1. RDBMS for DOS and Windows
- Posted by Arlie Codina <web.master at FLASHMAIL.COM>
Feb 23, 2000
-
Last edited Feb 24, 2000
Hi everybody,
I'm getting desperate. I've been looking for an RDBMS that would work with
Euphoria for both DOS and and Windows. Specially for DOS 'cause I still
have applications running on 386 machines written in clipper. I don't want
to continue supporting it using clipper 'cause it's dead. I'd like to use
Euphoria to upgrade it 'cause it's alive and kicking inspite of the
existince of it's Windows version unlike other languages.
I hope someone could point me somewhere.
Regards,
Arlie Codina
2. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
- Posted by Doug Patterson <drpatt at TOWEROFHOPE.ORG>
Feb 23, 2000
-
Last edited Feb 24, 2000
Here here!
I'm a newcomer to the language. I love the way Euphoria handles data, and
would love to use it for a manufacturing control program; it would make my
life much simpler. However, database access is essential for it. Random
access to text files will only take me so far (I don't know how far...any
guidelines?). My data files could end up with over 100,000 records of about
200 bytes each. I have seen comments that there isn't likely to be database
connectivity. Irv Mullins wrote the following a few days ago:
>Since it is relatively simple and fast to use Euphoria itself to handle
small
>amounts of data (whatever fits in memory) I suspect there isn't likely to
be
>much real effort to achieve database connectivity.
The problem is that handling moderate to LARGE amounts of data is a
fundamental requirement in business programming. Even QuickBASIC has
libraries available for xBase, as does PowerBASIC. My second choice is
PowerBASIC Console Compiler, but I like Euphoria better. (No, I can't write
my own database routines...that is many levels beyond my ability and
available time.) Is Euphoria intended to be a game programming language
only? What is the future vision? Thank you.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: Arlie Codina <web.master at FLASHMAIL.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 6:19 PM
Subject: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm getting desperate. I've been looking for an RDBMS that would work with
> Euphoria for both DOS and and Windows.
* snip *
3. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
- Posted by Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET>
Feb 23, 2000
-
Last edited Feb 24, 2000
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Patterson" <drpatt at TOWEROFHOPE.ORG>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> >Since it is relatively simple and fast to use Euphoria itself to handle
> small
> >amounts of data (whatever fits in memory) I suspect there isn't likely to
> be
> >much real effort to achieve database connectivity.
>
> The problem is that handling moderate to LARGE amounts of data is a
> fundamental requirement in business programming. Even QuickBASIC has
> libraries available for xBase, as does PowerBASIC. My second choice is
> PowerBASIC Console Compiler, but I like Euphoria better. (No, I can't
write
> my own database routines...that is many levels beyond my ability and
> available time.)
Like i said earlier, i am accessing a custom database of 50Meg, with random
access, random record length, random field lengths, human readable (altho it
need not be) with Eu.
>Is Euphoria intended to be a game programming language
> only?
I don't use it for any games.
Kat
4. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:51:57 -0600, Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET> wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Doug Patterson" <drpatt at TOWEROFHOPE.ORG>
>To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 10:33 PM
>Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
>
>> >Since it is relatively simple and fast to use Euphoria itself to handle
>> small
>> >amounts of data (whatever fits in memory) I suspect there isn't likely
to
>> be
>> >much real effort to achieve database connectivity.
>>
>> The problem is that handling moderate to LARGE amounts of data is a
>> fundamental requirement in business programming. Even QuickBASIC has
>> libraries available for xBase, as does PowerBASIC. My second choice is
>> PowerBASIC Console Compiler, but I like Euphoria better. (No, I can't
>write
>> my own database routines...that is many levels beyond my ability and
>> available time.)
>
>Like i said earlier, i am accessing a custom database of 50Meg, with random
>access, random record length, random field lengths, human readable (altho
it
>need not be) with Eu.
>
>>Is Euphoria intended to be a game programming language
>> only?
>
>I don't use it for any games.
>
>Kat
Well I realize that this doesn't help the DOS users out any, but Fabio
Ramirez has created an SQL wrapper that works really well. I just started
learning SQL last week, and I'm already writing data entry programs using
joined tables, primary and foreign indecies, and all that good stuff. It
really has a lot of promise for the WIN32/Linux platform. DOS
unfortunately is another story. I don't forsee anyone coming up with a
RDBMS library for DOS now or ever, simply due to the fact that the 16-bit
OS is going the way of the dinosaur. [Moment of silence].
Brian
5. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Jackson" <bjackson at 2FARGON.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
<snip>
> Well I realize that this doesn't help the DOS users out any, but Fabio
> Ramirez has created an SQL wrapper that works really well. I just started
> learning SQL last week, and I'm already writing data entry programs using
> joined tables, primary and foreign indecies, and all that good stuff. It
> really has a lot of promise for the WIN32/Linux platform. DOS
> unfortunately is another story. I don't forsee anyone coming up with a
> RDBMS library for DOS now or ever, simply due to the fact that the 16-bit
> OS is going the way of the dinosaur. [Moment of silence].
>
/me hangs her head in shame as she realises that she too is planning to
replace dos on the other puter soonish. Btw, i blame Eu for that, from what
little i have learned, it's the apps that cause windoze fits, and windoze is
usually responcible only for the screen-door security problems,, so if i
write the apps i use, or screen the store-bought apps rigorously, things
should be ok.... unless i can get a good reply to the following that
convinces me i am right about the 16bit comments below....
Something i never understood about 16bit OSs used on a 32bit cpu... since
the cpu fetches 32 bits, it has fetched two instructions at once, and so has
the next instruction already in the cpu's instruction decoder stream,, and
so it should zip thru instructions faster, yeas? Plus the 16 bits can still
use various methods to access 32/64bit memory locations and data locations,
the cpu and hardware is still 32+bit wide, so there isn't a performance hit
there. So why aren't the 16bit OSs being suggested for blazing speed on the
32/64bit cpu families? It seems to me that with the new 128bit paths to a
64bit core, a 16bit OS can execute 2x or more as fast as the code *made for*
those wider cpus, cause it will be capable of dragging 2+ complete operands
and data in one clock cycle. Right?
Kat,
curious as,
but puzzled still.
6. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kat wrote:
> "Brian Jackson" wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Well I realize that this doesn't help the DOS users out any, but Fabio
> > Ramirez has created an SQL wrapper that works really well. I just started
> > learning SQL last week, and I'm already writing data entry programs using
> > joined tables, primary and foreign indecies, and all that good stuff. It
> > really has a lot of promise for the WIN32/Linux platform. DOS
> > unfortunately is another story. I don't forsee anyone coming up with a
> > RDBMS library for DOS now or ever, simply due to the fact that the 16-bit
> > OS is going the way of the dinosaur. [Moment of silence].
It would seem that anyone who is comfortable using DOS for serious
database work would be ecstatic about Linux - same look and feel,
same speed, better stability, plus much better protection for the data, along
with mult-user capability. And Fabio's Eu SQL library can be modified to
call libmysqlclient.so with just a few minor changes.
> /me hangs her head in shame as she realises that she too is planning to
> replace dos on the other puter soonish. Btw, i blame Eu for that, from what
> little i have learned, it's the apps that cause windoze fits, and windoze is
> usually responcible only for the screen-door security problems,, so if i
> write the apps i use, or screen the store-bought apps rigorously, things
> should be ok....
That is true, in my experience, only if you count Explorer as an app.
My carelessly written Euphoria programs seldom cause a major crash -
however, Explorer has crashed so badly that the only way out was to pull
the power cord.
Regards,
Irv
7. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
In regards to all this RDBMS stuff, I have a few thoughts. Many
RDBMSs (e.g. postgresql) come with C libs that you can use to make C
programs that access the database. What's stopping you from calling these
routines? It's probably a lot saner than writing one's own.
8. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
>Arlie,
>
>I'm sad to say that there is no RDBMS for Euphoria that will work in both
>DOS and Windows mode. (Fabio has an AWESOME SQL library, but it requires
>Windows) I started the feeble beginnings of one a long time ago, but
>stopped due to a lack of support and an utter dread of having to write the
>logic to maintain BTreive and ISAM files in native Eu.
>
>There are some other options, depending on the type of setup you're dealing
>with. If you can give me some more information about the systems you've
>got, I'll be happy to help find another solution. I'd need to know what
>your minimum workstation configuration is, are they standalone or
>networked, type of network, etc.
>
>Let me know if you'd like a hand...
>
>Brian
Hi Brian,
My setup are as follows:
486DX2-66 with 8Mb RAM Running Novell 3.12 --- 500Mb SCSI Hard Disk
with 5 units of 386 with 4MB Ram as workstations
Running an accounting application (A/R, A/P, Invoicing, and etc.) I wrote
for a merchandising business with 250MB of transactions.
My problem is converting or porting the data to Euphoria data format if
there is such a format.
My client is quite satisfied with performance of the application since
1994. He is not interested in investing in new hardware.
Of course, I need all the help that I could get.
Regards,
Arlie
9. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
Excellent. That is the kind of info I need! Thank you. May I ask how long it
takes your program to find a particular record from that 50MB file in a
search? My application won't do much retrieval -- mostly just writing new
records, but occasionally I will need to retrieve.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
>
> Like i said earlier, i am accessing a custom database of 50Meg, with
random
> access, random record length, random field lengths, human readable (altho
it
> need not be) with Eu.
>
10. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
Hi,
I have a new email address please reply at eu at flashmail.com
Regards,
Arlie
11. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
>> Brian wrote
>Well I realize that this doesn't help the DOS users out any, but Fabio
>Ramirez has created an SQL wrapper that works really well. I just started
>learning SQL last week, and I'm already writing data entry programs using
>joined tables, primary and foreign indecies, and all that good stuff. It
>really has a lot of promise for the WIN32/Linux platform. DOS
>unfortunately is another story. I don't forsee anyone coming up with a
>RDBMS library for DOS now or ever, simply due to the fact that the 16-bit
>OS is going the way of the dinosaur. [Moment of silence].
Brian:
Why couldn't he run windows on a workstation with a window's
Novel network client. This would keep other Novell stuff working.
Then that workstation could access the SQL database or be used as
a SQL server to the dos workstation, If this worked he could eventually
move more all the workstations to windows.
Bernie
12. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:58:38 -0500, Bernie Ryan <LockCityData at CS.COM> wrote:
>
> Brian:
>
> Why couldn't he run windows on a workstation with a window's
> Novel network client. This would keep other Novell stuff working.
> Then that workstation could access the SQL database or be used as
> a SQL server to the dos workstation, If this worked he could eventually
> move more all the workstations to windows.
>
> Bernie
I suppose that running a Windows box as an SQL server might be an option,
but it's a pricey one. A copy of NT Workstation (absolute minimum for a
server) will be what, around $250?. It'll cost about $170 to license MySQL
for Windows. Then you've got programming time to figure out how to make
DOS workstations talk to a WinNT workstation using IPX. Only after that
can you design a database. Eeeew.
I hate to say it, but think that programming in C might be the way to go.
If you avoid all the C++ junk and just code in good old-fashioned Borland
Turbo-C v 5, it ought to be fairly easy to accomplish using the BTrieve
routines. It's not THAT big of a jump from Euphoria to C. I wish I had a
better suggestion, but short of upgrading the workstations to Windows or
converting the whole system over to Linux, I can't come up with anything
that will work with Eu.
Brian
13. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
<EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Poster: Bernie Ryan <LockCityData at CS.COM>
> Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Brian:
>
> Why couldn't he run windows on a workstation with a window's
> Novel network client. This would keep other Novell stuff working.
> Then that workstation could access the SQL database or be used as
> a SQL server to the dos workstation, If this worked he could eventually
> move more all the workstations to windows.
>
> Bernie
>
486... 386... Blah... Not a big deal as far as whether windows will
run or not.. But.. The memory constraints of 4-8Mb is a big issue here.
Win95 requires 8Mb of RAM in order to install.
Win98 requires 16Mb of RAM in order to install.
I have a 486 at 50Mhz with 8Mb with Win95 installed. I refuse to run it
because there simply isn't enough memory to support windows. Not to
mention trying to run a single application.
With max systems of 486's with 8Mb of RAM... He is simply stuck with DOS.
Only other alternatives are as follows:
Win 3.x with or without Workgroups
Linux
Windows 3.x - Networkable, Runs fine with those memory. Stuck with trying
to find 16bit software. Euphoria's Win32 will work to some extent assuming
you also install the Win32s package for Win 3.x.
I can't really speak on behalf of Linux because I simply don't know near
enough about it. I do know this.... Linux is generally much more secure
and stable. Linux is generally faster under these memory limitations.
If you ever get a company hooked on a graphical interface.. They won't
want to go back. The graphical is usually much easier to use and looks
more pleasant.
Lucius L. Hilley III
lhilley at cdc.net
+----------+--------------+--------------+
| Hollow | ICQ: 9638898 | AIM: LLHIII |
| Horse +--------------+--------------+
| Software | http://www.cdc.net/~lhilley |
+----------+-----------------------------+
14. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
<EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Poster: Brian Jackson <bjackson at 2FARGON.COM>
> Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
<SNIP>
> I hate to say it, but think that programming in C might be the way to go.
> If you avoid all the C++ junk and just code in good old-fashioned Borland
> Turbo-C v 5, it ought to be fairly easy to accomplish using the BTrieve
> routines. It's not THAT big of a jump from Euphoria to C. I wish I had a
> better suggestion, but short of upgrading the workstations to Windows or
> converting the whole system over to Linux, I can't come up with anything
> that will work with Eu.
>
> Brian
>
I have to agree here. I don't code in C but have looked over good old
fashion C and it isn't that hard... Again. Avoid all the really fancy
things like anything dealing with C++. Easiest way to avoid the C++ stuff
is to get a book about C. You know, without the ++ on the end of it.
The language is much smaller than the C++ version and shouldn't be that
hard to learn. Of course you will have to do your own garbage collection
and debugging will be more difficult because the errors generated usually
aren't near as helpful as with Euphoria. But the executable code could
be much tighter and run a little bit faster. Don't know about hooking
into the networking though. Plus you have to do some file share locking
tricks during any updates the database. Hmm... Starting to sound like a
full fledged project. :( ICK... Glad I'm not coding this. :)
Have fun.
Lucius L. Hilley III
lhilley at cdc.net
+----------+--------------+--------------+
| Hollow | ICQ: 9638898 | AIM: LLHIII |
| Horse +--------------+--------------+
| Software | http://www.cdc.net/~lhilley |
+----------+-----------------------------+
15. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> 486... 386... Blah... Not a big deal as far as whether windows will
>run or not.. But.. The memory constraints of 4-8Mb is a big issue here.
>Win95 requires 8Mb of RAM in order to install.
>Win98 requires 16Mb of RAM in order to install.
>I have a 486 at 50Mhz with 8Mb with Win95 installed. I refuse to run it
>because there simply isn't enough memory to support windows. Not to
>mention trying to run a single application.
>
>With max systems of 486's with 8Mb of RAM... He is simply stuck with DOS.
>Only other alternatives are as follows:
>
>Win 3.x with or without Workgroups
>Linux
>
>Windows 3.x - Networkable, Runs fine with those memory. Stuck with trying
>to find 16bit software. Euphoria's Win32 will work to some extent assuming
>you also install the Win32s package for Win 3.x.
>
>I can't really speak on behalf of Linux because I simply don't know near
>enough about it. I do know this.... Linux is generally much more secure
>and stable. Linux is generally faster under these memory limitations.
>
And the total cost to convert the entire plant to Linux is labor! (OK $70
bucks if you want a nice boxed copy to sit on your shelf and look cool).
Then you can run SQL for free, no more IPX headaches, TONS of free
software... I am a Certified Netware Engineer BUT - I have never run into a
situation where Netware is better than Linux as a total solution (well,
maybe if you're a die hard GroupWare user). But I digress...
