RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[David Wolverton]

We got a month's stay of execution!  Clif is allowing U2UG to get everything
ready for transition...

David W. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ray Wurlod
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

It's already April 1st here, so I'll bid the list and its participants
farewell.  It's been fun and, I hope, at least a bit helpful for some.  And
a final big thank you to Clif.

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Ray Wurlod]

It's already April 1st here, so I'll bid the list and its participants farewell.  It's 
been fun and, I hope, at least a bit helpful for some.  And a final big thank you to 
Clif.

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Anthony Youngman]

He's doing a SCO ... when you give him any facts he just repeats his
baseless assertions :-)

Yes we know a screwdriver is far better and newer technology, but that
still doesn't mean it beats a hammer for driving nails :-) (Well, it
does if you're too dumb to learn how to use a hammer, but that's another
topic ...)

Cheers,
Wol

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jeff Schasny
Sent: 30 March 2004 23:37
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

Then perhaps you should take your own advice and "HIT DELETE"

-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[unsightly rubbish snipped]

IF you feel my comments are without SUBSTANCE... 
WHY NOT ARGUE BACK with some Valid Proof...

Instead of start Calling People Names... like school kids!

Yes, it is only Normal when People Fail or Run out of Arguments... they
start making Personal Remarks... This Denotes their FAILURE!

Joe Eugene
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users




***

This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and 
confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on 
anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, 
or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error 
or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information 
system.

Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong 
Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333.

***

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 3/30/2004 7:34:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Trevor,
>I *think* the issue is that the mv runtime does typecast variables 
> on the fly, transparently. Which means that assigning a number or the 
> result of a numeric expression (AVAR = 1 * 3) results in AVAR becoming 
> an Integer variable. If you then say something 'string-ish'  (AVAR = 
> "The answer is " : AVAR)  then the variable is recast on 
> the fly into a 
> String variable.
> 
>- Charles "Constant" Barouch

Chuck (if that is your real name) yes you are correct.
The runtime engine recasts on the fly, but it leaves the recast variable as the new 
type until required to change it so

A = 1 ; * a is cast as numeric
PRINT "Hello world" ; * A is still numeric
A = A:"stuff" ; * A is now recast as a string
OPEN "MYFILE" TO XXX ; * A is still a string
A = A + 0 ; * A is now recast as a numeric again

My point is that any intervening operations on other variables don't change the last 
casting of A, only a forced "become a string!" or "become a numeric!" will recast it.

"Recasting beings in ten minutes" Will Johnson
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Results]

Trevor,
   I *think* the issue is that the mv runtime does typecast variables 
on the fly, transparently. Which means that assigning a number or the 
result of a numeric expression (AVAR = 1 * 3) results in AVAR becoming 
an Integer variable. If you then say something 'string-ish'  (AVAR = 
"The answer is " : AVAR)  then the variable is recast on the fly into a 
String variable.

   - Charles "Constant" Barouch

Trevor Ockenden wrote:

Thank you Will but I consider "A = 1" to be an assignment of the number 1
being the result of expression "1" which in my books is numeric.
To clarify this point for others...

"anything on the right hand side of an assignment symbol (in this case "=")
is an expression"
Cheers

Trevor Ockenden
OSP
- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

 

In a message dated 3/30/2004 12:35:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
   

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 

You are partly correct when you say UV treats all data as strings.
 

However,
 

if the UV programmer is careful he/she can get it to do maths
 

processing.
 

Variables within UVBasic are string unless the result of an expression
 

is
 

numeric whereby it becomes numeric.

UV stores numeric data such as dates, time and numbers as a
string value with no decimal point etc. quite deliberately.
 

Trevor partly right.  However the MvBASIC statement "A = 1" makes the
   

variable A into a numeric typed datum.  I'm not sure you could say this is
"the result of an expression" being mathematical, after all Store is both a
string and a numeric command.  The system converts the loading of a purely
numeric argument into a LOADN or STOREN type command on some MV systems,
which the loading of a string is a LOAD or LOADS or STORES or something
similar to that.
 

  Of course the programmer just says A = 1 or A = "DOG" and doesn't have
   

to worry about how the argument is typed in the run engine.
 

"Run Engine" Will
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
   



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 25/03/2004
 

--
Sincerely,
 Charles Barouch
 www.KeyAlly.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Trevor Ockenden]

Thank you Will but I consider "A = 1" to be an assignment of the number 1
being the result of expression "1" which in my books is numeric.

To clarify this point for others...

"anything on the right hand side of an assignment symbol (in this case "=")
is an expression"

Cheers

Trevor Ockenden
OSP

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


> In a message dated 3/30/2004 12:35:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > You are partly correct when you say UV treats all data as strings.
However,
> > if the UV programmer is careful he/she can get it to do maths
processing.
> > Variables within UVBasic are string unless the result of an expression
is
> > numeric whereby it becomes numeric.
> >
> > UV stores numeric data such as dates, time and numbers as a
> > string value with no decimal point etc. quite deliberately.
>
> Trevor partly right.  However the MvBASIC statement "A = 1" makes the
variable A into a numeric typed datum.  I'm not sure you could say this is
"the result of an expression" being mathematical, after all Store is both a
string and a numeric command.  The system converts the loading of a purely
numeric argument into a LOADN or STOREN type command on some MV systems,
which the loading of a string is a LOAD or LOADS or STORES or something
similar to that.
>Of course the programmer just says A = 1 or A = "DOG" and doesn't have
to worry about how the argument is typed in the run engine.
> "Run Engine" Will
> -- 
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 25/03/2004

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Jeff Schasny]

Then perhaps you should take your own advice and "HIT DELETE"

-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[unsightly rubbish snipped]

IF you feel my comments are without SUBSTANCE... 
WHY NOT ARGUE BACK with some Valid Proof...

Instead of start Calling People Names... like school kids!

Yes, it is only Normal when People Fail or Run out of Arguments... they
start making Personal Remarks... This Denotes their FAILURE!

Joe Eugene
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Mr. Moderator...

I started an ARGUMENT ALRIGHT... But I did NOT Make any Personal
Comments
To Anybody on this LIST Until some UN-PROFESSIONAL IDIOT WON'T STOP!
 
You might want to check the emails.

> statements that are untrue because you are ignorant and spout off
about

IF you feel my comments are without SUBSTANCE... 
WHY NOT ARGUE BACK with some Valid Proof...

Instead of start Calling People Names... like school kids!

Yes, it is only Normal when People Fail or Run out of Arguments... they
start making Personal Remarks... This Denotes their FAILURE!

