For those of you plannning on upgrading (and those are are just interested)  there are a couple of items to watch when you do an upgrade.
 
First things first.  Pervasive 10  is designed to work better with windows networking and caching, 64 bit OS's and Windows Vista.  Along with that,  thay have made changes in ODBC, and naming conventions and name and path lengths.  because of this you need to be very carefull when you upgrade.  I have already made most of the mistakes so I thought I'd pass them on.
 
1:  pre release 10 versions installed by default to C:\PVSW.  However,  10 installs to C:\PROGRAM FILES\PERVASIVE SOFTWARE\PSQL and C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\ALLUSERS\APPLICATION DATA\PERVASIVE SOFTWARE\PSQL  This will cuase problems on upgrades!
 
2: Pre release 10 versions had a propriatary ODBC interface.  Extended Features and functions were not supported through ODBC.  Version 10 is fully ASNI V2 ODBC.
 
3:  Version 10 nolonger supports Netware or DOS!  Only Windows and Linux.
 
Due to these changes  when you upgrade,  you need to do the following:
 
1:  Write down all DSNs used (Caps count!) on the server and workstations.  
2:  Delete all DSNs under ODBC.  There is a install bug that will want to point to the old dir for the DLLs and your install will lock or fail.
3:  In the registry under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\ODBC\ODBCINST.INI\  and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\ODBC\ODBC.INI\  Delete all the keys that reference Paervasive Client Interface and Pervasive Engine.  (this is part of the bug above!)
4:  Delete C:\PVSW and C:\PVSWARCH directories.
5:  Reboot
6: Install Pervasive 10 Server or Workstation and/or Client. (yes the above has to be done on the clients also!
7:  Enter PCC and recreate your Server DSN (Not the name(s) in step 1!  When creating the DSNs do not select Version 2!  If you do you will not be able to see tables or read data!  
8:  Verify Evo and any ODBC connections (Crystal Reports)
9:  Repeate steps 1-8 for all workstations and terminals.
 
Failure to follow these steps can result in corruption of DSNs, and failure to install Pervasive 10 with the with removeal of all previous versions!  If you do miss a step,  you will have to reinstall your previous version of Pervasive then follow the steps above.
 
Couple of great things about version 10:
 
1: Terminals have full use of PCC and monitor without changes to the registry!
2: Data can be compressed for higher throughput!
3: the path to .B files can be 128 characters long (was 20)!
4: The file names themselves can be 128 characters long (was 8.3)!
5: True 64 bit processesing without playing with the registry or memory!
6: Accelerated I/O (for systems that qualify) and data sets larger that 2 GB!
7:  ADO.NET 2.0 and Visual Studio 2005 support.
8: True ODBC compatability with OEM/ANSI conversion!
9:  Includes a backup app, Improved security, and a DDF builder.
 
Hope it helps,
 
 
Tim

Tim, I'm working the boss over trying to get him to let me upgrade from 2000i to ver 10.  Since you've been through a conversion, see if you can help me with something.  I currently use Access to publish some custom-written reports and I of course pull the data into Access through the ODBC interface.  I know that the System Data Source Name (DSN) must be explicitly named, and all of my reports depend on queries which are linked directly to the System DSN setup on each user's ODBC Administrator's Control Panel.  So, as part of the uninstall/re-install process, do you anticipate that I would be able to re-create the System DSN under PSQL 10 with the same naming scheme so that all of my Access queries & reports would function as before without any re-writing?  I want to try to avoid having to re-create all of the queries under a new System DSN name as this would take quite a bit of time (and frankly be a pain in the butt!)
 
Also, Lynn said that Pervasive has improved the ODBC performance over 2000i.  Any idea about how much performance (say 10%, 20%, etc.) we might hope to see if we upgraded to PSQL 10?  We have a 5-user license and our "server" is just an XP Pro machine, and Lynn expressed some doubt about us achieving much through-put improvements because we are so small.  Just wondered what you're opinion on this is.
 
Thanks!
Chris