>If you ever get a company hooked on a graphical interface.. They won't
>want to go back. The graphical is usually much easier to use and looks
>more pleasant.
My GUI of choice for Linux is KDE. I can't confirm it, but I believe that
KDE will run even on the 386 (not sure about the memory requirements
though). It comes with Netscape, so they could even surf the web on their
old 386's.
The drawback to Linux is that it's a pain to set up. Once you've got it
working though, it just runs. My Linux uptime record is 513 days, and we
only downed it to upgrade to a new kernel.
Brian
16. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
--=====================_266209781==_.ALT
Being a network consultant I think I know the kind of "client" he is dealing
with... the type that makes me want to run far, far away... screaming!!!!
Look at the platforms he is running.... It is a wonder they keep proper time
(y2k bugs! splat!)...
The problem is that his client does not care enough about his business, his
employee's time or his money. He has a network that is in total work about $125
for everything including the 8mb boat anchor.
What brand of SQL were you going to recommend he put on the server or
workstation? His client does not have a machine that can run SQL unless he
drops more memory in the server and puts Linux on it... With the kind of client
(dunderhead) he's got it is not likely to happen.
Sorry if I sound a bit irate but I've learned the hard way that playing patty
fingers with clients like this guarantees migraines and ulcers. He needs to
give his client an education or he needs to get a different client.
At 08:58 AM 02/24/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>>> Brian wrote
>>Well I realize that this doesn't help the DOS users out any, but Fabio
>>Ramirez has created an SQL wrapper that works really well. I just started
>>learning SQL last week, and I'm already writing data entry programs using
>>joined tables, primary and foreign indecies, and all that good stuff. It
>>really has a lot of promise for the WIN32/Linux platform. DOS
>>unfortunately is another story. I don't forsee anyone coming up with a
>>RDBMS library for DOS now or ever, simply due to the fact that the 16-bit
>>OS is going the way of the dinosaur. [Moment of silence].
>
> Brian:
>
> Why couldn't he run windows on a workstation with a window's
> Novel network client. This would keep other Novell stuff working.
> Then that workstation could access the SQL database or be used as
> a SQL server to the dos workstation, If this worked he could eventually
> move more all the workstations to windows.
>
> Bernie
Joel H. Crook
Manager, Information Services
Certified Novell Administrator
Microsoft Certified Professional, OS Specialist
Kellogg & Andelson Accountancy Corp.
14724 Ventura Blvd. 2nd Floor
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
(818) 971-5100
--=====================_266209781==_.ALT
<html><div>Being a network consultant I think I know the kind of
"client" he is dealing with... the type that makes me want to
run far, far away... screaming!!!!</div>
<br>
<div>Look at the platforms he is running.... It is a wonder they keep
proper time (y2k bugs! splat!)... </div>
<br>
<div>The problem is that his client does not care enough about his
business, his employee's time or his money. He has a network that is in
total work about $125 for everything including the 8mb boat anchor.
</div>
<br>
<div>What brand of SQL were you going to recommend he put on the server
or workstation? His client does not have a machine that can run SQL
unless he drops more memory in the server and puts Linux on it... With
the kind of client (dunderhead) he's got it is not likely to
happen.</div>
<br>
<div>Sorry if I sound a bit irate but I've learned the hard way that
playing patty fingers with clients like this guarantees migraines
and ulcers. He needs to give his client an education or he needs to get a
different client. </div>
<br>
<br>
<div>At 08:58 AM 02/24/2000 -0500, you wrote:</div>
<div>>>> Brian wrote</div>
<div>>>Well I realize that this doesn't help the DOS users out any,
but Fabio</div>
<div>>>Ramirez has created an SQL wrapper that works really
well. I just started</div>
<div>>>learning SQL last week, and I'm already writing data entry
programs using</div>
<div>>>joined tables, primary and foreign indecies, and all that
good stuff. It</div>
<div>>>really has a lot of promise for the WIN32/Linux
platform. DOS</div>
<div>>>unfortunately is another story. I don't forsee anyone
coming up with a</div>
<div>>>RDBMS library for DOS now or ever, simply due to the fact
that the 16-bit</div>
<div>>>OS is going the way of the dinosaur. [Moment of
silence].</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Brian:</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Why couldn't he run windows on a workstation with a
window's</div>
<div>> Novel network client. This would keep other Novell stuff
working.</div>
<div>> Then that workstation could access the SQL database or be
used as</div>
<div>> a SQL server to the dos workstation, If this worked he
could eventually</div>
<div>> move more all the workstations to windows.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> Bernie</div>
<br>
Joel H. Crook<br>
<br>
Manager, Information Services<br>
<font size=1>Certified Novell Administrator<br>
Microsoft Certified Professional, OS Specialist<br>
<br>
</font><b>Kellogg & Andelson Accountancy Corp.<br>
</b><font size=1>14724 Ventura Blvd. 2nd Floor<br>
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403<br>
(818) 971-5100<br>
</font></html>
--=====================_266209781==_.ALT--
17. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
SHAME ON YOU! :)
Here wew are in a Euphoria mailing list and you are reccommending someone
use _C_?!?!
May your E key never work again!
Nick
:)
<snip>
> I have to agree here. I don't code in C but have looked over good old
> fashion C and it isn't that hard... Again. Avoid all the really fancy
> things like anything dealing with C++. Easiest way to avoid the C++ stuff
> is to get a book about C. You know, without the ++ on the end of it.
> The language is much smaller than the C++ version and shouldn't be that
> hard to learn. Of course you will have to do your own garbage collection
> and debugging will be more difficult because the errors generated usually
> aren't near as helpful as with Euphoria. But the executable code could
> be much tighter and run a little bit faster. Don't know about hooking
> into the networking though. Plus you have to do some file share locking
> tricks during any updates the database. Hmm... Starting to sound like a
> full fledged project. :( ICK... Glad I'm not coding this. :)
<snip>
18. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:11:10 -0800, Joel Crook <joel at MAIL.K-A.COM> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>What brand of SQL were you going to recommend he put on the server or
>workstation? His client does not have a machine that can run SQL unless he
>drops more memory in the server and puts Linux on it... With the kind of
>client (dunderhead) he's got it is not likely to happen.
>
</SNIP>
I would recommend MySQL since that's what the Eu interface is written for.
The 486 server will run Linux/MySQL faster and better than it will NW3.12.
He could also run one of the legacy SQL products for NW3.x.
I suppose this is what I would do if this were my client, and I had to
maintain it, in the order of preference.
1) Don't do anything. If it's not broken, and you can support it when it
does break down, leave it be. Cost: $0 up front, probably a lot in
labor down the road.
2) Convince the client of the need to upgrade the network. Buy 5 low end
Celeron machines from Dell w/Windows 98, and get a low-end poweredge
server for free (if the offer is still available). Install NW3.12 on the
new server, or get really wild and install NW4.11 (cheap and it supports
NDS). Estimated equipment/software/labor cost: $5,300 - $9,800.
3) Convert the whole network to Linux. Buy the $80 pro version. Hire
someone to spend a day doing install and config. Estimated cost of
labor/equipment: $3,000 - $4,000.
4) Rewrite code in C. Cost: unknown, depends on amount of code to convert.
Brian
19. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
On Thu, 24 Feb Joel Crook wrote:
> >%_
> Being a network consultant I think I know the kind of "client" he is dealing
> with... the type that makes me want to run far, far away... screaming!!!!
>
> Look at the platforms he is running.... It is a wonder they keep proper time
> (y2k bugs! splat!)...
>
> The problem is that his client does not care enough about his business, his
> employee's time or his money. He has a network that is in total work about
> $125
> for everything including the 8mb boat anchor.
>
> What brand of SQL were you going to recommend he put on the server or
> workstation? His client does not have a machine that can run SQL unless he
> drops more memory in the server and puts Linux on it... With the kind of
> client
> (dunderhead) he's got it is not likely to happen.
