes, you could use any of a number of Open dbs to improve access and allow far more imaginative solutions. But in the real world, the reason this doesn't happen is that doing so would violate the (unspoken because they are illegal) exclusive licensing agreements with the monopoly. And since they are heavily invested and completely dependant on Microsoft technology, they have a high degree of exposure to retaliation in pricing or more subtle areas. This is why MS 'partners' seem to be all MS and nothing else. MS used to be quite blatant about exclusivity with their 'bare PC' pogroms and actual license language.

But that has been held to be illegal in many places so the language disappeared. But, no matter, since thay don't have to state why your pricing changed or you were put 'on allocation' for new products. It's just under the table now. I personally think this type of CRM is what will provoke the first industry break with MS.

But since it's all or nothing, the stakes are very high for entities with a large MS dependant installed base. It will have to be a company that is in a position where MS can't hurt them much more than they're hurting already.

If you have installed a version older than V13 of WinCC Runtime Professional, you need to uninstall the WinCC instance of SQL Server 2008 R2 or the WinCC instance of SQL Server 2005. Note By uninstalling WinCC Runtime Professional or WinCC Professional, you do not uninstall the instance of the SQL server.

These conditions aren't that far away for some companies that are not heavily diversified. Another way it might happen is with a corporation that is big enough where MS can't afford to screw with them much like what happened with WalMart and IBM. Linux has given a lot of companies leverage with MS as it is now at least plausible to do without MS products if they cut you off or offer untenable pricing. But it takes a lot of guts and a 'plan B' to stand up to MS once you're a part of the collective. Prison gangs are easier to get out of.

All the big players use SQL and don't try to tell me they don't, they just disguise the name with names like InSQL, RSSQL, so forth and so on. And please don't sit there and try to tell me that their licensing schemes aren't similar. With Siemens, you get SQL Server 2000 with WinCC.

With the others, you have to purchase as an option. You purchase it and you can access it. Since Siemens provides SQL with WinCC then it is only right that only WinCC or the options can access the database legally. Or you can simply purchase an inexpensive CAL to access. How hard is that. If you want to spend the money to hire a lawyer, you can, but its not necessary. Somehow it doesn't seem like a big plus to defend a vendor by saying they are all a major PITA.

What would be refreshing would be if one of them were licensed so you could do whatever you need or want to do. I don't see it as being at all unreasonable to expect that you can access _your_ data any way you want. Or at least any way that makes business sense to you. It strikes me as hilarious that these geniuses have hit on the only way to make using the same database a big negative rather than what could be a great feature for interoperability and integration.

Solidworks 2010 64 bit free download. Please consider upgrading to a more recent version of Internet Explorer, or trying another browser such as Firefox, Safari, or Google Chrome. Jive will not function with this version of Internet Explorer.

Especially when there is no shortage of Open database systems that would do as well or better. > All the big players use SQL and don't try to tell me they don't, they > just disguise the name with names like InSQL, RSSQL, so forth and so on. And please don't sit there and try to tell me that their licensing > schemes aren't similar. Or you can simply purchase an inexpensive CAL to > access. How hard is that. If you want to spend the money to hire a > lawyer, you can, but its not necessary. I certainly agree with the commentary.

While no SQL vendors strictly and exclusively adhere to the ANSI standard, they're all pretty close. The Microsoft SQL Server game is the one that many vendors play. For example Wonderware InSQL Server is a rebranded MS SQL Server. RSSQL is also intimately tied to SQL Server. The truth of the matter is it isn't difficult to provide more generalized SQL support - the queries are similar enough.

FactorySQL () proves that this isn't a big deal. It simply a matter of supporting open standards. Each database has an ODBC or JDBC driver. For FactorySQL it was simply a matter of creating XML definition files for supported databases. This is a simple, one time operation that tells the program what queries the database expects to create schemas, keys, etc.

The point is that these vendors could easily include support for many SQL databases, but they don't as a business decision - for the same reasons they obfuscate/encode the data when it's running on MS SQL server. I'm a huge fan of supporting open source databases such as MySQL and PostgreSQL for industrial applications. That last part of the post summarized it best, '.which ones (databases) are based on 'open' and independent standards, and which ones are third party proprietary features. Genuine open standards tend to be long lived while proprietary ones ebb and flow with the changing tides of business strategies.' The long lived standards are patently obvious - It's time these vendors supported them! ---- Nathan Boeger - naboeger@inductiveautomation.com 'Design Simplicity Cures Engineered Complexity'.