aiko@cs.odu.edu (John K Hayes) (06/28/89)
This is to anyone at Ashton-Tate who may be listening. I cannot believe they
went ahead and put out something so bad as dBASE IV. I am embarrassed for
initiating it's purchase at my workplace. It takes about 20 seconds just
to load up enough to start listening - and most of this time is spent painting
some ridiculous moving logo graphic and an extremely long and annoying
license agreement (and this is on a 12 MHz machine).
Everything it does seems to take about twice as long as dBASE III. It's all
very pretty - the BROWSE screens are a whole lot more pleasing to the eye as
long as you don't mind waiting a year to shift columns around or just to sift
through the data. Ashton-tate seems to have sacrificed efficiency and speed
for pretty screens with nice colors.
They've also added a "feature" which forces any programs you try to run with
dBASE IV to be "compiled" into dBASE IV object files before they are run. Then
when they run they are just as slow as when they were interpreted line-by-line.
This is because they do not get linked (although there is some sort of LINK
command which really does not link - I guess all it does is allow you to
distribute slow programs that cannot be edited - big help there; what to they
think I use Clipper for? and Clipper is fast). So, with this "upgrade" you
now have to wait for a program to compile before it is run and then it runs
just as slowly as if it were not compiled. AND...if you make any changes to
the programs - you have to delete the old object file before running it or it
just runs the old object file.
I hope Ashton-Tate gives out free upgrades to dBASE IV to those of us who
were stupid enough to pay piles of money for a near worthless copy of v 1.0
(one of our operators has deleted her copy and replaced it with her old
dBASE III).
--
---{john hayes} Old Dominion University; Norfolk, Virginia USA
internet: aiko@cs.odu.edu
Home: (804) 622-8348 Work: (804) 460-2241 ext 134
<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>
Are you a Have or a Have_Not? Because if you're a Have_Not, you've probably
had it; whereas, if you're a Have, you've probably got it and are going to
give it away at some point in the future! --- The Clash
<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>cy@dbase.UUCP (Cy Shuster) (06/30/89)
Use "dbase/t" to skip the opening graphics when running on medium-speed machines (i.e. 12MHz). (Also, "fw/t" with Framework). --Cy-- DISCLAIMER: My opinions only.
marwk@levels.sait.edu.au (06/30/89)
In article <9383@xanth.cs.odu.edu>, aiko@cs.odu.edu (John K Hayes) writes: > This is to anyone at Ashton-Tate who may be listening. I cannot believe they > went ahead and put out something so bad as dBASE IV. I am embarrassed for > initiating it's purchase at my workplace. It takes about 20 seconds just > to load up enough to start listening - and most of this time is spent painting > some ridiculous moving logo graphic and an extremely long and annoying > license agreement (and this is on a 12 MHz machine). > > Everything it does seems to take about twice as long as dBASE III. It's all > very pretty - the BROWSE screens are a whole lot more pleasing to the eye as > long as you don't mind waiting a year to shift columns around or just to sift > through the data. Ashton-tate seems to have sacrificed efficiency and speed > for pretty screens with nice colors. > > They've also added a "feature" which forces any programs you try to run with > dBASE IV to be "compiled" into dBASE IV object files before they are run. Then > when they run they are just as slow as when they were interpreted line-by-line. > This is because they do not get linked (although there is some sort of LINK > command which really does not link - I guess all it does is allow you to > distribute slow programs that cannot be edited - big help there; what to they > think I use Clipper for? and Clipper is fast). So, with this "upgrade" you > now have to wait for a program to compile before it is run and then it runs > just as slowly as if it were not compiled. AND...if you make any changes to > the programs - you have to delete the old object file before running it or it > just runs the old object file. > > I hope Ashton-Tate gives out free upgrades to dBASE IV to those of us who > were stupid enough to pay piles of money for a near worthless copy of v 1.0 > (one of our operators has deleted her copy and replaced it with her old > dBASE III). > > -- > ---{john hayes} Old Dominion University; Norfolk, Virginia USA > internet: aiko@cs.odu.edu > Home: (804) 622-8348 Work: (804) 460-2241 ext 134 > > <++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> > Are you a Have or a Have_Not? Because if you're a Have_Not, you've probably > had it; whereas, if you're a Have, you've probably got it and are going to > give it away at some point in the future! --- The Clash > <++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> I can hardly believe that people are still buying Ashton-Tate