>
> Sorry if I sound a bit irate but I've learned the hard way that playing patty
> fingers with clients like this guarantees migraines and ulcers. He needs to
> give his client an education or he needs to get a different client.
Well said, sir.
With 32meg Pentium boxes going for $200~$300, this client is foolish _not_ to
begin the upgrade process, if only to avoid the inevitable day when these old
DOS boxes just give up, and he finds that replacement parts can only be found in
museums.
Add to that the increased speed and capacity he would be buying (he does want
his business to grow, doesn't he? Or she, ATCMB)
I've run into this type of client before. It's important to make it clear right
up front that while he/she may know their own business better than anyone,
they probably don't know computers as well as you do. If they did, then
why are they willing to pay you? I haven't yet lost a client by pointing this
out (tactfully).
Another approach might be to point out that, considering the difficulty of
crafting a solution that will work on their limited hardware, you will have to
increase your fees to cover the extra time required.
Regards,
Irv
20. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Brian Jackson wrote:
> >I can't really speak on behalf of Linux because I simply don't know near
> >enough about it. I do know this.... Linux is generally much more secure
> >and stable. Linux is generally faster under these memory limitations.
erm.. 8 mb is right at the lower limit for anything that will function.
If you're going to hang 5 client terminals onto this, it's not going to
be usable.
> And the total cost to convert the entire plant to Linux is labor! (OK $70
> bucks if you want a nice boxed copy to sit on your shelf and look cool).
> Then you can run SQL for free, no more IPX headaches, TONS of free
> software... I am a Certified Netware Engineer BUT - I have never run into a
> situation where Netware is better than Linux as a total solution (well,
> maybe if you're a die hard GroupWare user). But I digress...
> >If you ever get a company hooked on a graphical interface.. They won't
> >want to go back. The graphical is usually much easier to use and looks
> >more pleasant.
Generally speaking, yes. A GUI also makes it much easier to train new
employees on your software, and less likely they'll screw up royally as
they flounder around. Employees who are accustomed to the old dos
program will gripe loudly, for a week or two. After that, you won't be
able to get them to go back.
> My GUI of choice for Linux is KDE. I can't confirm it, but I believe that
> KDE will run even on the 386 (not sure about the memory requirements
> though). It comes with Netscape, so they could even surf the web on their
> old 386's.
A 386 is not recommended for any GUI work. Save them for printservers, they
can still outrun most printers.
Netscape is big and slow even on a 300 mhz Pentium, but KDE has its own built
in web browser as part of the file manager (KFM) which is fast and lightweight.
> The drawback to Linux is that it's a pain to set up. Once you've got it
> working though, it just runs. My Linux uptime record is 513 days, and we
> only downed it to upgrade to a new kernel.
True, but not as painful as it once was. The latest versions of
SuSE, for example, feature a total GUI, click and go installation. The same is
true for Caldera, Storm, and a couple of others. SuSE is available for about
$21 at Microcenters, so it's not going to hurt much to give it a try. SuSE also
comes with a nice book that covers a lot of technical questions, and they offer
support contracts.
Regards,
Irv
21. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Nick Johnson wrote:
> SHAME ON YOU! :)
> Here wew are in a Euphoria mailing list and you are reccommending someone
> use _C_?!?!
> May your E key never work again!
>
> Nick
> :)
There are libs for C to do all of this stuff. There are none for
Euphoria. Everyone's too lazy (myself included) to write one themselves.
What do you recommend?
22. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
About 0.1 second maximum per record, including munging time, in win95. And
that's without any lookup/index tables too. Eu is fast. I have record tags
and field tags, and i search the appropriate file till the record is
located, then load into a sequence until the next record tag. Then i parse
what was loaded into the sequence for the field(s) i wanted. Despite being
basic brute-force, it's faster than you'd expect, but times will vars some,
depending on what windoze is doing. As an example, doing a lookup that
requires fetching 5 records, munging them, and sending the data back thru
winsocks for display in another app took 0.41 seconds.
Kat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Patterson" <drpatt at TOWEROFHOPE.ORG>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> Excellent. That is the kind of info I need! Thank you. May I ask how long
it
> takes your program to find a particular record from that 50MB file in a
> search? My application won't do much retrieval -- mostly just writing new
> records, but occasionally I will need to retrieve.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET>
> To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 11:51 PM
> Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
>
>
> >
> > Like i said earlier, i am accessing a custom database of 50Meg, with
> random
> > access, random record length, random field lengths, human readable
(altho
> it
> > need not be) with Eu.
> >
>
23. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
--=====================_276185076==_.ALT
At 12:13 PM 02/24/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:11:10 -0800, Joel Crook <joel at MAIL.K-A.COM> wrote:
>
>I would recommend MySQL since that's what the Eu interface is written for.
>The 486 server will run Linux/MySQL faster and better than it will NW3.12.
>He could also run one of the legacy SQL products for NW3.x.
Problem is finding "legacy" apps... Though he might try the local thrift
stores...
>I suppose this is what I would do if this were my client, and I had to
>maintain it, in the order of preference.
>
>1) Don't do anything. If it's not broken, and you can support it when it
> does break down, leave it be. Cost: $0 up front, probably a lot in
> labor down the road.
And a lot now... as what he has is labor intensive.
>2) Convince the client of the need to upgrade the network. Buy 5 low end
> Celeron machines from Dell w/Windows 98, and get a low-end poweredge
> server for free (if the offer is still available). Install NW3.12 on the
> new server, or get really wild and install NW4.11 (cheap and it supports
> NDS). Estimated equipment/software/labor cost: $5,300 - $9,800.
Most clients of this type don't "get it." They have an old machine and are
willing to pay $100+ an hour to fix it. Say you give a "value" of $200 to
desktop system then call in an expert to fix it. Say swap a mother board, Add
new memory, a new hard drive and a new OS and apps. Five hours hours time
minimum plus parts. Suddenly its a $1000 dollar system. now multiply that times
five--- that's $4000 --- as noted in another post that will get you into a few
new machines. If the client were smart he'd buy new equipment and make it a
whole lot easier to maintain.
The "life time" of a desktop machine is about 36 months and a server is 18
months without having to put additional money into the machines. That's from
practical experience in a "small" business of about 80 users and 4 Novell
servers.
Buy Dells or Gateways with extended 3 year warranties and that extra little
charge will save the client and you headaches in the long run. Sure its a pain
if something breaks BUT somebody else is going to have to fix it.
>3) Convert the whole network to Linux. Buy the $80 pro version. Hire
> someone to spend a day doing install and config. Estimated cost of
> labor/equipment: $3,000 - $4,000.
The only downside of the linux equation is the "Cost" of learning the
environment and learning the limitations (which as with any OS there are a
few). And the last time I looked (RedHat 5.2) it was not quite ready for prime
time on end user's desktops.
But you can't beat it for rock hard stability which cannot be said of ANY
variety of MS Windows. About the only thing that might beat it is the BSD unix
release (and only because of the security built into BSD).
NetWare 4.2 is a good environment if you don't need the 'Net. And it is MUCH
more secure than Windows has even DREAMED of being. Initial cost is higher than
Windows but has the advantage that it won't crash very often and the memory
leaks which cause WinNT to choke are not part of its undocumented features.
>4) Rewrite code in C. Cost: unknown, depends on amount of code to convert.
>Brian
But figure its going to be a lot because you'll have to charge what the project
is really going to cost unless you REALLY have your heart set on going broke...
Okay that's my two cents... or pence as the case may be...
Joel H. Crook
Manager, Information Services
Certified Novell Administrator
Microsoft Certified Professional, OS Specialist
Kellogg & Andelson Accountancy Corp.
14724 Ventura Blvd. 2nd Floor
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
(818) 971-5100
--=====================_276185076==_.ALT
<html><div>At 12:13 PM 02/24/2000 -0500, you wrote:</div>
<div>>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:11:10 -0800, Joel Crook
<joel at MAIL.K-A.COM> wrote:</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>I would recommend MySQL since that's what the Eu interface is
written for.</div>
<div>>The 486 server will run Linux/MySQL faster and better than it
will NW3.12.</div>
<div>>He could also run one of the legacy SQL products for
NW3.x.</div>
<br>
<div>Problem is finding "legacy" apps... Though he might try
the local thrift stores...</div>
<br>
<div>>I suppose this is what I would do if this were my client, and I
had to</div>
<div>>maintain it, in the order of preference.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>1) Don't do anything. If it's not broken, and you can
support it when it</div>
<div>> does break down, leave it be. Cost: $0 up
front, probably a lot in</div>
<div>> labor down the road.</div>
<br>
<div>And a lot now... as what he has is labor intensive.</div>
<br>
<div>>2) Convince the client of the need to upgrade the network.
Buy 5 low end</div>
<div>> Celeron machines from Dell w/Windows 98, and get a
low-end poweredge</div>
<div>> server for free (if the offer is still
available). Install NW3.12 on the</div>
<div>> new server, or get really wild and install NW4.11
(cheap and it supports</div>
<div>> NDS). Estimated equipment/software/labor
cost: $5,300 - $9,800.</div>
<br>
<div>Most clients of this type don't "get it." They have
an old machine and are willing to pay $100+ an hour to fix it. Say you
give a "value" of $200 to desktop system then call in an expert
to fix it. Say swap a mother board, Add new memory, a new hard drive and
a new OS and apps. Five hours hours time minimum plus parts. Suddenly its
a $1000 dollar system. now multiply that times five--- that's $4000 ---
as noted in another post that will get you into a few new machines. If
the client were smart he'd buy new equipment and make it a whole lot
easier to maintain. </div>
<br>
<div>The "life time" of a desktop machine is about 36 months
and a server is 18 months without having to put additional money into the
machines. That's from practical experience in a "small"
business of about 80 users and 4 Novell servers. </div>
<br>
<div>Buy Dells or Gateways with extended 3 year warranties and that extra
little charge will save the client and you headaches in the long run.
Sure its a pain if something breaks BUT somebody else is going to have to
fix it.</div>
<br>
<div>>3) Convert the whole network to Linux. Buy the $80 pro
version. Hire</div>
<div>> someone to spend a day doing install and
config. Estimated cost of</div>
<div>> labor/equipment: $3,000 - $4,000.</div>
<br>
<div>The only downside of the linux equation is the "Cost" of
learning the environment and learning the limitations (which as with any
OS there are a few). And the last time I looked (RedHat 5.2) it was not
quite ready for prime time on end user's desktops. </div>
<br>
<div>But you can't beat it for rock hard stability which cannot be said
of ANY variety of MS Windows. About the only thing that might beat it is
the BSD unix release (and only because of the security built into BSD).
</div>
<br>
<div>NetWare 4.2 is a good environment if you don't need the 'Net. And it
is MUCH more secure than Windows has even DREAMED of being. Initial cost
is higher than Windows but has the advantage that it won't crash very
often and the memory leaks which cause WinNT to choke are not part of its
undocumented features.</div>
<br>
<div>>4) Rewrite code in C. Cost: unknown, depends on amount of
code to convert.</div>
<div>>Brian</div>
<br>
<div>But figure its going to be a lot because you'll have to charge what
the project is really going to cost unless you REALLY have your heart set
on going broke... </div>
<br>
<div>Okay that's my two cents... or pence as the case may be... </div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Joel H. Crook<br>
<br>
Manager, Information Services<br>
<font size=1>Certified Novell Administrator<br>
Microsoft Certified Professional, OS Specialist<br>
<br>
</font><b>Kellogg & Andelson Accountancy Corp.<br>
</b><font size=1>14724 Ventura Blvd. 2nd Floor<br>
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403<br>
(818) 971-5100<br>
</font></html>
--=====================_276185076==_.ALT--
24. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucius L. Hilley III" <lhilley at CDC.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> 486... 386... Blah... Not a big deal as far as whether windows will
> run or not.. But.. The memory constraints of 4-8Mb is a big issue here.
> Win95 requires 8Mb of RAM in order to install.
> Win98 requires 16Mb of RAM in order to install.
> I have a 486 at 50Mhz with 8Mb with Win95 installed. I refuse to run it
> because there simply isn't enough memory to support windows. Not to
> mention trying to run a single application.
Heh, my K6-2-266 is running windoze, and i thought 32meg would be enough
when i built it, boy was i a fool. It's not as bad as the 586-133 with
12meg, which took minutes to draw a window sometimes, but there could still
be seconds after a click before anything happened. Win95 doesn't even become
heavily useable till you get to 64Meg, and if you don't like lots of memory
swaps to the harddrive, you'd better get 96Meg or more.
> With max systems of 486's with 8Mb of RAM... He is simply stuck with DOS.
> Only other alternatives are as follows:
You could look at Win3.11 (on MSdos) or DRdos, both have GUI, both can be
TCP/IP'd. Don't ask me *how*, for i don't know.
Kat
25. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
Joel, some people do not have money, and cannot get it. Period.
Rather than belittling him and his equipment, could you offer a networked
way to get more performance out of what little he has, by spreading the job
around some?
Kat,
thinking maybe spreading the DB out and telling all the puters to help
search it *might* help some. Not counting an indexing scheme...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Crook" <joel at MAIL.K-A.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
>
> Being a network consultant I think I know the kind of "client" he is
dealing
> with... the type that makes me want to run far, far away... screaming!!!!
>
> Look at the platforms he is running.... It is a wonder they keep proper
time
> (y2k bugs! splat!)...
>
> The problem is that his client does not care enough about his business,
his
> employee's time or his money. He has a network that is in total work about
$125
> for everything including the 8mb boat anchor.
>
> What brand of SQL were you going to recommend he put on the server or
> workstation? His client does not have a machine that can run SQL unless he
> drops more memory in the server and puts Linux on it... With the kind of
client
> (dunderhead) he's got it is not likely to happen.
>
> Sorry if I sound a bit irate but I've learned the hard way that playing
patty
> fingers with clients like this guarantees migraines and ulcers. He needs
to
> give his client an education or he needs to get a different client.
>
>
> At 08:58 AM 02/24/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >>> Brian wrote
> >>Well I realize that this doesn't help the DOS users out any, but Fabio
> >>Ramirez has created an SQL wrapper that works really well. I just
started
> >>learning SQL last week, and I'm already writing data entry programs
using
> >>joined tables, primary and foreign indecies, and all that good stuff.
It
> >>really has a lot of promise for the WIN32/Linux platform. DOS
> >>unfortunately is another story. I don't forsee anyone coming up with a
> >>RDBMS library for DOS now or ever, simply due to the fact that the
16-bit
> >>OS is going the way of the dinosaur. [Moment of silence].
> >
> > Brian:
> >
> > Why couldn't he run windows on a workstation with a window's
> > Novel network client. This would keep other Novell stuff working.
> > Then that workstation could access the SQL database or be used as
> > a SQL server to the dos workstation, If this worked he could eventually
> > move more all the workstations to windows.
> >
> > Bernie
>
> Joel H. Crook
>
> Manager, Information Services
> Certified Novell Administrator
> Microsoft Certified Professional, OS Specialist
>
> Kellogg & Andelson Accountancy Corp.
> 14724 Ventura Blvd. 2nd Floor
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> (818) 971-5100
>
26. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
----- Original Message -----
From: "Irv Mullins" <irv at ELLIJAY.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
<snip>
> Well said, sir.
> With 32meg Pentium boxes going for $200~$300, this client is foolish _not_
to
>
And if he doesn't have a $30K job in the USA, but instead is in Bolivia
making $1K per year?
Kat
27. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
----- Original Message -----
From: "Irv Mullins" <irv at ELLIJAY.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Brian Jackson wrote:
>
> > >I can't really speak on behalf of Linux because I simply don't know
near
> > >enough about it. I do know this.... Linux is generally much more
secure
> > >and stable. Linux is generally faster under these memory limitations.
