nick@bilpin.UUCP (Nick Price) (02/12/90)
A client of mine is a DBASE convert, but wants to use unix for shared databases etc. He is looking at Foxbase+ for Unix (NCR Tower 32/650), and networking his PC's using TCP/IP. We dont do much with PC's and are strongly unix based so I would much rather he chose ORACLE. It would seem that ORACLE's new products Quicksilver and DBxl (the Dbase 111+ compiler and interpreter) may be the way to go. So my question; Does anyone have any direct experience of these products ? Any other comments on Oracle for PC's (Professional Oracle) would also be useful. We will require the eventual solution to use TCP/IP and use SQL*Net if we go the Oracle route. Can anyone point me to a usable TCP/IP implementation for PC's ? Some comparisons against Foxbase+ or similar running under Unix would also be welcomed. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Nick Price SRL Data || Apple link : UK0001 1 Perren Street London NW5 3ED || UUCP : nick@bilpin.uucp Phone: +44 1 485 6665 || Path : mcvax!ukc!icdoc!bilpin!nick
cag@tigger.planet.bt.co.uk (Chris Green,SSTF,5788,) (02/14/90)
From article <2521@bilpin.UUCP>, by nick@bilpin.UUCP (Nick Price): > We dont do much with PC's and are strongly unix based so I would much rather > he chose ORACLE. It would seem that ORACLE's new products Quicksilver and > DBxl (the Dbase 111+ compiler and interpreter) may be the way to go. So > my question; Does anyone have any direct experience of these products ? > Any other comments on Oracle for PC's (Professional Oracle) would also be > useful. > "ORACLE's new products Quicksilver and DBxL...."???????? Unless something has happened very recently Quicksilver and DBxL are produced by a company called Wordtech. I recently (about October '89) got an udpdate of my copy of DBxL to version 1.3 having bought it originally earlier last year. It is a pretty standard Dbase III clone with some extensions, particularly windowing and extra memory variable facilities. I bought it because it is much cheaper than the other Dbase III clones, my version 1.2 cost <100 pounds and the update to version 1.3 was free. Chris Green (chris@kbss.bt.co.uk or cgreen@ibmpcug.co.uk)
tgreenla@oracle.uucp (Terry Greenlaw) (02/14/90)
In article <2521@bilpin.UUCP> nick@bilpin.UUCP (Nick Price) writes: > >We will require the eventual solution to use TCP/IP and use SQL*Net if >we go the Oracle route. Can anyone point me to a usable TCP/IP >implementation for PC's ? > SQL*Net TCP/IP for MS-DOS works with Excelan's LAN WorkPlace, the TCP-PC Gateway for Novell Netware from Interlan, Ungermann Bass' TCP-PC, and FTP (the company) PC-TCP. The FTP product is the most flexible in terms of hardware choices. FTP's TCP/IP runs on a large number of Ethernet cards. Personally (as in standard "This aint the company" disclaimer goes here), I have had good results with the Excelan and FTP products, only a brief exposure to Interlan's product (looked good), and very bad experiences using anything from Ungermann Bass (pricy, not well supported with PD or shareware applications, pseudo-compatable. Your mileage may vary.). Disclaimer #2; The previous evaluation is based entirely on personal experience, and should in no way be taken as any official statement by Oracle Corporation. An important point to note is that because MS-DOS is still a single-user, single tasking operating system, SQL*Net for MS-DOS can only run as a client. SQL*Net for other O.S's (Xenix, SCO Unix, etc...) on PC-based platforms can run as both a client or a server, however. Terry O. Greenlaw Sheathed within the Walkman, Staff Engineer Wear a halo of distortion. Oracle Corporation Aural contraceptive, tgreenla@oracle.oracle.com Aborting pregnant conversation - Marillion
jbrown@herron.uucp (Jordan Brown) (02/15/90)
In article <2521@bilpin.UUCP>, nick@bilpin.UUCP (Nick Price) writes: > We dont do much with PC's and are strongly unix based so I would much rather > he chose ORACLE. It would seem that ORACLE's new products Quicksilver and > DBxl (the Dbase 111+ compiler and interpreter) may be the way to go. So > my question; Does anyone have any direct experience of these products ? Well, one rumor I heard (from somebody who heard it from one of the top people in WordTech (the people who wrote dBXL and Quicksilver)) that the Oracle version was 12,000 times slower than the version using dBASE databases. (Yes, that's 1.2e+4.) Don't know for what operations; this was about a year ago, and other similar disclaimers. However, given the sources I suspect there's at least a nugget of truth. Historically, for operations where query optimization doesn't help, the "high end" databases (Oracle et al) are substantially slower than the "low end" databases (dBASE, FoxBase, etc.). Just check out any big comparison of database systems. Typically they lump the "high end" ones together and the "low end" ones together, with the timing tests on different pages, but if you look at both pages... I seem to remember some test (think it was creating an index on a 100K record table) where things in the dBASE market were coming in around 30 minutes and the "high end" DBMSes were coming in at several hours. One I believe the magazine gave up on after a day or so, and it was only half done. -- Jordan Brown jbrown@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
corpspt@oracle.com (David E. Anderson) (02/16/90)
In article <1990Feb14.124753.7735@planet.bt.co.uk> cag@tigger.planet.bt.co.uk writes: >From article <2521@bilpin.UUCP>, by nick@bilpin.UUCP (Nick Price): >> We dont do much with PC's and are strongly unix based so I would much rather >> he chose ORACLE. It would seem that ORACLE's new products Quicksilver and >> DBxl (the Dbase 111+ compiler and interpreter) may be the way to go. So >> my question; Does anyone have any direct experience of these products ? >> Any other comments on Oracle for PC's (Professional Oracle) would also be >> useful. >> >"ORACLE's new products Quicksilver and DBxL...."???????? Unless >something has happened very recently Quicksilver and DBxL are >produced by a company called Wordtech. I recently (about October '89) >got an udpdate of my copy of DBxL to version 1.3 having bought it >originally earlier last year. It is a pretty standard Dbase III clone >with some extensions, particularly windowing and extra memory variable >facilities. I bought it because it is much cheaper than the other >Dbase III clones, my version 1.2 cost <100 pounds and the update to >version 1.3 was free. > >Chris Green > >(chris@kbss.bt.co.uk or cgreen@ibmpcug.co.uk) Oracle Corporation sells versions of DBXL and QUICKSILVER which also execute SQL statements. David E. Anderson RDBMS Tech Support