Neil Allen
7/31/2002 12:15:00 PM
In article <egxQRQ$NCHA.624@cpmsftngxa06>, douglasl@online.microsoft.com
says...
>
> Neil,
>
> Glad to hear it. I simply searched downloads on "ODBC" and located it that
> way. Doesn't the Microsoft UK home page just point to the main US downloads
> site?
>
> -Doug
>
>
Dear Doug
What follows is in no way a complaint and I’m sure is of no interest to
anybody other than Microsoft (and I only assume Microsoft is interested
as it frequently solicits feedback).
I’m pretty sure that I didn’t use “ODBC” as the sole search criterion.
This is force of habit as it would probably produce a million+ results
in a Google search. So I probably used “ODBC” with “SQL_NO_DATA_FOUND”
(or some such variation).
Having publicly humiliated myself by failing to try the obvious (and in
the obvious absence of a “life”) I thought I’d revisit the download
site.
Previously I used what I perceived to be the “UK Site” (I.e. I selected
“English (Great Britain)” in the drop down list) as I’m in the UK and
thought it appropriate and might even result in a faster download.
Whether this is a different site or not I do not know – it just seemed
appropriate.
Anyway switching between the “US and UK sites” simply changes the URL
query string (?LangID=52&LangDIR=EN-GB or ?LangID=20&LangDIR=EN-US)
whether that ultimately changes the source of the download I do not
know.
On the “US site” the criterion “ODBC” did return the article (amongst
others). However, using the keyword criteria “ODBC SQL_NO_DATA_FOUND”
returned no results – even though the term “SQL_NO_DATA_FOUND” does
appear in the body of the page with the link that downloads the patch.
That’s not too clever.
On the “UK Site” the criterion “ODBC” returns no results.
In my humble opinion (obviously an opinion much diminished by my
ineptitude) this is not very, er, functional.
Regards
Neil Allen