products, especially dBASE products: These have more bugs and cause more problems than any other product I have ever used. I have hundreds of examples but here is one: dBASE III+ was used last year by 2nd year computing studies students for their group project. Many students came to me saying they counld not understand the errors they were getting. I ran the programs myself and discovered that the ELSE clause is sometimes bypassed in an IF statement when the if condition fails. I did not find a pattern as to when this effect would occur, so I suggested that the students use a DO CASE statement instead, for all instances of IF statements. This makes the product dBASE III+ UNRELIABLE and it is my opinion that it should not be used. Furthermore, having spoken to both Ashton and Tate some years ago while I was developing a moderately large system, I am very dissatisfied with their attitude. I recommend to all my students (and anyone else who mentions a dBASE product) to steer well clear of their products. There are plenty of better products on the market. Ray Kennington
awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (07/01/89)
In article <9383@xanth.cs.odu.edu>, aiko@cs.odu.edu (John K Hayes) writes: > > This is to anyone at Ashton-Tate who may be listening. I cannot believe they > went ahead and put out something so bad as dBASE IV. I am embarrassed for > initiating it's purchase at my workplace. It takes about 20 seconds just > to load up enough to start listening - and most of this time is spent painting > some ridiculous moving logo graphic and an extremely long and annoying > license agreement (and this is on a 12 MHz machine). Undocumented trick of the month: invoke dBASE IV with a /t on the command line to avoid the opening graphic (but not the legal message). > Everything it does seems to take about twice as long as dBASE III. It's all > very pretty - the BROWSE screens are a whole lot more pleasing to the eye as > long as you don't mind waiting a year to shift columns around or just to sift > through the data. Ashton-tate seems to have sacrificed efficiency and speed > for pretty screens with nice colors. Not so. Run some benchmarks and you'll see that almost nothing in dBASE IV is slower than dBASE III. Some operations (like queries) got a lot more powerful and therefore take longer, but raw I/O is considerably faster than III+. Remember, you couldn't "shift columns around" in BROWSE in III+. > They've also added a "feature" which forces any programs you try to run with > dBASE IV to be "compiled" into dBASE IV object files before > they are run. Then when they run they are just as slow as > when they were interpreted line-by-line. Run some tests--try a DO WHILE loop, for instance. Compiled object files execute an order of magnitude faster than line-by-line. Obviously, you're still upset by the slowness of the opening graphic :-) > This is because they do not get linked (although there is some sort of LINK > command which really does not link - I guess all it does is allow you to > distribute slow programs that cannot be edited - big help there; what to they > think I use Clipper for? and Clipper is fast). So, with this "upgrade" you > now have to wait for a program to compile before it is run and then it runs > just as slowly as if it were not compiled. AND...if you make any changes to > the programs - you have to delete the old object file before running it or it > just runs the old object file. If the object file is loaded into memory, it will be executed from memory. If it is on disk, the time stamp of the object file is compared to the source program and it is automatically recompiled, if necessary. If you use the dBASE IV editor, the object file will be flushed, forcing a recompilation. You seem to be running your program, editing the source, rerunning it and expecting dBASE IV to know that you've changed something. In the interest of speed, dBASE IV doesn't check the source file every time it runs a program that is already in memory. To force the recompile you seem to want, issue a CLOSE PROCEDURE command before invoking your editor. > I hope Ashton-Tate gives out free upgrades to dBASE IV to those of us who > were stupid enough to pay piles of money for a near worthless copy of v 1.0 > (one of our operators has deleted her copy and replaced it with her old > dBASE III). As I understand it, there is some sort of free upgrade policy (but I don't know the details). As for continuing to use dBASE III, I'm sure that not everyone needs the power and speed of dBASE IV (C'mon, I'm one of the authors, what do you want me to say?) > ---{john hayes} Old Dominion University; Norfolk, Virginia USA > internet: aiko@cs.odu.edu > Home: (804) 622-8348 Work: (804) 460-2241 ext 134 > /alastair/ Disclaimer: Did you hear about David Ramsey, the Apple employee who was fired for what he said electronically? Am I crazy for talking unofficially like this? Yes, but at least this disclaimer says that these are my opinions, and not official Ashton-Tate news.
