Mike,

You do seem sometimes to have this "if you're not doing it the way I say, you're doing it wrong" attitude. You talked about "data". Well, have you ever seen a situation where a local drive was slower than a network drive? I have. Have you ever thought about the fact that "data" is interpreted differently by different people? If you take the pros and cons of doing anything, you have to remember that people weight those pros and cons differently. So they may come to different ideas about what is the proper way to proceed. But what you want to tell me is that I'm only going "halfway". You look at it with your perspective and your ideas about the weighting and I look at it with mine. I'm glad you have some sort of loader. It makes sense, in general. The difference here is that you're telling me how wrong I am and how I'm only going halfway (again, based on your perspective and not mine). I'm telling you nothing of the sort. When you can quit looking down your nose at me over a issue as minor as this, then maybe I might give your comments more weight.

Russell


>>I see other issues with this technique and I've seen the programs load. It's not slow. Enough said.
>
>Such as what? They're not slow, but they're not as fast as they can be.
>
>Now it's enough said.
>
>>
>>>>Well, I've not had any complaints and with 100 and 1000 Mbps networks, bringing 4 MB or 10 MB into memory is not slow. It's mostly just a personal preference.
>>>
>>>Don't worry that you don't get complaints, try to get congratulations by making it faster.
>>>
>>>Funny how many things get put down to personal preference. It is measurable how slow it is. It is measurable how much network traffic is being caused. There is data supporting the practice.
>>>
>>>Every access of every form, report, PRG also causes network traffic - all of which would go away with the exes on the local machine. Since you're already using the loader why not go all the way?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Are you referring to a loader that checks the local copy against the network copy and brings down the network copy if it is newer, then starts the local copy?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, a quicker startup one of several potential advantages of doing that. When no updates are available to pull down, you're starting directly from the hard drive, which is faster than starting from the server. Certainly makes a difference on a network with alot of traffic, but I think even so on one that doesn't.