Joe Eugene



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:32 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> In a message dated 3/30/2004 12:22:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> > Clif,
> >
> > Sorry... I kept this discussion to the best of my Professionalism,
> > until a few folks here Provoked with some serious name calling.
> >
> > Its appears bad enough...
> > some folks here cannot discuss stuff in a constructive
> > argument.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe Eugene
> 
> Joe that is untrue, you started the greased ball by launching an
atomic
> bomb without really understanding what you are talking about.  As many
> people pointed out here, your attacks are without substance.  You make
> statements that are untrue because you are ignorant and spout off
about
> how horrible something is which does not even exist.  When you are
called
> on it, you change the subject.
>Next?
> Will "It's not the Sun it's the Moon" Johnson
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[James Canale, Jr.]

>>Results:-
>>UniVerse 9 seconds
>>Oracle 25 seconds
 
Now this is what makes this list GREAT!  Even more important than who the
results favored, it is real information that helps us all make better
decisions.  Thanks for the FACTS Sara.

Regards,

Jim


-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Sara Burns]

I am probably in the best position to compare apples with apples.  
I have both UniVerse and Oracle on the same IBM p660 4 processor box with
6Gb RAM.  The 800,000 customers are replicated from UniVerse to Oracle,
although the Oracle version is only a subset of the attributes required by a
different application.
 
Both have an index on the first line of the Postal Address.
 
My query was to show all customers with the first line of the Postal address
like %EXPLORATION
 
Results:-
UniVerse 9 seconds
Oracle 25 seconds
 
Sara Burns
 
 
Sara Burns (SEB) 
Development Team Leader

Public Trust 
Phone: +64 (04) 474-3841 (DDI) 

Mobile: 027 457 5974
<  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Information contained in this communication is confidential. If you are not
the intended recipient the information should not be used, disclosed, copied
or commercialised. The information is not necessarily the views nor the
official communication of Public Trust. No guarantee or representation is
made that the communication is free of errors, virus or interference.

 
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 3/30/2004 12:35:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> You are partly correct when you say UV treats all data as strings. However,
> if the UV programmer is careful he/she can get it to do maths processing.
> Variables within UVBasic are string unless the result of an expression is
> numeric whereby it becomes numeric. 
> 
> UV stores numeric data such as dates, time and numbers as a 
> string value with no decimal point etc. quite deliberately.

Trevor partly right.  However the MvBASIC statement "A = 1" makes the variable A into 
a numeric typed datum.  I'm not sure you could say this is "the result of an 
expression" being mathematical, after all Store is both a string and a numeric 
command.  The system converts the loading of a purely numeric argument into a LOADN or 
STOREN type command on some MV systems, which the loading of a string is a LOAD or 
LOADS or STORES or something similar to that.
   Of course the programmer just says A = 1 or A = "DOG" and doesn't have to worry 
about how the argument is typed in the run engine.
"Run Engine" Will
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 3/30/2004 12:22:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Clif,
> 
> Sorry... I kept this discussion to the best of my Professionalism,
> until a few folks here Provoked with some serious name calling.
> 
> Its appears bad enough... 
> some folks here cannot discuss stuff in a constructive 
> argument.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe Eugene

Joe that is untrue, you started the greased ball by launching an atomic bomb without 
really understanding what you are talking about.  As many people pointed out here, 
your attacks are without substance.  You make statements that are untrue because you 
are ignorant and spout off about how horrible something is which does not even exist.  
When you are called on it, you change the subject.
   Next?
Will "It's not the Sun it's the Moon" Johnson
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 3/30/2004 12:06:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Our UV Developers tell me, everything in UV is treated as Strings..
> Do you think MATH Functions will Perform better in UV than a DataBase that
> supports DataTypes?

Joe this is not true
Did it ever occur to you that maybe you are misinterpreting what they are saying or 
perhaps they are not saying it right or perhaps don't know any better?

Everything in UV is NOT treated as a string.  UV has several datum types, you just 
don't see them on the surface, they are handled underneath.  I can assure you that 
math functions (provided you don't specifically request stringmath) are treated as 
numbers, numeric types, etc.  They are absolutely not treated as strings, except where 
the programmer makes specific string function calls using those variables.
Will "Stringless" Johnson
Fast Forward
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[george r smith]

> We're pickies, we don't need to understand XML, or whatever, so long 
> as we can do what's required of us. Yeah, we could learn XML, if 
> required.

Joe suggests we can't learn XML, lets see fellow pickies, XML is
hierarchical what do we know that could possibly help us understand that :).
 
George Smith


-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Les,

Nobody is perfect... My Theory is...

We are all "Technical Craft Men". We should all be Open Minded to
Use the Best Tools to Carve our Art Well. 

Just because you are used to a Certain Brand of Technical Tool, you
shouldn't be Too Big a Loyalist to Criticize its Problems.

No More Posts from me... The above is all I have to say on this topic.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Les Hewkin
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:56 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Joe,
> 
> It must be hard for you being so good and perfect!!!
> 
> The rest of us just have to muddle along in our boring old pick jobs.
> 
> Oh well, time to go home and dream about all those lucky people
working on
> big boy systems.
> 
> But then again
> 
> Les "over paid, under worked and happy" Hewkin
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30 March 2004 16:34
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> 
> 
> Damn it... Don't you anything something better to do!
> 
> Moderator Stopped this Thread!
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Dennis Bartlett
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:45 AM
> > To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > Joe, GET A LIFE.
> >
> > We're pickies, we don't need to understand XML, or whatever,
> > so long as
> > we can do what's required of us. Yeah, we could learn XML,
> > if required.
> > I guarantee I could write a proggie to do just about
> > anything, interface
> > with anything, natively "bond" with any database... With
> > Pick-style
> > products.
> >
> > Yes, Oracle can do things fast - only it takes yonks to
> > develop, has to
> > live within limitations, costs a bomb, requires big process
> > power.
> >
> > Hell, even AS400 can do things, that's why they were built.
> >
> > It's just that mine can do ANY thing, no limitations, very
> > little
> > processing power (R83 on a single 286), costs? What costs?
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
> > Sent: 29 March 2004 06:27
> > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> >
> >
> > We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have
> > MSSQL Server to
> > Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems?
> > Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing?
> > Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems?
> >
> > > U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML,
> > and I believe
> >
> > > they either have or are working on Web Services support
> >
> > Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't
> > even
> > understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery
> > etc. These
> > Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc.
> >
> > e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have
> > to parse
> > through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File...
> > cause either
> > UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using
> > XPath/XQuery
> > Techniques.
> >
> > Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL
> > SERVER... For
> > what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job?
> >
> > As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP
> > Environment,
> > SIMPLE:
> > IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on
> > UV and
> > UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases.
> >
> > Joe Eugene
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of David T. Meeks
> > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM
> > > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> > >
> > > While one could make the argument that Pick has not
> > embraced emerging
> > > technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done
> > so.
> > >
> > 

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Les Hewkin]

Joe,

It must be hard for you being so good and perfect!!!

