Matt / Paul / Lars Perhaps in the .NET version of MapInfo there may be some changes - let us hope so. I think the current system for handling (lots of attribute) data sucks.
The real advantage I see in the Geodatabase concept is that (for those who need it - and many users aren't knowledgeable enough to know if they do or they don't) it imposes a well-designed data structure that is applicable to the particular geographic situation. There are lots of ready-made ones available, so even the database-agnostic amongst us can choose an off-the-shelf structure that makes good sense. For 'Enterprise' databases, we assume that whoever implemented the data stored there (I don't mean the manufacturer of the product - Oracle Corp etc, but the data-user) knew something about database design. At a 'lower' level - at least with MI 6.5 (I don't use anything more recent) - the handling of data is simple-minded if not na�ve. I refer to the fact that a nicely-designed set of related tables in (for example) a Microsoft Access database is of little use in MI because it can't cope with anything but a simple table. I know this doesn't help anyone and it's just an opinion. But I can still wish that in 2 or 3 versions time, MapInfo will start to do things right. Unfortunately, I've followed the wrong path for too long - perhaps I should throw away MI and reinvest in the ESRI product as I should have a decade ago! Ian Thomas -----Original Message----- From: Matt Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 19 March 2004 11:15 PM To: MapInfo-L ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Subject: MI-L Constructive thoughts: MI & ArcGIS Hello All, I use MI 7.5 and ArcView 8.3 - I have a question about MapInfo, based upon experience with ArcView 8.x: For those who know what I mean by the Personal Geodatabase concept in ArcGIS, is there any feasible way to store GIS data in a similarly 'neat' way in MapInfo? By this I mean to remove the need for 4 or 5 physical files per table (TAB, MAP, IND etc), but to store several (or many) tables in a single file. The reason I ask is the sheer number of files which can accumulate in a directory, and also the ability to transfer data to others in 'neat' packages. Any thoughts? Cheers, Matt __________________________________________________________ Matt Carlson Senior Transport Planner Arup 13 Fitzroy Street, London, W1T 4BQ, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7755 4114 Fax: +44 (0)20 7755 2451 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.arup.com <http://www.arup.com> http://www.arup.com/transportplanning/ <http://www.arup.com/transportplanning/> __________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses. --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message number: 10979
