jtt@tct.uucp (John Tombs) (02/05/91)
In article <29809@usc> ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > >Faircom does > C-Tree > C-Tree+ > R-Tree > D-Tree > Faircom Server > Faircom SQL Server > >What do you think of these products? We have based applications on c-tree and r-tree for 4 years; we froze our versions some time back so my information may be out-of-date, but we found c-tree to be stable, adequately fast (we had nothing to compare it with, so I can't say more than that), and easy to build into applications. r-tree had features built-in to support some pretty complex reports, but a few obscure bugs sometimes turned development into a trial-and-error nightmare. I think the basic software design was very good; and they did provide source. After working with Informix-SQL since then and reading this newsgroup, I appreciate the complexity of SQL databases and understand why the perfect one does not exist. I believe that Faircom have what it takes to build a competitive product, but we have fought shy of their SQL product, partly following received wisdom: "never buy version 1.0 of anything". -- John Tombs at Teltronics/TCT <jtt@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!jtt>
awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) (02/06/91)
In article <29809@usc>, ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > > Faircom does > C-Tree > .... > > What do you think of these products? I quite liked the product > literature I read; do you know of a good product review in a mag? This may be just useless noise, but I've been working with PC database products for almost 8 years now, and I've never heard anything bad about the C-Tree line. I've never seen it nor known anyone who used it, but I think I would've heard if it was junk and I can tell you they've been around a long time. Not as good as someone who actually knew something, but I hope it helps nonetheless. /alastair/ Disclaimer> My opinions, only (obviously no facts, certainly :-).