The rest of us just have to muddle along in our boring old pick jobs.

Oh well, time to go home and dream about all those lucky people working on big boy 
systems.

But then again

Les "over paid, under worked and happy" Hewkin

-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 March 2004 16:34
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing



Damn it... Don't you anything something better to do!

Moderator Stopped this Thread!

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Dennis Bartlett
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:45 AM
> To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Joe, GET A LIFE.
> 
> We're pickies, we don't need to understand XML, or whatever,
> so long as
> we can do what's required of us. Yeah, we could learn XML,
> if required.
> I guarantee I could write a proggie to do just about
> anything, interface
> with anything, natively "bond" with any database... With
> Pick-style
> products.
> 
> Yes, Oracle can do things fast - only it takes yonks to
> develop, has to
> live within limitations, costs a bomb, requires big process
> power.
> 
> Hell, even AS400 can do things, that's why they were built.
> 
> It's just that mine can do ANY thing, no limitations, very
> little
> processing power (R83 on a single 286), costs? What costs?
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
> Sent: 29 March 2004 06:27
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> 
> 
> We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have
> MSSQL Server to
> Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems?
> Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing?
> Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems?
> 
> > U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML,
> and I believe
> 
> > they either have or are working on Web Services support
> 
> Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't
> even
> understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery
> etc. These
> Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc.
> 
> e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have
> to parse
> through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File...
> cause either
> UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using
> XPath/XQuery
> Techniques.
> 
> Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL
> SERVER... For
> what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job?
> 
> As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP
> Environment,
> SIMPLE:
> IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on
> UV and
> UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases.
> 
> Joe Eugene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of David T. Meeks
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM
> > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > While one could make the argument that Pick has not
> embraced emerging
> > technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done
> so.
> >
> > U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML,
> and I believe
> 
> > they either have or are working on Web Services support (I
> know, for
> example,
> > that
> > the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).
> >
> > One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain
> technologies,
> > and
> > the level of support currently within the products, but to
> say that
> there
> > is
> > "little/no" support is a bit uninformed.
> >
> > The U2 products ARE supported in certain "Integration"
> software.  I
> > wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft "integration"
> software.
> > They are Enterprise
> > Software Suites, but not geared particularly at
> 'integration'.
> >
> > However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage
> product sets
> > for both of their "integration" products (SAP's BW,
> PeopleSoft's EPM,
> > JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very
> well with
> both U2
> > products, this point is actually wrong.  People who have
> SAP or
> People

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Damn it... Don't you anything something better to do!

Moderator Stopped this Thread!

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Dennis Bartlett
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:45 AM
> To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Joe, GET A LIFE.
> 
> We're pickies, we don't need to understand XML, or whatever,
> so long as
> we can do what's required of us. Yeah, we could learn XML,
> if required.
> I guarantee I could write a proggie to do just about
> anything, interface
> with anything, natively "bond" with any database... With
> Pick-style
> products.
> 
> Yes, Oracle can do things fast - only it takes yonks to
> develop, has to
> live within limitations, costs a bomb, requires big process
> power.
> 
> Hell, even AS400 can do things, that's why they were built.
> 
> It's just that mine can do ANY thing, no limitations, very
> little
> processing power (R83 on a single 286), costs? What costs?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
> Sent: 29 March 2004 06:27
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> 
> 
> We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have
> MSSQL Server to
> Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems?
> Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing?
> Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems?
> 
> > U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML,
> and I believe
> 
> > they either have or are working on Web Services support
> 
> Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't
> even
> understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery
> etc. These
> Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc.
> 
> e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have
> to parse
> through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File...
> cause either
> UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using
> XPath/XQuery
> Techniques.
> 
> Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL
> SERVER... For
> what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job?
> 
> As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP
> Environment,
> SIMPLE:
> IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on
> UV and
> UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases.
> 
> Joe Eugene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of David T. Meeks
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM
> > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > While one could make the argument that Pick has not
> embraced emerging
> > technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done
> so.
> >
> > U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML,
> and I believe
> 
> > they either have or are working on Web Services support (I
> know, for
> example,
> > that
> > the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).
> >
> > One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain
> technologies,
> > and
> > the level of support currently within the products, but to
> say that
> there
> > is
> > "little/no" support is a bit uninformed.
> >
> > The U2 products ARE supported in certain "Integration"
> software.  I
> > wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft "integration"
> software.
> > They are Enterprise
> > Software Suites, but not geared particularly at
> 'integration'.
> >
> > However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage
> product sets
> > for both of their "integration" products (SAP's BW,
> PeopleSoft's EPM,
> > JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very
> well with
> both U2
> > products, this point is actually wrong.  People who have
> SAP or
> PeopleSoft
> > solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data
> to/from those
> > environments.
> >
> > As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of
> different
> > dimensions.  From a memory/disk
> space/footprint/administrative
> > overhead
> dimensions,
> > the
> > U2 database products are VERY efficient.
> >
> > Finally, as to being "slow", again this depends on the
> measurement
> 

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Dennis Bartlett]

Joe, GET A LIFE.

We're pickies, we don't need to understand XML, or whatever,
so long as
we can do what's required of us. Yeah, we could learn XML,
if required.
I guarantee I could write a proggie to do just about
anything, interface
with anything, natively "bond" with any database... With
Pick-style
products.

Yes, Oracle can do things fast - only it takes yonks to
develop, has to
live within limitations, costs a bomb, requires big process
power.

Hell, even AS400 can do things, that's why they were built.

It's just that mine can do ANY thing, no limitations, very
little
processing power (R83 on a single 286), costs? What costs?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
Sent: 29 March 2004 06:27
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing



We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have
MSSQL Server to
Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems?
Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing?
Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems?

> U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML,
and I believe

> they either have or are working on Web Services support

Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't
even
understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery
etc. These
Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc.

e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have
to parse
through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File...
cause either
UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using
XPath/XQuery
Techniques.

Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL
SERVER... For
what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job?

As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP
Environment,
SIMPLE:
IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on
UV and
UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases.

Joe Eugene





> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of David T. Meeks
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>
> While one could make the argument that Pick has not
embraced emerging
> technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done
so.
>
> U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML,
and I believe

> they either have or are working on Web Services support (I
know, for
example,
> that
> the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).
>
> One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain
technologies,
> and
> the level of support currently within the products, but to
say that
there
> is
> "little/no" support is a bit uninformed.
>
> The U2 products ARE supported in certain "Integration"
software.  I
> wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft "integration"
software.
> They are Enterprise
> Software Suites, but not geared particularly at
'integration'.
>
> However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage
product sets
> for both of their "integration" products (SAP's BW,
PeopleSoft's EPM,
> JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very
well with
both U2
> products, this point is actually wrong.  People who have
SAP or
PeopleSoft
> solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data
to/from those
> environments.
>
> As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of
different
> dimensions.  From a memory/disk
space/footprint/administrative
> overhead
dimensions,
> the
> U2 database products are VERY efficient.
>
> Finally, as to being "slow", again this depends on the
measurement
> criteria being used.  From the perspective of concurrent
user access
> and the performance
> of application style DB usage (largely input/output,
multiple
concurrent
> users, etc..),
> the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys.
For
support of
> VLDB,
> highly transactional query-based usage models, and the
like, it does
not.
>
> Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is
wrong.  They
are
> not the
> panacea for every database requirement.  However, for
certain
problems,
> especially
> those for which it was designed (embedded database for
application
> development), it is very efficient.
>
> Dave
>
> At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of
advanced level

> >computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to
Legacy
DB2
> >that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has
moved DB2 (Now
UDB)
> >to a completly relational architecture.
> >
> >I belive some of the below are good reas

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Keith Upton]

Interesting...
 
Have just come back from holiday and have not had the time to read all
these messages but have been drawn to this one!  We have a HP superdome,
running Uv 9.6 to our 700 branches and offices from our central head
office.  All development is carried out in house.  All of the company
business systems are written in databasic and all 8000 online users seem
to be getting their work done!  Not sure what you mean by corporate?
 
Keith
 
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 30 March 2004 03:30
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
 
 
Our UV Developers here have over 25 years of Experience doing the stuff
the do... I personally am not interested in learning the details of UV
since nobody really uses this kinda stuff at Corporate Level.
 
I am simply surprised why UV is still used by a few Loyal Folk...
when people with 25 years of experience simply cannot make it perform
well.
 
 
Joe
 


This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of 
the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, you must not copy, 
distribute or disclose the contents; please notify the sender immediately and delete 
the message.
This message is attributed to the sender and may not necessarily reflect the view of 
Travis Perkins plc or its subsidiaries (Travis Perkins). Agreements binding Travis 
Perkins may not be concluded by means of e-mail communication.
E-mail transmissions are not secure and Travis Perkins accepts no responsibility for 
changes made to this message after it was sent. Whilst steps have been taken to ensure 
that this message is virus free, Travis Perkins accepts no liability for infection and 
recommends that you scan this e-mail and any attachments.
Part of Travis Perkins plc. Registered Office: Lodge Way House, Lodge Way, Harlestone 
Road, Northampton, NN5 7UG.

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Donald Kibbey]

As stated earlier, kindly leave the guests alone.  They are tired of your flaming.

If your not interested in learning some "legacy techniques" then kindly just go away 
and code up some wonderful stuff in vb against a nice fat Oracle data store.

Bye!!!


Don Kibbey
Financial Systems Manager
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP


>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 09:25PM >>>

What is your DEAL... Am Not Interested in Learning PICK/BASIC Or
spending
my valuable hours on some legacy technique.

You can call it WHATEVER you want... Does it really Matter?

You seem to be VERY Interested in Trivial things and stupid comments!

Joe

http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Donald Kibbey]

Yep I can delete and "drop" too.  


Don Kibbey
Financial Systems Manager
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP


>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 09:19PM >>>

Dude... Why don't u find somewhere to TALK Rubbish!

IF you don't like the EMAILS... DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO DELETE...?


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On
> Behalf Of Don Kibbey
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:13 PM
> To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Dude, your like the dog that just won't stop humping the guests leg.
Get
> over it already.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On
> Behalf Of Joe Eugene
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:31 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> David,
> 
> > All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in
> > some areas of technology that cannot be replaced
> 
> I am very open minded to all Technologies and I think every software
> professional will benefit from being open to technologies.
> 
> I have been unable to convince myself that an UV Brings any kind of
value
> for the below in an OLTP Environment.
> 
> 1. Advanced Level Software Development.
> 2. Performance
> 3. Scalability etc
> 
> Nested tables (Big Feature for UV) is not something new, most
relational
> databases accommodate this feature at a much higher level.
> 
> IF BIG THREE Databases (DB2/ORACLE/MSSQL) was poor on ROI...
> Why would 75% of the worlds Corporations depend on such databases?
> 
> Can you Name One BIG Fortune 100 that totally relies on UV?
> 
> I have heard stories where several corporations migrated to RDBMS,
Never
> heard any LARGE Corp(Hershey, GE, BOfA etc) switch to UV/MVDBMS.
> 
> Never seen any Enterprise Software (SAP, PeopleSoft etc) mention UV on
> their
> Web Sites Never seen a book on UV OR PICK at Barnes & Nobles.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain where UV plays an Important Role.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe Eugene
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> On
> > Behalf Of djordan
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:43 PM
> > To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > Hi Joe
> >
> > I have worked with variety of databases and I think using one
> > performance statistic to evaluate the capabilities of one database
> > against another is meaningless.  As a professional I consider all
> > databases for any business requirement and select on their merits.
To
> > discount MV products from that list would be unproffesional and
> > negligent.  There are numerous cases where Universe has clobbered
> RDBMS
> > in the real world and a cost per transaction it is very strong.
> >
> > If you take an Oracle style application and run it on Universe,
Oracle
> > will probaly run better.  If you take a typical Universe Application
> and
> > run it on another RDBMS, Universe will most likely run better.  The
> > style of application can impact on speed, different databases are
> built
> > for different styles of applications and a number of applications
> built
> > in the PICK world do not transfer to RDBMS to the surprise of many a
> > sacked CEO.
> >
> > I have used Universe to integrate with a significant number of other
> > databases and applications and have generated award winning
software.
> > The most critical requirement for any is bussiness is to have a
> solution
> > that is reliable, creates an ROI and is on schedule in development
> which
> > is the norm in the Universe world.
> >
> > All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in
> > some areas of technology that cannot be replaced.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > David Jordan
> >
> >
> > --
> > u2-users mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users 
> 
> 
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users 
> 
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users 


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Results]

Mark,
   All I can add is that when I went to London and to Sydney, I wasn't 
a stranger - I was "I know you from the U2 list, right?" and I had 
friends in both countries. I'm doing business in South Africa, partially 
because of this list. The funny thing is, for every person I've helped, 
I'm sure I can think of ten who've helped me. Where else can you be 
popular and humble at the same time?

