Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!i2unix!inria!seti!motown!mark
From: mark@motown.altair.fr (Mark James)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Pick operating system
Message-ID: <1600@seti.inria.fr>
Date: 12 Sep 90 12:13:40 GMT
References: <1990Sep6.055815.16617@techbook.com> <4030@altos86.Altos.COM>
Sender: news@seti.inria.fr
Organization: Altair, INRIA, Rocquencourt, France
Lines: 65

In article <1990Sep6.055815.16617@techbook.com> paulb@techbook.com (Paul Buder) writes:
>I work for a company which is considering using the Pick Operating System
>to keep track of a 500,000 item inventory.
>[...]
>Does anyone have experience with PICK?  Does it have any major advantages
>over UNIX with some form of database management interface? 

I did a magazine article a couple of years ago comparing multi-user
database management systems for PCs.  The bottom line, between Unix
and Pick at least, was that Unix was more flexible and Pick more
efficient.  BTW, you don't mention your hardware constraints.  Does
this have to work on your company's PCs?  Do they have (or intend to
get) a mini or supermicro?  Do they have a net?  Are they happy with
an ASCII interface, or do they need graphics?  (If they do, Unix is
likely to be better.)  Is response time a major requirement?  Will
they be doing essentially lookup/update things, or complex queries?


In article <4030@altos86.Altos.COM> crs@altos86.UUCP (Craig Saunders) writes:

>There are many people who have experience with Pick, although I doubt many
>of them read the net.

Probably because Pick doesn't cater for TCP/IP (that I know of, anyway).

>As for your question about the "database management
>interface", Pick has one.  I don't believe Unix does.

Pick was *built* around one.  In Unix you have to add a layer, unless
a hierarchical directory structure of flat files suits your needs;
this is why Pick wins in the efficiency contest.  It's also why Unix
is more flexible, since you can choose the DBMS that suits you.  It
also makes for a cost difference, since Unix + Oracle or whatever is
likely to be more expensive than just Pick.

You should also consider whether you want to run other things on the
system than just your database.  Unix has a much larger range of
software available than does Pick.  On a PC, neither system will
coexist very gently with MS-DOS, no matter what the sales types say.

Finally, there are other multi-user operating systems available
besides Pick and Unix (such as Theos, BOS, AMPS, Dataflex, PC-MOS,
Prologue).  These suffer (perhaps unjustly) from a lower profile, and
their database packages tend to gravitate around specific sectors like
clothing manufacturers or insurance, but each has its strengths.

>using both Pick and Unix in the same processing
>environment;  communications between Pick and Unix (Is anyone doing it on
>a recurring basis?);  conversions between them;  anyone running Universe
>or Pick's new port on the R6000.

Products like UniVerse that try to combine Pick data management with
Unix features tend only to marry the efficiency of Unix with the
convenience of Pick -- the worst of both worlds.  UniVerse would be
fine for people who, probably for historical reasons, happen to need
both Pick and Unix anyway, or for developers trying to port their
software from one system to the other.  For folks like Paul, with no
massive investment to protect, it's probably more expensive (in terms
of dollars and performance) than it's worth.

--
=== T. Mark James           ==== All opinions, errors etc are my own.
=== mark@bdblues.altair.fr  ==== "Hardware is that part of a computer
=== +33 (1) 39 63 53 93     ====  system that you can kick."
================================    -- Grace Hopper