Re: One more time: RDBMS for DOS and Windows
From: Arlie Codina <eu at FLASHMAIL.COM>
> I'll just wait for Kat's soon-to-be-released code. But I'm also open to
> anything workable. Even if nobody would come up with something that is DBF
> compatible as long as it can read/write file. Has good search/indexing
> and file relation capability. Also multi-user support.
Arlie:
I noticed in an earlier post you said your client's accounting system has
250 megs of transactions, and five data-entry operators. In my part of the
world, that would not be considered a "small" business. The fact that you've
maintained a working system of this size (with its hardware limitations)
proves that you've got a lot of talent.
I know you have said that your client can't afford to upgrade hardware or
software,
but I'm really curious: what kind of business could have that volume
of transactions without making at least a small profit?
If your client is truly making almost no money, then the the cost of
replacing several days worth of lost data would be also be a burden.
Therefore, I wouldn't even consider using new and unproven software
(no offense to Kat or anyone else who contributes a db engine)
If the existing software was undependable, then it would be a different
story -
make it better, and you're a hero. But you said the client is happy with the
software
as it now exists. That means that, no matter what you do, you won't be a
hero, but
you _are_ taking a risk that things could be screwed up royally.
Large risk, little benefit. I'd be wary of this. (If it ain't broke, don't
fix it)
Eventually, your client will want some new capabilities so badly that he/she
will find a way to pay for them. Until then, maintain their code, and use
this success
story to get a job with one of those companies that _can_ buy Pentium III's
;)
Regards,
Irv
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
