jayen@shanti.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Jayen Vaghani) (11/21/89)
We are currently running Foxplus 1.04 under Xenix on a 16Mhz 386 and we are
finding the performance quite bad. I was wondering if anyone can tell us if
Foxplus 2.0 provides any performance improvements over what we have at the moment.
Thanks, Jayen.
-------
UUCP: {uunet,ukc,ubc-cs,mcvax}!munnari.oz!jayen
ARPA: jayen%munnari.oz@uunet.uu.netmichael@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Michael Duebner) (11/21/89)
In article <2763@munnari.oz.au> jayen@shanti.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Jayen Vaghani) writes: >We are currently running Foxplus 1.04 under Xenix on a 16Mhz 386 and we are >finding the performance quite bad. I was wondering if anyone can tell us if >Foxplus 2.0 provides any performance improvements over what we have at the moment. > >Thanks, Jayen. >------- >UUCP: {uunet,ukc,ubc-cs,mcvax}!munnari.oz!jayen >ARPA: jayen%munnari.oz@uunet.uu.net I can report to you a very large increase in performance. We recently converted from the 286 version of Foxbase to the native 386 version on a 16MHz 386 with 4 MB of ram. It is just unbelievable that we are still running the same hardware platform. The application we are running under Foxbase is an accounting package. Aging the receivables with about 300 customers used to take about 12 minutes with no system load (no other activity other than this one going on). Now the same procedure is completed in 1-2 minutes. To sum it up, its worth the upgrade. Michael Duebner UUCP : michael@ddsw1.MCS.COM Tech Svc, Buffalo Grove, IL 312/541-6550
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (11/21/89)
In article <2763@munnari.oz.au> jayen@shanti.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Jayen Vaghani) writes: >We are currently running Foxplus 1.04 under Xenix on a 16Mhz 386 and we are >finding the performance quite bad. I was wondering if anyone can tell us if >Foxplus 2.0 provides any performance improvements over what we have at the moment. 2.0 is MUCH faster. The difference is unbelievable. We recently installed 2.0 on a customer system and I couldn't believe my eyes. It's well worth upgrading your package; the 2.0 release provides near-MSDOS speed on identical hardware (ie: you run nearly as fast on Xenix as you do on MSDOS), and is still multiuser. We've noted a couple of quirks, but no real bugs. Everything seems to work just fine, even without a recompile. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
thurm@shorty.CS.WISC.EDU (Matthew Thurmaier) (11/23/89)
FoxBASE+ 2.10 Performance is FAR greater than foxbase 1.04, provided you
are running compiled. It still has some bugs though.
Matthew.
Snail Mail: E Mail:
Matthew J. Thurmaier ...decvax!garp!harvard!uwvax!thurm
The Computer Classroom matt@shorty.cs.wisc.edu
6701 Seybold Road, Ste. 122
Madison, WI 53719
(608) 271-2171
"why am I ALWAYS going somewhere?" >>-matt-->edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/29/89)
In article <9210@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thurm@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Thurmaier) writes: >FoxBASE+ 2.10 Performance is FAR greater than foxbase 1.04, provided you >are running compiled. It still has some bugs though. SCO now has (as of about 2 months ago) fox+ 2.1.1a available. It's a minor upgrade for registered 2.1.0 owners. We carry it in stock (at work), so I would assume that most SCO 3rd level resellers would have it. You do have to provide the serial number, in return for which you get some useful buggy-fixes. >Matthew J. Thurmaier ...decvax!garp!harvard!uwvax!thurm >The Computer Classroom matt@shorty.cs.wisc.edu Ed. A. Hew Authorized Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew ->home: edhew@xenitec.on.ca -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!edhew # Justice is only relative to what you can afford to prove in court.