>
> erm.. 8 mb is right at the lower limit for anything that will function.
> If you're going to hang 5 client terminals onto this, it's not going to
> be usable.
>
> > And the total cost to convert the entire plant to Linux is labor! (OK
$70
> > bucks if you want a nice boxed copy to sit on your shelf and look cool).
> > Then you can run SQL for free, no more IPX headaches, TONS of free
> > software... I am a Certified Netware Engineer BUT - I have never run
into a
> > situation where Netware is better than Linux as a total solution (well,
> > maybe if you're a die hard GroupWare user). But I digress...
>
> > >If you ever get a company hooked on a graphical interface.. They won't
> > >want to go back. The graphical is usually much easier to use and looks
> > >more pleasant.
>
> Generally speaking, yes. A GUI also makes it much easier to train new
> employees on your software, and less likely they'll screw up royally as
> they flounder around. Employees who are accustomed to the old dos
> program will gripe loudly, for a week or two. After that, you won't be
> able to get them to go back.
>
> > My GUI of choice for Linux is KDE. I can't confirm it, but I believe
that
> > KDE will run even on the 386 (not sure about the memory requirements
> > though). It comes with Netscape, so they could even surf the web on
their
> > old 386's.
>
> A 386 is not recommended for any GUI work. Save them for printservers,
they
> can still outrun most printers.
I don't believe the hardware bashing going on here! I had my C64 with 32K of
free ram popping up moveable windows, and overlaying them, faster than my
586-133 with 8Meg did on win95. The problem is NOT the hardware or the
instruction length, it's the OS. Granted the C64 would be terrible at DB
manipulation of any significant size, but it would not have to spend all the
time doing interfacing to a prebuilt server, or being subject to the whims
of time allocation of the timeslice multitasking OS. Anyone here remember
the days when we picked opcodes based on speed of execution and size, not
just the task? That's what this guy needs, optimized code. I think Eu is up
to the job with a simple custom database, prolly the one he already has. And
for speed, lose the new OSs, go back to DOS, you can GUI in dos when you
need to, and your app has the cpu and the rest of the box all to itself, no
interruptions by the OS saying "you can't go there!". With a fast enough
hardrive, you can prolly access and use my 50Meg DB with the 386, dos,
Euphoria, and 640K of ram. Seriously, if you code it right, the speed of the
harddrive on the database access box is the most important thing,, those
500Meg hardrives are amazingly slow compared to the newer drives. I have a
several drives on the other puter about that size, and i can go fix dinner
while they are being accessed,, and it's a K6-2-300. If you want to run this
net of 386 boxes fast, make the server dos for speed, drop in a new mode4
harddrive,,, and and either put the pretty GUIs in win3.11 on the user
boxes, or write your own GUI with one of the programming languages written
for dos.
Kat,
in my opinion.
28. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
Kat:
Joel may have been a little rough, but he had a very valid point. At a certain
point in time maintaining an old system becomes more expensive then upgrading to
a new system. Either way whether or not the client upgrades it will cost them
money. It would seem to me that spending the money to upgrade now would be far
more cost effective then constantly throwing money at a problem that will
eventually force them to upgrade.
Bret Belgarde
Network Administrator
Seattle Crab Co./Skippers Inc.
--He who laughs last, didn't get the joke--
Kat wrote:
> Joel, some people do not have money, and cannot get it. Period.
>
> Rather than belittling him and his equipment, could you offer a networked
> way to get more performance out of what little he has, by spreading the job
> around some?
>
> Kat,
> thinking maybe spreading the DB out and telling all the puters to help
> search it *might* help some. Not counting an indexing scheme...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joel Crook" <joel at MAIL.K-A.COM>
> To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 11:11 AM
> Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
>
> >
> > Being a network consultant I think I know the kind of "client" he is
> dealing
> > with... the type that makes me want to run far, far away... screaming!!!!
> >
> > Look at the platforms he is running.... It is a wonder they keep proper
> time
> > (y2k bugs! splat!)...
> >
> > The problem is that his client does not care enough about his business,
> his
> > employee's time or his money. He has a network that is in total work about
> $125
> > for everything including the 8mb boat anchor.
> >
> > What brand of SQL were you going to recommend he put on the server or
> > workstation? His client does not have a machine that can run SQL unless he
> > drops more memory in the server and puts Linux on it... With the kind of
> client
> > (dunderhead) he's got it is not likely to happen.
> >
> > Sorry if I sound a bit irate but I've learned the hard way that playing
> patty
> > fingers with clients like this guarantees migraines and ulcers. He needs
> to
> > give his client an education or he needs to get a different client.
> >
> >
> > At 08:58 AM 02/24/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> > >>> Brian wrote
> > >>Well I realize that this doesn't help the DOS users out any, but Fabio
> > >>Ramirez has created an SQL wrapper that works really well. I just
> started
> > >>learning SQL last week, and I'm already writing data entry programs
> using
> > >>joined tables, primary and foreign indecies, and all that good stuff.
> It
> > >>really has a lot of promise for the WIN32/Linux platform. DOS
> > >>unfortunately is another story. I don't forsee anyone coming up with a
> > >>RDBMS library for DOS now or ever, simply due to the fact that the
> 16-bit
> > >>OS is going the way of the dinosaur. [Moment of silence].
> > >
> > > Brian:
> > >
> > > Why couldn't he run windows on a workstation with a window's
> > > Novel network client. This would keep other Novell stuff working.
> > > Then that workstation could access the SQL database or be used as
> > > a SQL server to the dos workstation, If this worked he could eventually
> > > move more all the workstations to windows.
> > >
> > > Bernie
> >
> > Joel H. Crook
> >
> > Manager, Information Services
> > Certified Novell Administrator
> > Microsoft Certified Professional, OS Specialist
> >
> > Kellogg & Andelson Accountancy Corp.
> > 14724 Ventura Blvd. 2nd Floor
> > Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> > (818) 971-5100
> >
29. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, you wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Irv Mullins" <irv at ELLIJAY.COM>
> To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > Well said, sir.
> > With 32meg Pentium boxes going for $200~$300, this client is foolish _not_
> to
> >
>
> And if he doesn't have a $30K job in the USA, but instead is in Bolivia
> making $1K per year?
Well, Kat, considering that his merchandising business has 250 megs of
accounting transactions, it's likely to be a profitable business, even if each
sale is only for 1 Boliviano.
Irv
30. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
Not being a "real" programmer, I think I understand all that correctly.
Sounds good to me, and Eu will probably do the job. Have no idea what
"munging" is, but the idea comes through when it is mentioned next to
Windows...
----- Original Message -----
From: Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> About 0.1 second maximum per record, including munging time, in win95. And
> that's without any lookup/index tables too. Eu is fast.
31. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
- Posted by Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET>
Feb 24, 2000
-
Last edited Feb 25, 2000
Bret,
I can't speak for the people trying to use the old equipment, but i can say
why i'd be doing it. Hardware hasto be bought, and homemade software in a
depressed economy in a 3rd world country can be bought for a few chickens. A
whole suite of programs can be had for a cow. And that works just fine if
your clients are in the same boat, and they neither expect or can use
results delivered at state-of-the-art speeds. The 386 with 8meg is likely a
luxury in Russia, Bolivia, Angola, etc.. and programmers can be had for
$nothing compared to what it costs to get programmers in the USA or Canada
or Australia.
Speaking as someone who was fired from a $30K job in 1986 for suddenly
needing to use a wheelchair, and living in my car for years, drinking from
puddles on the ground, and stealing food, i would have spent all the time i
was asked to spend maintaining a net of 386 computers just to be indoors,
having clean water to drink, and getting those aforementioned chickens. And
you know what? For a chicken a day, i'd *still* go to work maintaining those
old 386's, cause i am *still* unemployed. And i am in the "good ole USA".
