Gunnar, Oops, it's in one of Razzak's demos. I may have let the cat out of the bag :)
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunnar > Ekblad > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 12:43 PM > To: RBG7-L Mailing List > Subject: [RBG7-L] - RE: off topic > > Hm! > Claudine! > I have been to 7.5 Training but I never figured out how fools could make > and > Ad Hoc Report! > If you can teach me this one I can stop my training practise and retire! > > Gunnar Ekblad > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Claudine > Robbins > Sent: den 20 maj 2005 19:27 > To: RBG7-L Mailing List > Subject: [RBG7-L] - RE: off topic > > Speaking of ad hoc reports, developers in 7.5 will minimally have to train > their users, because fool-proofing of the R> prompt QBE is now built-in! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunnar > > Ekblad > > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 11:17 AM > > To: RBG7-L Mailing List > > Subject: [RBG7-L] - RE: off topic > > > > James and others on this topic! > > > > We have to be fair and give Access the benefit of some + against R:Base. > > Pluses for Access are: > > 1. You don't have to defend your Choice of DB. > > 2. It is in ACCESS very easy by linked tables to test a new application > > against production data. It can of course be done in R:Base but is > > slightly > > more cumbersome! > > > > As far as I am concerned all the other pluses are for R:Base I will only > > mention a few: > > A. I had a 2.11 R:Base application and a Access version_2 (I think) that > > needed upgrading and integration. R:Base was done in 150 hours going > from > > 2.11 to 7.1 Access was done in +400 hours (not by me) going from > version > > 2 > > to access 2000. (I cand add the R:Base part where actually 3 application > > with a total numbers of reports of 45 while the ACCESS application had > 11, > > The number of forms in R:Base was approx 60 and in ACCESS it was around > > 30.) > > B. R:Base performance is a lot better on my small network. > > C. Maybe I am R:Baseified But R:Base remembers its datadictionary, while > > ACCESS allows you to define CUSTNO (Customer number) as TEXT 4 in one > > table > > and INTEGER in next Table and in next as MEMO (NOTE)....... (When I > > discussed this with a member of ACCESS fan club he voted this issue to > be > > a > > plus for ACCESS <Sick>) > > D. In R:Base I have trained one of the girls at the Office to make add- > hoc > > reports , for ACCESS they never managed to do the same thing despite > > extensive training. (Maybe this a flew of the trainer (Me)) > > E. My oldest Code of R:Base still running is from 1985, My oldest code > > from > > ACCESS still running is from 2004. (R:Base application was written in > 1985 > > and ACCESS in 1995 (again not by me)) > > F. If you ever need to upgrade to a larger Database then R:Base turbo > then > > I > > can promise going from the SQL in R:Base will make that task easy, while > > Going from any other DB (including ACCESS) the task will be more > > cumbersome! > > G. R:Base ROCKS for Ever! Even if I keep my socks on! > > > > Gunnar Ekblad > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of james > > hageman > > Sent: den 19 maj 2005 20:58 > > To: RBG7-L Mailing List > > Subject: [RBG7-L] - off topic > > > > I am finding myself being required to justify the use of Rbase instead > > of Access at this Univ. Apparently just saying it's way better, see for > > yourself doesn't cut it. > > > > I am looking for some help in examples of why Rbase is better and that > > is does use a real programming language and a list of major > > organizations that are using rbase. I know Razzak is doing work for the > > FBI and believe the US Navy. Others? > > > > Thanks much. > > > > > > > > James Hageman, CITA I > > University of Delaware Archives > > 002 Pearson Hall > > Newark ,DE 19716 > > 302-831-3127 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
