reeves@dvinci.USask.CA (Malcolm Reeves) (08/10/89)
I have just started to work with Borland's PARADOX 3.0 - it appears to be a very flexible, reasonably fast, and very configurable DB with lots of features. It seems intuitive and easy to learn. I've used lots of DB programs on PC's and it appears to be one of the best. WHY DO I NEVER SEE ANY REFERENCE TO IT IN COMP.DATABASES. Does PARADOX have some fatal flaw I have yet to discover (I know it doesn't use SQL - yet) but am I missing something?
byock@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Bill Yock) (08/12/89)
From article <2086@dvinci.USask.CA>, by reeves@dvinci.USask.CA (Malcolm Reeves): > I have just started to work with Borland's PARADOX 3.0 - it appears to > be a very flexible, reasonably fast, and very configurable DB with > lots of features. It seems intuitive and easy to learn. I've used lots > of DB programs on PC's and it appears to be one of the best. WHY DO I > NEVER SEE ANY REFERENCE TO IT IN COMP.DATABASES. Does PARADOX have some > fatal flaw I have yet to discover (I know it doesn't use SQL - yet) but > am I missing something? Perhaps the lack of discussion indicates there are no fatal flaws. I have been using Paradox for several years and have never found a problem that I could not overcome. Compuserve has a very active Paradox forum if your are looking for extra support. I hear it is possible to send mail from the Internet to Compuserve and vice versa, but I am not sure how that is initiated. Bill Yock, Weeg Computing Center, University of Iowa Byock@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (08/14/89)
In article <2086@dvinci.USask.CA> reeves@dvinci.USask.CA (Malcolm Reeves) writes:
->I have just started to work with Borland's PARADOX 3.0 - it appears to
->be a very flexible, reasonably fast, and very configurable DB with
->lots of features. It seems intuitive and easy to learn. I've used lots
->of DB programs on PC's and it appears to be one of the best. WHY DO I
->NEVER SEE ANY REFERENCE TO IT IN COMP.DATABASES. Does PARADOX have some
->fatal flaw I have yet to discover (I know it doesn't use SQL - yet) but
->am I missing something?
Here we are, all waiting to jump on the PARADOX wagon as soon as they deliver
their promised Unix version and you suspect foul play or devious bugs lurking
in the background.
Seriously, this is heavy on the Unix side of database discussion and, except
for the ubiquitous DB_base III/IV bug talk often leading to Foxbase, there
are lots of DOS datahandlers not discussed here.
I'm still waiting for some discussion on MDBS or DB_Vista network/relational
database work. The net is a fickle thing but surely Borland will not let us
down with their promises to supply the void in Unixland with something better
than DB_base.
Fred Rump
--
This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news.
26 Warren St. uucp: ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
Beverly, NJ 08010 domain: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net
609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schiller