--
Sincerely,
 Charles "What a Ride" Barouch
 www.KeyAlly.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Mark Johnson wrote:

I agree that this list will be sorely missed. It has a genuine technical
value as well as a human value for some of the soft topics that floated
around. Plus, it helped identify some quite knowledgeable people that I hope
still contribute later.
I've gotten some UV/UD and even D3 and AP-Pro and other native advice from
this list. Even the VAR for one of my clients frequents this list with
questions and answers.
Anyway, thanks to Clif and everyone for all their help over the years. See
you on the other side.
Mark Johnson
 



--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Mark Johnson]

I agree that this list will be sorely missed. It has a genuine technical
value as well as a human value for some of the soft topics that floated
around. Plus, it helped identify some quite knowledgable people that I hope
still contribute later.

I've gotten some UV/UD and even D3 and AP-Pro and other native advice from
this list. Even the VAR for one of my clients frequents this list with
questions and answers.

Anyway, thanks to Clif and everyone for all their help over the years. See
you on the other side.

Mark Johnson

- Original Message -
From: "Trevor Ockenden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


> Joe
>
> You must have more time on your hands than I but I will try to reply to
you
> before this list terminates.
>
> This list has helped me and I'm sure many others overcome our ignorance or
> lack of experience etc. When genuine problems are encountered we usually
go
> through our support channels and they get fixed (usually). In fact only
the
> other day a small issue was confirmed (in my mind) as an introduced bug
and
> I have since reported it to IBM with their response being "acknowledged"
and
> "will be in the next release" etc.
>
> Now, one of my pet topics is typing!
>
> You are partly correct when you say UV treats all data as strings.
However,
> if the UV programmer is careful he/she can get it to do maths processing.
> Variables within UVBasic are string unless the result of an expression is
> numeric whereby it becomes numeric. If it needs to be treated as string UV
> will automatically convert it back to string. Now this makes programming
> much easier and if the programmer is careful not to treat it as a string
> he/she can perform many mathematical operations on it without it becoming
a
> string again.
>
> Now this brings me to the next point when referring to typing.
>
> UV stores numeric data such as dates, time and numbers as a string value
> with no decimal point etc. quite deliberately. This technique makes
> selection or searches on the file much more efficient than 'mainstream'
> searches as they must use the numeric capabilities of the processor to
carry
> out the necessary comparisons whereby UV simply does string comparisons.
>
> Now at this point I must draw back a little as I have too many comments to
> make...
>
> The procedural code you provide is crude to say the least and yes there
are
> many tools that allow you to use more 'business rules' and so forth.
>
> Finally, in Australia where we generally are considered to be minor
players
> there is an UV site with 2000 plus concurrent users on a wide area network
> that processes 3-4 million transactions per day 7x24 and has to date been
> first to bring new technologies to the market before any 'mainstream'
> products. Poof is in the eating I'm afraid.
>
> Cheers
>
> Trevor Ockenden
> OSP
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:06 PM
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>
>
> >
> > Trevor,
> >
> > I am a member of serveral other Technical Forms. When i have found
> problems
> > with any software, have brought it up on several occasions. A few of
these
> > issues
> > were acknowledged by the Software Vendor and later architectural changes
> > were made to rectify the issue.
> >
> > On this Forum, i have rarely heard anybody talk about Problems OF UV...
> Why?
> > Perhaps they are too big Loyalists of UV to approve of the Problem
> > Do you know what this leads to...the Vendor is never going to improve
the
> > software,
> > unless the Clients asks for more..
> >
> > Do you think VB.NET will Perform better than C#.NET? C# is a strongly
> typed
> > language, just like java...this helps it Peform and scale better.
> >
> > Our UV Developers tell me, everything in UV is treated as Strings..
> > Do you think MATH Functions will Perform better in UV than a DataBase
that
> > supports DataTypes?
> > A String can be any Possible Combinations, so the the underlying
> > Language/Compiler takes
> > more time to achive the same results. Leave alone MATH... Try some BIG
> > Loops.
> >
> > Another Big Problem..Unicode on any MainStream Database is a very easy
> thing
> > to do..
> > No effort required. We were trying to get Unicode into UV For about 4
> > Months. We failed
&g

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Trevor Ockenden]

Joe

You must have more time on your hands than I but I will try to reply to you
before this list terminates.

This list has helped me and I'm sure many others overcome our ignorance or
lack of experience etc. When genuine problems are encountered we usually go
through our support channels and they get fixed (usually). In fact only the
other day a small issue was confirmed (in my mind) as an introduced bug and
I have since reported it to IBM with their response being "acknowledged" and
"will be in the next release" etc.

Now, one of my pet topics is typing!

You are partly correct when you say UV treats all data as strings. However,
if the UV programmer is careful he/she can get it to do maths processing.
Variables within UVBasic are string unless the result of an expression is
numeric whereby it becomes numeric. If it needs to be treated as string UV
will automatically convert it back to string. Now this makes programming
much easier and if the programmer is careful not to treat it as a string
he/she can perform many mathematical operations on it without it becoming a
string again.

Now this brings me to the next point when referring to typing.

UV stores numeric data such as dates, time and numbers as a string value
with no decimal point etc. quite deliberately. This technique makes
selection or searches on the file much more efficient than 'mainstream'
searches as they must use the numeric capabilities of the processor to carry
out the necessary comparisons whereby UV simply does string comparisons.

Now at this point I must draw back a little as I have too many comments to
make...

The procedural code you provide is crude to say the least and yes there are
many tools that allow you to use more 'business rules' and so forth.

Finally, in Australia where we generally are considered to be minor players
there is an UV site with 2000 plus concurrent users on a wide area network
that processes 3-4 million transactions per day 7x24 and has to date been
first to bring new technologies to the market before any 'mainstream'
products. Poof is in the eating I'm afraid.

Cheers

Trevor Ockenden
OSP

- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:06 PM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


>
> Trevor,
>
> I am a member of serveral other Technical Forms. When i have found
problems
> with any software, have brought it up on several occasions. A few of these
> issues
> were acknowledged by the Software Vendor and later architectural changes
> were made to rectify the issue.
>
> On this Forum, i have rarely heard anybody talk about Problems OF UV...
Why?
> Perhaps they are too big Loyalists of UV to approve of the Problem
> Do you know what this leads to...the Vendor is never going to improve the
> software,
> unless the Clients asks for more..
>
> Do you think VB.NET will Perform better than C#.NET? C# is a strongly
typed
> language, just like java...this helps it Peform and scale better.
>
> Our UV Developers tell me, everything in UV is treated as Strings..
> Do you think MATH Functions will Perform better in UV than a DataBase that
> supports DataTypes?
> A String can be any Possible Combinations, so the the underlying
> Language/Compiler takes
> more time to achive the same results. Leave alone MATH... Try some BIG
> Loops.
>
> Another Big Problem..Unicode on any MainStream Database is a very easy
thing
> to do..
> No effort required. We were trying to get Unicode into UV For about 4
> Months. We failed
> and finally had IBM Consultants come in to help.. Even they couldnt get it
> done.
>
> Finally, we decided to store all Unicode in MS-SQL Server until IBM gets
> things resolved.
> Do you think this is a good situation?
>
> Yes, MainStream DataBases are Complex because they do ALOT of STUFF.
> I have written applications that were entirely Data Logic Driven(Business
> Logic,
> Rules Logic, Data Intergrity Logic etc). There applications were highly
> scalable
> and responded in LESS 300 MILLISECONDS PER REQUEST.
>
> On the contrary... The UV Programs i have come across treat UV as a Flat
> File,
> Data Dump Mechanism. Then the UV Developer uses PICK/BASIC to Read the
Data
> and ALL the Logic is Embeded within these PICK/BASIC Programs. So you are
> taking
> the Data out of its Container and doing a TON of Data Interpreting...
> WHERE ALOT OF these can be BASED on RELATIONAL DATA.
>
> E.G. Lets say you have to Process Order Taxes Based on Country Code and
> State Code.
>
> Our UV Developers write a PICK/BASIC Program like
>
> if(countryCode == 'USA' & stateCode == 'NY')
> read some file with da

Re: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Moderator]

*** end of thread ***

Joe Eugene wrote:
Clif,

Sorry... I kept this discussion to the best of my Professionalism,
until a few folks here Provoked with some serious name calling.
Its appears bad enough... 
some folks here cannot discuss stuff in a constructive argument.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Moderator
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:09 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Importance: High


This is a test, right? Y'all got together off-list and cooked this up to 
see if I was going to follow through or just roll over and let things 
free-wheel for the duration.



Seriously, this kind of name calling, mud slingly, and vitriol is 
disturbing in its lack of professionalism. Add to that the fact that 
this still remains a TECHNICAL discussion list. Just because the list is 
closing doesn't mean everyone is free to go off on an off-topic, 
non-technical tirade.

Just because it's the last week of school doesn't mean you can start a 
spit-ball war.

Now, please compose yourselves, and drop this thread.

--

Regards,

Clif
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Clif,

Sorry... I kept this discussion to the best of my Professionalism,
until a few folks here Provoked with some serious name calling.

Its appears bad enough... 
some folks here cannot discuss stuff in a constructive argument.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of Moderator
>Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:09 AM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>Importance: High
>
>
>
>
>This is a test, right? Y'all got together off-list and cooked this up to 
>see if I was going to follow through or just roll over and let things 
>free-wheel for the duration.
>
>
>
>Seriously, this kind of name calling, mud slingly, and vitriol is 
>disturbing in its lack of professionalism. Add to that the fact that 
>this still remains a TECHNICAL discussion list. Just because the list is 
>closing doesn't mean everyone is free to go off on an off-topic, 
>non-technical tirade.
>
>Just because it's the last week of school doesn't mean you can start a 
>spit-ball war.
>
>Now, please compose yourselves, and drop this thread.
>
>-- 
>
>Regards,
>
>Clif
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-- 
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Real Funny ;)

I have Spare Time alright.. and you have MORE TIME TO
Reply to "Stupid Topics" than TO *HIT* DELETE KEY.

Does that give you a HINT?

Joe Eugene


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:43 PM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>
>
>Hi Will,
>
>troll( P )  Pronunciation Key  (trl)
>v. trolled, troll*ing, trolls
>v. tr.
>
>   1.
> 1. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly
>moving boat.
> 2. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for
>bass.
> 3. To trail (a baited line) in fishing
>
>Say no more 8-) Joe has a little spare time and enjoys fishing.
>
>Regards
>
>David Logan
>Database Administrator
>HP Managed Services
>139 Frome Street,
>Adelaide 5000
>Australia
>
>+61 8 8408 4273
>+61 417 268 665
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 2:01 PM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>
>
>Joe why are you on this list?
>What is the point of hanging around haranging (sp?) us if you are not
>interested in learning anything as you put it?
>Why not just leave.
>Will
>
>In a message dated 3/29/2004 9:30:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Our UV Developers here have over 25 years of Experience doing the
>stuff
>> the do... I personally am not interested in learning the details of UV
>> since nobody really uses this kinda stuff at Corporate Level.
>> 
>> I am simply surprised why UV is still used by a few Loyal Folk...
>> when people with 25 years of experience simply cannot make 
>> it perform
>> well.
>-- 
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>-- 
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Dont you still get it...? Think a little bit HARDER!...

Joe Eugene


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:31 PM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>
>
>Joe why are you on this list?
>What is the point of hanging around haranging (sp?) us if you are 
>not interested in learning anything as you put it?
>Why not just leave.
>Will
>
>In a message dated 3/29/2004 9:30:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Our UV Developers here have over 25 years of Experience doing the stuff
>> the do... I personally am not interested in learning the details of UV
>> since nobody really uses this kinda stuff at Corporate Level.
>> 
>> I am simply surprised why UV is still used by a few Loyal Folk...
>> when people with 25 years of experience simply cannot make 
>> it perform
>> well.
>-- 
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

[ADMIN] Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Moderator]

This is a test, right? Y'all got together off-list and cooked this up to 
see if I was going to follow through or just roll over and let things 
free-wheel for the duration.



Seriously, this kind of name calling, mud slingly, and vitriol is 
disturbing in its lack of professionalism. Add to that the fact that 
this still remains a TECHNICAL discussion list. Just because the list is 
closing doesn't mean everyone is free to go off on an off-topic, 
non-technical tirade.

Just because it's the last week of school doesn't mean you can start a 
spit-ball war.

Now, please compose yourselves, and drop this thread.

--

Regards,

Clif
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Trevor,

I am a member of serveral other Technical Forms. When i have found problems
with any software, have brought it up on several occasions. A few of these
issues
were acknowledged by the Software Vendor and later architectural changes
were made to rectify the issue.

