steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (04/01/89)
I don't know if anyone else out there is using McMax and has
updated to version 2.0, but I've been finding some annoying
bugs and not getting any response from Nantucket. So, as a public
service and in case anyone has fixes, I decided to post the ones
I've found so far.
1. @,SAY left you on the next line (for instance if you used
a ? command) in Version 1.0; in 2.0 you are left on the same
line just after the last character displayed. There is really
more of an inconsistency than a bug, but it is annoying to
fix because you have to put in new @,SAYs to correct screen
position. Anyway, what was the point in changing something like
this and why didn't they warn us about it.
I faxed this one to Nantucket about a month ago
and received no response.
2. XCMD ("Say", "Whatever") crashes McMax. I haven't reported
this one, but you'd expect them to have tested it since the new
manual supplement repeats it several times.
3. In writing to an alternate file with ? lines, McMax 2.0
prepended junk, which looked like internal McMax code, namely,
several command names separated by periods, which added about
100 or so characters to each line. I phoned Nantucket about
this one twice and didn't get a call back. I also faxed it
to them and got a fax back asking for my telephone number,
but have received no other response.
In general, when you phone Nantucket technical support, you almost
always get a busy signal. I've found I have to go through their
main switchboard to have any hope of getting through. Then they
don't phone back.
To be fair, there are some good improvements in McMax 2.0. I have
better control over my printer with the new STYLE parameter,
though there is still no way I can see to set form length (I'm
printing on 2-inch labels which don't therefore factor into
11-inch pages evenly--my solution is to skip one out of every 12
labels). Also, I'm not paying Nantucket for technical support,
because I wouldn't need to call them except for the bugs. But
that doesn't seem a valid excuse for not returning calls
reporting bugs.
I wonder if anyone from Nantucket is out there reading
comp.databases and wants to respond.
Steve Goldfield
P.S. I know that FoxBase is better, but if one is already in
McMax, what are we to do?alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (04/05/89)
Steve Goldfield complains about bugs in McMax 2.0
The only choice is to get FoxBase. It is infinitely better. It will also run
all your programs from 1.0 (99% likelyhood you won't have to make any
modifications, and if you do they'll be minimal).
McMax will never (that's in "computer time") be a good product because they
are devoting all their energy to the DOS market. In contrast, there will
have been TWO very major upgrades to FoxBase in one year, between upgrades
of the Fox PC product.
Especially if you are writing a lot of code, FoxBase is worth almost any price.
If you have McMax and you're poor, buy FoxBase anyway. It's worth skipping
lunches for. (In the time you'll save doing developement work, you could get
a second job to pay for it...) And it's not so expensive- $395 list.
FoxBase is nas close to bug-free as I've ever seen a substantial application
get. It's also the first DMBS developement environment I've ever used on any
system that was actually a pleasure to use.
I am not affiliated with Fox Software except as an extremely satisfied tester
and user of their software.
---
Alexis Rosen
alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet}