Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!awd From: awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: dBASE IV Problems Summary: Me again. Message-ID: <208@dbase.UUCP> Date: 6 Sep 89 17:22:49 GMT References: <205@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu.edu> <3520010@hpindda.HP.COM> Organization: Ashton Tate Devlopment Center Glendale, Calif. Lines: 48 In article <3520010@hpindda.HP.COM>, keithb@hpindda.HP.COM (Keith Broussard) writes: > [good stuff about using memos on a multi-user system deleted] > > I AM CONVINCED that there are problems with dBase IV that MUST BE > ADDRESSED by A-T. I have had no indication that certain problems > which I and others have encountered are being addressed. Some of > these problems are discussed in the first response to this notes > string. We have addressed dozens if not hundreds of problems with 1.0 in the last 10 months. The worst of the problems we addressed have been documented as anomalies on CompuServe; the others were comparatively trivial. 1.0 fits very tightly in 640k and networks make the situation even worse. This may be the cause of occassional hard to reproduce errors, but as I mentioned in my last mail, 1.1 will ease the memory crunch somewhat. You need to provide a simple failing test case, however, if you expect action. Do this and this to data like this and it fails, see? Sweeping statements like "I lose data all the time that I'm sure was entered correctly" may make you feel better, but I can't help you and in the current Ashton-Tate-bashing atmosphere you're just adding fuel to the fire, inviting people to make wild claims like "FoxBase never crashes" (Try pasting a MacVision grayscale image into a memo in FoxBase/Mac and watch it eat your hard disk before it dies--the hard disk errors are recoverable, but the entire .dbf is lost.) > Since I am sure that v 1.1 of dBase IV has had a change freeze for > many a month now, I guess I can only WAIT and HOPE for improvements in > v 1.1. I would like to see, however, some acknowledgement by A-T that > these problems exist and are being considered by A-T. > > Regards No, actually, we're doing things differently these days. I probably can't go into it in any detail, but we're experimenting with different software methodologies that let a lot of asynchronous tasks be done in parallel--the notion of a "change freeze" is history, for example. 1.1 will be done when it's done--it won't be shipped on any arbitrary schedule. As I said last time, tell me exactly what to do to make dBASE IV crash, and I can practically guarantee you that we'll hold 1.1 until the problem is fixed. But how can you ask for acknowledgement that these problems exist without explaining them so that we can see for ourselves? /alastair/ Disclaimer: My opinions only, as usual.