On this Forum, i have rarely heard anybody talk about Problems OF UV... Why?
Perhaps they are too big Loyalists of UV to approve of the Problem
Do you know what this leads to...the Vendor is never going to improve the
software,
unless the Clients asks for more..

Do you think VB.NET will Perform better than C#.NET? C# is a strongly typed
language, just like java...this helps it Peform and scale better.

Our UV Developers tell me, everything in UV is treated as Strings..
Do you think MATH Functions will Perform better in UV than a DataBase that
supports DataTypes?
A String can be any Possible Combinations, so the the underlying
Language/Compiler takes
more time to achive the same results. Leave alone MATH... Try some BIG
Loops.

Another Big Problem..Unicode on any MainStream Database is a very easy thing
to do..
No effort required. We were trying to get Unicode into UV For about 4
Months. We failed
and finally had IBM Consultants come in to help.. Even they couldnt get it
done.

Finally, we decided to store all Unicode in MS-SQL Server until IBM gets
things resolved.
Do you think this is a good situation?

Yes, MainStream DataBases are Complex because they do ALOT of STUFF.
I have written applications that were entirely Data Logic Driven(Business
Logic,
Rules Logic, Data Intergrity Logic etc). There applications were highly
scalable
and responded in LESS 300 MILLISECONDS PER REQUEST.

On the contrary... The UV Programs i have come across treat UV as a Flat
File,
Data Dump Mechanism. Then the UV Developer uses PICK/BASIC to Read the Data
and ALL the Logic is Embeded within these PICK/BASIC Programs. So you are
taking
the Data out of its Container and doing a TON of Data Interpreting...
WHERE ALOT OF these can be BASED on RELATIONAL DATA.

E.G. Lets say you have to Process Order Taxes Based on Country Code and
State Code.

Our UV Developers write a PICK/BASIC Program like

if(countryCode == 'USA' & stateCode == 'NY')
read some file with data...
else if (countryCode == 'USA" & stateCode=='SC')
read some file and do this...

So for every Country and State you are goona do the above..

Why NOT just relate the data between the combinations within the DB
with Data Relations...and just leave the data where it belongs...
Hell alot of LESS Code.. right?

You can clearly see where Procedural Technique is Highly In-Efficient.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of Trevor Ockenden
>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:55 PM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>
>
>Joe
>
>One final point. You find it hard to believe people on this LIST get so
>defensive.
>
>May I suggest that if we were to dive into a DB2 or SQLServer LIST (if they
>exist) and put them down I dare say we would get some pretty
>abusive remarks
>thrown at us too.
>
>Only to be expected
>
>Trevor Ockenden
>OSP
>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004
>
>--
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)]

Hi Will,

troll( P )  Pronunciation Key  (trl)
v. trolled, troll*ing, trolls
v. tr.

   1.
 1. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly
moving boat.
 2. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for
bass.
 3. To trail (a baited line) in fishing

Say no more 8-) Joe has a little spare time and enjoys fishing.

Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4273
+61 417 268 665



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 2:01 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


Joe why are you on this list?
What is the point of hanging around haranging (sp?) us if you are not
interested in learning anything as you put it?
Why not just leave.
Will

In a message dated 3/29/2004 9:30:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Our UV Developers here have over 25 years of Experience doing the
stuff
> the do... I personally am not interested in learning the details of UV
> since nobody really uses this kinda stuff at Corporate Level.
> 
> I am simply surprised why UV is still used by a few Loyal Folk...
> when people with 25 years of experience simply cannot make 
> it perform
> well.
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[FFT2001]

Joe why are you on this list?
What is the point of hanging around haranging (sp?) us if you are not interested in 
learning anything as you put it?
Why not just leave.
Will

In a message dated 3/29/2004 9:30:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Our UV Developers here have over 25 years of Experience doing the stuff
> the do... I personally am not interested in learning the details of UV
> since nobody really uses this kinda stuff at Corporate Level.
> 
> I am simply surprised why UV is still used by a few Loyal Folk...
> when people with 25 years of experience simply cannot make 
> it perform
> well.
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Trevor Ockenden]

Joe

One final point. You find it hard to believe people on this LIST get so
defensive.

May I suggest that if we were to dive into a DB2 or SQLServer LIST (if they
exist) and put them down I dare say we would get some pretty abusive remarks
thrown at us too.

Only to be expected

Trevor Ockenden
OSP



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

What is your DEAL... Am Not Interested in Learning PICK/BASIC Or
spending
my valuable hours on some legacy technique.

You can call it WHATEVER you want... Does it really Matter?

You seem to be VERY Interested in Trivial things and stupid comments!

Joe

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Tony Wood
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:21 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Joe,
> 
> FYI, PICK is NOT a flavour of BASIC. Pick is a MVDB currently owned by
> Raining Data. You do need to some more research - proper research of
the
> topic. You can refer to UV running with a PICK flavour but nothing
else.
> BASIC is the programming language used by most of the MVDB systems.
PICK
> BASIC is the specific version of BASIC used on PICK systems UV BASIC
is
> the
> BASIC used on UniVerse systems.
> 
> Rather than showing your ignorance how about showing us your
brilliance
> and
> answer some the more pertinent questions already asked by other member
of
> the list.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> T.
> 
> 
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Trevor Ockenden]

Joe

Thanks for the direct reply.

I have had some experience with 'mainstream' databases and due mainly to my
lack of knowledge and experience I found them to be cumbersome, inefficient
and expensive for the type of applications I was dealing with.

Having said that, I have seen some fantastic applications written with them
by those that knew them well.

As a general rule, MV databases do some things well and others not at all
well whilst 'mainstream' databases can do most things well BUT at a cost.

Traditionally the MV (or Pick) users of the past were too used to getting a
lot of application for much less cost which in the long run has been the MV
databases biggest problem. Being so inexpensive meant the money wasn't there
for marketing and to a degree the R&D.

Your in-house MV people either haven't given this issue enough effort or may
not have the knowledge of UV to set up this machine correctly as 15-20
second search times seems excessive to me.

However, it is up to you whether or not you provide the ANALYZE.FILE results
or not but it may help other list members if we were to pursue it.

Best of luck

Trevor Ockenden
OSP




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Tony Gravagno]

Joe Eugene wrote:
>I have heard stories where several corporations migrated to RDBMS,
>Never heard any LARGE Corp(Hershey, GE, BOfA etc) switch to UV/MVDBMS.