eichi@forty2.UUCP (Stefan Eichenberger) (07/03/89)
In article <135@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: >Undocumented trick of the month: invoke dBASE IV with a /t on the command >line to avoid the opening graphic (but not the legal message). Ashton Tate seems to be busy documenting not yet implemented stuff rather than what people need to at least beeing able to start there program befor the coffee break. (I have been told by a AT representative at a local exhibition, that they only mention EMS support in the manuals (and adds?) but it's NOT YET implemented!!!!!!!!!(/&()&&/)%&/$%&]$&$$%&$!!!!!!!!)~ >Run some tests--try a DO WHILE loop, for instance. Compiled object files >execute an order of magnitude faster than line-by-line. Obviously, you're >still upset by the slowness of the opening graphic :-) They still haven't learned, that a condition of a DO loop may contain a macro substitution. And the rule, whether it is allowed or not is so complicated, it fills about 15 lines in the manual. At least this bug, which persists ever since dBase II (not III) is documented. >If the object file is loaded into memory, it will be executed from memory. >If it is on disk, the time stamp of the object file is compared to the >source program and it is automatically recompiled, if necessary. If you >use the dBASE IV editor, the object file will be flushed, forcing a >recompilation. You seem to be running your program, editing the source, >rerunning it and expecting dBASE IV to know that you've changed something. >In the interest of speed, dBASE IV doesn't check the source file every time >it runs a program that is already in memory. To force the recompile you >seem to want, issue a CLOSE PROCEDURE command before invoking your editor. Ever heard of make? Or worked with Turbo Pascal Version 4, 5, 5.5? Turbo C Version 2? ...? Come on, AT, these programs can't be so expensive to buy and try with all the money you get from poor dBase IV buyers? Disclaimer: Have I said someting about dBase IV? I just used it! -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: ...mcvax!cernvax!forty2!eichi Stefan Eichenberger BITNET: K807817@CZHRZU1A University of Zurich ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
bruce@mdi386.UUCP (Bruce A. McIntyre) (07/04/89)
In article <661@levels.sait.edu.au>, marwk@levels.sait.edu.au writes: > In article <9383@xanth.cs.odu.edu>, aiko@cs.odu.edu (John K Hayes) writes: > > [ Much Maligning Deleted ] > [Additional Maligning Deleted ] > This makes the product dBASE III+ UNRELIABLE and it is my opinion that it > should not be used. > > Furthermore, having spoken to both Ashton and Tate some years ago while I ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ > was developing a moderately large system, I am very dissatisfied with their > attitude. > > Ray Kennington I realize that dBASE IV is [expletive deleted], but in an attempt to wow us with your connections, you missed the point... While George Tate was/is a real person, and one I enjoyed talking to, Ashton was a GREEN PARROT, and I don't know anyone who managed to hold a reasonable conversation with him. I don't wonder that you were dissatisfied with his attitude, dude! Ashton-Tate has missed the boat, and in fact, is going no-where with it... I believe that on every point the third party folks are passing them by, while really meaningful applications are moving on to other environments... dBASE was wonderful while it lasted, but they are now turning it into a pale image of Paradox..., but that doesn't mean that there are not a great deal of wonderful answers for users with dBASEIV, it's just that there are now other, better answers.. bruce -- ========================================================================= Bruce A. McIntyre, McIntyre Designs, Inc. VOICE(215)322-1895 143 Bridgetown Pike, Langhorne, Pa. 19047 DATA (215)357-2915 {wells|lgnp1}!mdi386!bruce bruce@wells tbit+
dukel@dbase.UUCP (Duke Luper) (07/05/89)
In article <802@forty2.UUCP>, eichi@forty2.UUCP (Stefan Eichenberger) writes: > In article <135@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: > > >Undocumented trick of the month: invoke dBASE IV with a /t on the command > >line to avoid the opening graphic (but not the legal message). > > Ashton Tate seems to be busy documenting not yet implemented stuff rather > than what people need to at least beeing able to start there program befor > the coffee break. (I have been told by a AT representative at a local > exhibition, that they only mention EMS support in the manuals (and adds?) > but it's NOT YET implemented!!!!!!!!!(/&()&&/)%&/$%&]$&$$%&$!!!!!!!!)~ Nothing pisses me off more than someone who can't spell or write English and can't follow a thought to its completion. The above sentence about EMS support has nothing to do with Alastair Dallas' comments. So, why include them (Alastair's comments) in this mail about dBASE? Rag on dBASE all you want. I believe in free speech and have my own personal feelings about the merits of dBASE IV (and Clipper, etc...). By the way, the phrase "pisses me off" is a colloquialism and should not be construed or interpreted to be "correct English". :-) > >Run some tests--try a DO WHILE loop, for instance. Compiled object files > >execute an order of magnitude faster than line-by-line. Obviously, you're > >still upset by the slowness of the opening graphic :-) > > They still haven't learned, that a condition of a DO loop may contain > a macro substitution. And the rule, whether it is allowed or not is so > complicated, it fills about 15 lines in the manual. At least this bug, > which persists ever since dBase II (not III) is documented. What rule? Macros? He's talking about performance differences between dBASE III and dBASE IV. Is this what you are addressing? It doesn't seem so. > >If the object file is loaded into memory, it will be executed from memory. > >If it is on disk, the time stamp of the object file is compared to the > >source program and it is automatically recompiled, if necessary. If you > >use the dBASE IV editor, the object file will be flushed, forcing a > >recompilation. You seem to be running your program, editing the source, > >rerunning it and expecting dBASE IV to know that you've changed something. > >In the interest of speed, dBASE IV doesn't check the source file every time > >it runs a program that is already in memory. To force the recompile you > >seem to want, issue a CLOSE PROCEDURE command before invoking your editor. > > Ever heard of make? Or worked with Turbo Pascal Version 4, 5, 5.5? Turbo C > Version 2? ...? Come on, AT, these programs can't be so expensive to buy and > try with all the money you get from poor dBase IV buyers? You seem to be comparing apples and oranges. Turbo Pascal and Turbo C have a combination of different executable files which each perform specific tasks. The powers that be at Ashton-Tate chose to implement the entirety of dBASE IV into one executable file with many overlays. This comes out to about 3.5 MB worth of executables and overlays. If Ashton-Tate had so chosen to break it apart into different executable modules (like APGEN in one, SQL in another, etc...), then it would make it much easier to implement something similar to a MAKE facility. It makes it much more difficult to implement ANYTHING in dBASE IV (including a MAKE utility) which runs in harmony with the rest of the product. Given that Ashton-Tate concentrated a lot of time on other enhancements across the board, they apparently felt that a MAKE utility was not as important as maybe SQL. You can't please all the people all of the time. I am not defending their actions, but they have a lot of ears to listen to in the user community and each person feels his/her desired addition to the product is "the most important addition". Remember, it's always easier to get a few guys together and write an INCREDIBLE software package than it is to hire a lot of people and try to coordinate a mammoth project. dBASE IV was certainly a mammoth project. I do not disagree with you on the merits of including a MAKE facility in dBASE IV. It just comes down to what the management at Ashton-Tate feels the user community wants the most. PLEASE don't start flooding comp.databases with what ASHTON-TATE should have placed into dBASE IV. SIDENOTE: I am a consultant to Ashton-Tate working on the multi-user features of dBASE. I support the company and the product, even though there are a lot of things internally I would like to see change for the better here. My hope is that we can produce a MUCH cleaner and faster dBASE IV 1.1. DISCLAIMER: Everything expressed in this mail item is solely my thoughts and do not represent the thoughts or positions of Ashton-Tate or any of its employees. Duke Luper Ashton-Tate Torrance, CA P.S. I read a mail item earlier today from someone who said that sometimes dBASE III would skip over an ELSE condition if the IF portion did not evaluate to true. If you read this mail item, could you include a listing of one of your students programs? I would like to look into this. This is the first occurrence I have heard of this happening. Maybe it will help me flush out an existing bug that we are yet unaware of?
awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (07/06/89)
In article <661@levels.sait.edu.au>, marwk@levels.sait.edu.au writes: > In article <9383@xanth.cs.odu.edu>, aiko@cs.odu.edu (John K Hayes) writes: > > This is to anyone at Ashton-Tate who may be listening. I cannot believe... > > > > ...[stuff deleted]... > > > I can hardly believe that people are still buying Ashton-Tate products, > especially dBASE products: These have more bugs and cause more problems than > any other product I have ever used. I have hundreds of examples but here is > one: > > dBASE III+ was used last year by 2nd year computing studies students for their > group project. Many students came to me saying they counld not understand the > errors they were getting. I ran the programs myself and discovered that the > ELSE clause is sometimes bypassed in an IF statement when the if condition > fails. I would like to see a specific failing test case for this. Looking at the code which searches for an ELSE, it's very hard to imagine that you weren't seeing the result of some other operator error. > I did not find a pattern as to when this effect would occur, so I suggested > that the students use a DO CASE statement instead, for all instances of IF > statements. In any event, this is poor workaround--if flow of control commands don't work, they don't work. Are you really teaching your 2nd year students "voodoo programming"--if it doesn't work, recite some magic incantations? It only seems to work on Thursdays, so all computing must be done then? > This makes the product dBASE III+ UNRELIABLE and it is my opinion that it > should not be used. To paraphrase, opinions are like noses...everyone has one. > Furthermore, having spoken to both Ashton and Tate some years ago while I > was developing a moderately large system, I am very dissatisfied with their > attitude. I can wholeheartedly apologize for our attitude. We have been steadily working on it, but arrogance seems to be unavoidable for very successful startups with extremely steep growth curves. We are maturing, however, and I think I can speak for the entire company and say that we recognize that customer satisfaction is paramount. As for speaking to both Ashton and Tate, I'm sure you did if you say so. Ashton, however, is a parrot. > I recommend to all my students (and anyone else who mentions a dBASE product) > to steer well clear of their products. There are plenty of better products on > the market. > > Ray Kennington It's a free world, Mr. Kennington. I wonder--are these other products supported on UseNet? Do they have as many books and training materials available as dBASE? I guess I have my opinions, too... /alastair/ Big Disclaimer: These are my opinions. It is not part of my job to monitor UseNet; I am not an Ashton-Tate spokesman and my comments are entirely unofficial. (I hope that does it, because I can't think of more weasel-words.)
awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (07/06/89)
In article <136@dbase.UUCP>, dukel@dbase.UUCP (Duke Luper) writes: > ...It just comes down to what the > management at Ashton-Tate feels the user community wants the most. PLEASE > don't start flooding comp.databases with what ASHTON-TATE should have placed > into dBASE IV. I, for one, don't have a problem with a flood of wish lists for what we should provide in future releases of dBASE. If the users of comp.databases feel this is inappropriate, I'd like to hear that, too. /alastair/ Disclaimer: My opinion. Unofficial.
cy@dbase.UUCP (Cy Shuster) (07/06/89)
In article <661@levels.sait.edu.au> marwk@levels.sait.edu.au writes: >Furthermore, having spoken to both Ashton and Tate some years ago while I >was developing a moderately large system, I am very dissatisfied with their >attitude. I'm sorry that you were dissatisfied after speaking to both Ashton and Tate, but (I can't resist) while George Tate was a real person, Ashton is a large green macaw (now at Claris, BTW)... The name of the other original founder is Hal Lashlee. --Cy-- "Polly want a .PRG! BRAAAAACK!"
emuleomo@yes.rutgers.edu (Emuleomo) (07/11/89)
Don't worry guys. Just stick it out for a few more months. FOXPRO will be out soooooooooon, hopefully before dBASE IV vers. 1.2 (or whatever). --Emuleomo O.O. (emuleomo@yes.rutgers.edu) ** I hope I don't sound tooo biased!! Afterall, I dont work for FOX! ** -- ** Research is what I'm doing when I dont know what I'm doing! **