Grrrrrrr
I guess if a few things hadn't happened irl, i'd have left this thread
alone, but there it is. If you want to know what happened, go to
http://members.xoom.com/digithink/disability.htm
If i had mentioned i need some driveway work done, people would have said
get a bulldozer, right? Well, i can't afford one, but i can afford a pick
and shovel, and i have lots of free time. So i have been the last 2 months
this winter working on the driveway till my knees are bloody, and i have
been working on it on and off for years, i expect another 10 years and i'll
be done with it. By then i'll be 53 years old,, and i'll bet you *anything*
i'll still be unemployed and virtually pennyless and have plenty of free
time available if anyone wants to offer me a chicken for a day's programming
or system debugging. Suggesting a bulldozer isn't the solution to
everything, they cost money.
Kat,
getting sick of peanutbutter sandwiches *all* the time,
and a little more than peeved atm.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Belgarde" <BretBelgarde at WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> Kat:
>
> Joel may have been a little rough, but he had a very valid point. At a
certain
> point in time maintaining an old system becomes more expensive then
upgrading to
> a new system. Either way whether or not the client upgrades it will cost
them
> money. It would seem to me that spending the money to upgrade now would
be far
> more cost effective then constantly throwing money at a problem that will
> eventually force them to upgrade.
>
> Bret Belgarde
> Network Administrator
> Seattle Crab Co./Skippers Inc.
> --He who laughs last, didn't get the joke--
>
> Kat wrote:
>
> > Joel, some people do not have money, and cannot get it. Period.
> >
> > Rather than belittling him and his equipment, could you offer a
networked
> > way to get more performance out of what little he has, by spreading the
job
> > around some?
> >
> > Kat,
> > thinking maybe spreading the DB out and telling all the puters to help
> > search it *might* help some. Not counting an indexing scheme...
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joel Crook" <joel at MAIL.K-A.COM>
> > To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 11:11 AM
> > Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> >
> > >
> > > Being a network consultant I think I know the kind of "client" he is
> > dealing
> > > with... the type that makes me want to run far, far away...
screaming!!!!
> > >
> > > Look at the platforms he is running.... It is a wonder they keep
proper
> > time
> > > (y2k bugs! splat!)...
> > >
> > > The problem is that his client does not care enough about his
business,
> > his
> > > employee's time or his money. He has a network that is in total work
about
> > $125
> > > for everything including the 8mb boat anchor.
> > >
> > > What brand of SQL were you going to recommend he put on the server or
> > > workstation? His client does not have a machine that can run SQL
unless he
> > > drops more memory in the server and puts Linux on it... With the kind
of
> > client
> > > (dunderhead) he's got it is not likely to happen.
> > >
> > > Sorry if I sound a bit irate but I've learned the hard way that
playing
> > patty
> > > fingers with clients like this guarantees migraines and ulcers. He
needs
> > to
> > > give his client an education or he needs to get a different client.
> > >
> > >
> > > At 08:58 AM 02/24/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >>> Brian wrote
> > > >>Well I realize that this doesn't help the DOS users out any, but
Fabio
> > > >>Ramirez has created an SQL wrapper that works really well. I just
> > started
> > > >>learning SQL last week, and I'm already writing data entry programs
> > using
> > > >>joined tables, primary and foreign indecies, and all that good
stuff.
> > It
> > > >>really has a lot of promise for the WIN32/Linux platform. DOS
> > > >>unfortunately is another story. I don't forsee anyone coming up
with a
> > > >>RDBMS library for DOS now or ever, simply due to the fact that the
> > 16-bit
> > > >>OS is going the way of the dinosaur. [Moment of silence].
> > > >
> > > > Brian:
> > > >
> > > > Why couldn't he run windows on a workstation with a window's
> > > > Novel network client. This would keep other Novell stuff working.
> > > > Then that workstation could access the SQL database or be used as
> > > > a SQL server to the dos workstation, If this worked he could
eventually
> > > > move more all the workstations to windows.
> > > >
> > > > Bernie
> > >
> > > Joel H. Crook
> > >
> > > Manager, Information Services
> > > Certified Novell Administrator
> > > Microsoft Certified Professional, OS Specialist
> > >
> > > Kellogg & Andelson Accountancy Corp.
> > > 14724 Ventura Blvd. 2nd Floor
> > > Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> > > (818) 971-5100
> > >
32. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
- Posted by Everett Williams <rett at GVTC.COM>
Feb 24, 2000
-
Last edited Feb 25, 2000
Having several customers that fit this description, I can tell you that
misinformation or outmoded information is more likely the culprit than
lack of money. Many of the these old "penny pinchers" (and how do you
think most of them got wealthy in the first place) paid two to four
thousand dollars per machine for their original networks plus more for
networking software and even more for custom accounting software...many
times up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for even fairly small
setups. Their expectations for the replacement are more of the same. When
presented with a proposal for client machines at well under 1k per pop
and servers for anywhere from $1000 to 10k or more depending on number of
clients, they are usually delighted to move into the modern world, no
matter how "tight" they are. Especially when they see the amount of
off the shelf software now available that can be trimmed up to their needs
with minimal stirring. People time is the most expensive item around and
highly optimized code on tiny processors may be wonderful for a Mars
mission where such parsimony is enforced by the requirements...but then
you see what happens to a lot of Mars missions. A lot of very expensive
person hours can be traded in for a faster cpu, more RAM and disk and
faster communication. Real slop is inexcusable, but building block code
is highly efficient from a Return on Investment viewpoint. Even
interpreters and compile and go systems can be justified in such systems:)
which leads us back to where we are. We need to be able to easily wrap
all the building blocks out there with this superbly "person efficient"
coding engine that we all love to "play" with. Easy access to all these
items through structures that can easily describe all those interfaces
tethered together with namespace improvements to allow more easy
modularity of use of external code, along with more flexible and
powerful calling conventions enabled by items one and two can make
Euphoria into a premiere integrator language on that new, faster, cheaper
hardware. Then we can go to the old skinflint and say, I'm going to
make you money by leveraging all this inexpensive hardware and software
in to an integrated whole that serves your specific needs.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
33. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> You could look at Win3.11 (on MSdos) or DRdos, both have GUI, both can be
> TCP/IP'd. Don't ask me *how*, for i don't know.
Although it is no longer offically supported by caldera, and downloads may
be a little difficult to find, Caldera Opendos is a cinch to network, is
completely free, and has dos multitasking built in (the disadvantage with
dos multitasking, of course is that programmes use up their share even when
not doing anything)
Nick
34. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
- Posted by Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET>
Feb 24, 2000
-
Last edited Feb 25, 2000
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Johnson" <arachnid at MAD.SCIENTIST.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> > You could look at Win3.11 (on MSdos) or DRdos, both have GUI, both can
be
> > TCP/IP'd. Don't ask me *how*, for i don't know.
> Although it is no longer offically supported by caldera, and downloads may
> be a little difficult to find, Caldera Opendos is a cinch to network, is
> completely free, and has dos multitasking built in (the disadvantage with
> dos multitasking, of course is that programmes use up their share even
when
> not doing anything)
I thought Caldera's dos could be told how to multitask, and the app could
tell the OS it didn't need any time and to go on to the next application.
Kat
35. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
<snip>
> Speaking as someone who was fired from a $30K job in 1986 for suddenly
> needing to use a wheelchair, and living in my car for years, drinking from
> puddles on the ground, and stealing food, i would have spent all the time
i
> was asked to spend maintaining a net of 386 computers just to be indoors,
> having clean water to drink, and getting those aforementioned chickens.
And
> you know what? For a chicken a day, i'd *still* go to work maintaining
those
> old 386's, cause i am *still* unemployed. And i am in the "good ole USA".
> Grrrrrrr
<snip>
I dont know what the status quo is over in the USA, but here in New Zealand
(South pacific ocean - I rarely meet an American that knows where we are,
even though we are currently in the process of taking the Americas Cup from
you second time running) anyone with any disability (visual, physical,
intellectual, speech, motor, etc) has completely equal rights to: Be
educated at any level, Get a job, Use public buildings, be served by a
business, purchase goods and services, etc. If law is equivalent over in the
US, you should be able to take wendy's, the supermarket chain, and the
person who fired to you to the small disputes (or court for your job)
tribunal or equivalent over there.
Nick
36. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
- Posted by Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET>
Feb 24, 2000
-
Last edited Feb 25, 2000
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Johnson" <arachnid at MAD.SCIENTIST.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> <snip>
> > Speaking as someone who was fired from a $30K job in 1986 for suddenly
> > needing to use a wheelchair, and living in my car for years, drinking
from
> > puddles on the ground, and stealing food, i would have spent all the
time
> i
> > was asked to spend maintaining a net of 386 computers just to be
indoors,
> > having clean water to drink, and getting those aforementioned chickens.
> And
> > you know what? For a chicken a day, i'd *still* go to work maintaining
> those
> > old 386's, cause i am *still* unemployed. And i am in the "good ole
USA".
> > Grrrrrrr
> <snip>
> I dont know what the status quo is over in the USA, but here in New
Zealand
> (South pacific ocean - I rarely meet an American that knows where we are,
> even though we are currently in the process of taking the Americas Cup
from
> you second time running) anyone with any disability (visual, physical,
> intellectual, speech, motor, etc) has completely equal rights to: Be
> educated at any level, Get a job, Use public buildings, be served by a
> business, purchase goods and services, etc. If law is equivalent over in
the
> US, you should be able to take wendy's, the supermarket chain, and the
> person who fired to you to the small disputes (or court for your job)
> tribunal or equivalent over there.
Not here. I answered Nick privately, since this is not a listserv focused
on the trials of disabled people.
Kat
37. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
>
>Joel, some people do not have money, and cannot get it. Period.
>
>Rather than belittling him and his equipment, could you offer a networked
>way to get more performance out of what little he has, by spreading the job
>around some?
>
>Kat,
>thinking maybe spreading the DB out and telling all the puters to help
>search it *might* help some. Not counting an indexing scheme...
>
><snip>
>
>> Well said, sir.
>> With 32meg Pentium boxes going for $200~$300, this client is foolish
_not_
>>to
>>
>
>And if he doesn't have a $30K job in the USA, but instead is in Bolivia
>making $1K per year?
>
>Kat
>
Hi everyone,
Thank you very much for giving much attention to my concern. Specially to
your comments and recommendation. It was very enlightening.
Let be just formally introduce myself. I 'm Carlos L. Codina, Jr. 33 years
old from Talisay, Cebu, Philippines. My friends call me ARLIE. I been
writing custom programs for small companies here in the Philippines since
1984. But I'm still a small time programmer. Just to give you an idea of
how much it would cost to buy a new unit -- a $1 is equal to P40 pesos here
in our country. The basic salary/pay here is $125 a month that's around
$1500 per annum. A branded computer like Dell, IBM, etc. would cost us more
or less $1500 while an unbranded one would be around $750 for the same
configuration.
Of course I'm not saying that our country is that left behind. In fact for
those who can afford specially big corporations are upgrading all their
units to Pentium III-600mhz. In fact many of your computer components are
made in the Philippines.
There are still of considerable number of small businesses that can only
afford to buy a used 486 at $125 per unit.Aside from maintaining my legacy
applications I'm also targetting this small businesses because I can still
make money making applications. Also we still have museums here that sells
spare parts for this type of boxes.
Moreover, my main reason for chosing euphoria as my new software
development platform because it still supports plain old DOS programming.
Of course I have a handfull of programs deployed written in Visual dBASE 7
since 1995. I'm just starting out with euphoria hoping that sometime I can
use it for serious application development.
Please keep the comments coming. I like to hear more from everyone.
Regards,
Arlie
38. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
Nick Johnson wrote:
>...here in New Zealand .... anyone with any disability (visual,
> physical, intellectual, speech, motor, etc) has completely equal
> rights to: Be educated at any level, Get a job, Use public
buildings,
> be served by a business, purchase goods and services, etc ...
New Zealand is the home of my children, also of my grandchildren, and
it has been my home for the last 32 years. I love it. But it is *not*
a Utopia Mr Johnson tried to paint. Sure, you have completely equal
rights to be educated at any level. If you can afford annual
university fees of anything between 10 and 100 thousand dollars. Or
you can take a risk and borrow the money and be potentially
financially crippled for the rest of your life. You can probably get a
job, but only if you are lucky and live in the right area. And
definitely not if you are over 40 - then just forget it. And sure, you
can purchase any goods and services - you just need the money...
Get real, Mr Johnson. Go and visit our beautiful East Coast,
Northland, south Auckland, and a lot of other pretty places and you
will see poverty and human deprivation we normally associate only with
Third World countries. And if you cannot stomach that, just look at
our heath statistics, our youth suicide rate, size and composition of
our prison population, etc, etc, etc...
Sorry, guys. I know this is completely off topic, but I felt I had to
put the record straight. jiri
39. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998-
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable
Hola, Arlie Codina escribi=F3 el 2000/02/25 02:08:07:
>There are still of considerable number of small businesses that can only
>afford to buy a used 486 at $125 per unit.Aside from maintaining my legacy
>applications I'm also targetting this small businesses because I can still
>make money making applications. Also we still have museums here that sells
>spare parts for this type of boxes.
I'm not sure if this applies to your especific client but it certainly is
something to consider in your target market.
You can have a Linux box to emulate a Netware server with a free package
called Marsnw. I used it for six months and have 100 users connected
(attached) using office97 shared installation from this server that were
simultaneusly connected to a Netware server. I also used it for backups to
disk using tar and some utilities that let you access a netware server from
a Linux box (ncpfs utils) it worked just great and I could also hack some
code to change passwords in batch and some administrative tasks that were a
pain.
Using a linux server has many advantages. You can use your legacy software
with the same clients (ipx, netx, odi, vlms, wfwg, win32 etc and there's
also a free client available) and you can have a bunch of new services WEB,
remote access, proxy, RDBMS, etc. If you use odi or packet you can have
tcp/ip and IPX under DOS, even win311 can use both simultaneously with
packet and tcpmux (I don't have all the details now but if you need
something I can look in old backups). If I remember well there are at least
two free DOS browsers available and several mail (pop) clients. All of this
can add value to an existing installation and let you do more things with
existing stuff.
------------------------------------
Fabio Ramirez R.
Network Admin.
-------------------------------------
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998---
40. Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
Ok, I apologise if I seemed to be painting NZ as a utopia - I meant no such
thing - I simply meant to illustrate the fact that we have an act to protect
anyone with any form of disability from discrimination. And for uni - $3K
per year plus study/materials fees if you are a NZ citizen (for most
courses). I sincerely apologise for painting NZ as utopia, and I intended
that Message to be off the list as it was off topic anyway.
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: jiri babor <jbabor at PARADISE.NET.NZ>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
> Nick Johnson wrote:
>
> >...here in New Zealand .... anyone with any disability (visual,
> > physical, intellectual, speech, motor, etc) has completely equal
> > rights to: Be educated at any level, Get a job, Use public
> buildings,
> > be served by a business, purchase goods and services, etc ...
>
> New Zealand is the home of my children, also of my grandchildren, and
> it has been my home for the last 32 years. I love it. But it is *not*
> a Utopia Mr Johnson tried to paint. Sure, you have completely equal
> rights to be educated at any level. If you can afford annual
> university fees of anything between 10 and 100 thousand dollars. Or
> you can take a risk and borrow the money and be potentially
> financially crippled for the rest of your life. You can probably get a
> job, but only if you are lucky and live in the right area. And
> definitely not if you are over 40 - then just forget it. And sure, you
> can purchase any goods and services - you just need the money...
>
> Get real, Mr Johnson. Go and visit our beautiful East Coast,
> Northland, south Auckland, and a lot of other pretty places and you
> will see poverty and human deprivation we normally associate only with
> Third World countries. And if you cannot stomach that, just look at
> our heath statistics, our youth suicide rate, size and composition of
> our prison population, etc, etc, etc...
>
> Sorry, guys. I know this is completely off topic, but I felt I had to
> put the record straight. jiri
>
>