Of the many companies who have migrated from MV to an RDBMS you always hear
the fanfare of their initial decision but rarely of the years of toil as
they try to get back what they originally had, let alone moving forward.
Read up on Oxford Health for one of many examples.  Moving to an unknown
DBMS platform isn't good for stock values - sad but true fact of Wall
Street.  If IBM actually stood behind U2 then this attitude might change a
little.  It seems like many people over there support U2 but IBM as a
company just doesn't want to openly embrace the technology.

Also, as Chuck says, there is the big company, big money mindset - MV is
just too efficient for those guys to consider because their IT staff
wouldn't be commensurate with their company size.

I do have an anecdote: One of my clients, an MV user, is a supplier to a
fortune 500 company.  That F500 company chooses to remotely connect into my
client to obtain their business data - because they can't get the data they
need fast enough from their "big 3" systems and IT staff.

>Never seen any Enterprise Software (SAP, PeopleSoft etc)
>mention UV on their Web Sites

If you'd like to integrate SAP with U2, I told you I'd be happy to do it for
you.  So far no one has asked - that's why you don't see anything anywhere.
I think the mindset is "one or the other" - it doesn't have to be that way.


>Never seen a book on UV OR PICK at Barnes & Nobles.
>Perhaps you can explain where UV plays an Important Role.

Ahhh, and this is the point where most Pick people will agree the market has
collectively failed to perform: Marketing.  The people who have acquired MV
environments have done so with the idea of somehow turning over a profit
through investment, but rarely do the plans truly include expanding
awareness of the Pick model to bring in new developers.  It's a paradox that
I've been trying to understand for many years.  Expansion cannot happen
without education, and that means encouraging books, magazine articles, and
other forms of mainstream advertising.  If IBM, jBASE, and Raining Data ever
do for their products what Intersystems has done for Cache', _then_ we'd
have some fun!

Tony
(Always willing to write a book, and I occasionally do...)

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Tony Wood]

You are correct. It was your "Trivial things and stupid comments" that I was
answering.

Regards,

T.


-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Trevor,

Sorry.. that was a TYPO.. I Re-Posted the Performance Results.
Everybody here thinks I am just bringing up things for FUN!.

These are Real world, Real Time applications. I have never worked
With any database where I had to Increase the Application Server Timeout
Cause Users were getting Request Time out Errors from the DB.

I can post JRUN LOG Files here where UV took more than 3 Minutes to
Process Requests. I can't believe people on this LIST get so Defensive.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Trevor Ockenden
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:10 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Joe
> 
> Have I missed something here. You refer to the QUAD as having MSSQL
SERVER
> 2K as the database so where does the UV (or PICK) files fit into this
> equation?
> 
> Also, when carrying out this performance test did you take into
account as
> to whether or not the file was in memory or not. The Athlon may have
had
> most of the table concerned in memory whilst the Quad may have had to
load
> the whole (Pick) file into memory.
> 
> Let's be fair here. If you want to do a fair comparison I suspect you
will
> need to go to a little more trouble.
> 
> I have run a similar test on my Pentium 2 366 laptop running UV and a
> 500,000 record file can be searched (wild card - ie no index used) in
much
> less than 15 seconds.
> 
> Have another try!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Trevor Ockenden
> OSP
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:47 AM
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> 
> > Charles,
> >
> > Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK.
> > This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it.
> > Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards.
> >
> > Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test.
> >
> > RESULTS
> >
> > Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
> > Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> > Records: 20 Million
> > Indexes: NO
> > Search Time: 2 Seconds
> >
> > --
> >
> > Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
> > Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> > Records: 500,000
> > Indexes: YES
> > Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds
> >
> > I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support
MR.SLOW
> > UV!
> >
> > How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe Eugene
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Results
> > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM
> > > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > > Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> > >
> > > Joe,
> > > Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including
> > > UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business
rules
> > > more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix.
> > > Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice
as
> > > efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches -
> > > forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is
always
> > a
> > > premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as
efficient
> > > on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an
MV
> > > environment is triple the speed of a "Big Three" database even
when
> > you
> > > ignore search speed.
> > > Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing
systems
> > in
> > > the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you
can
> > > be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data
> > > warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2
technology
> > > just to get Datastage.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >  Sincerely,
> > >   Charles Barouch
> > >   www.KeyAlly.com
> > >   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > u2-users mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
> >
> >
> > --
> > u2-users mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
> >
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004
> 
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Our UV Developers here have over 25 years of Experience doing the stuff
the do... I personally am not interested in learning the details of UV
since nobody really uses this kinda stuff at Corporate Level.

I am simply surprised why UV is still used by a few Loyal Folk...
when people with 25 years of experience simply cannot make it perform
well.


Joe

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Trevor Ockenden
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:17 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Joe
> 
> Have you sized your UV file correctly? The 15-20 seconds suggests many
> things are not as they should be.
> 
> Can you do an "ANALYZE.FILE" on this file and post the details. If it
is a
> dynamic hashed file include the option "STATS" please.
> 
> We may be able to help you after all.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Trevor Ockenden
> OSP
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:06 PM
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> 
> > This is what I meant ... TYPO
> >
> > RESULTS
> >
> > Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
> > Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> > Records: 20 Million
> > Indexes: NO
> > Search Column: First Name
> > Search Type: Wild Card (*)
> > Search Time: 2 Seconds
> > --
> > Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
> > Database: UV Version 10.1
> > Records: 500,000
> > Indexes: YES
> > Search Column: First Name
> > Search Type: Wild Card
> > Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds
> >
> > PICK = A FLAVOR of BASIC...Sometimes called PICK BASIC OR UV BASIC.
> > Call it whatever you want.
> >
> > JOE
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
> > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:55 PM
> > > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> > >
> > > Hi Joe,
> > >
> > > Perhaps you could share your actual searches, code and database
> > > structure? Were you searching 20 million records in a single
column
> > > table? Multiple "fields (or columns if you insist)" in the
Universe
> > > database? What is this PICK you keep talking about? Universe
doesn't
> > > have a component named PICK, there is certainly a flavour. That is
> > your
> > > choice to use it, you are not compelled to.
> > >
> > > How do we know you are comparing apples with apples? How were your
> > > indexes structured? I haven't seen "Universe Standards" for
indexing.
> > > Please elucidate on this as I am obviously ignorant in this area.
> > > Unfortunately your claims are now starting to fluctuate between
the
> > > fantastic and the ludicrous. How can you expect to be taken
seriously
> > > when you don't provide a sound basis for your argument?
> > >
> > > I presume you meant the first database to be Universe? Obviously
it
> > must
> > > be as it was the fast one 8-)
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > David Logan
> > > Database Administrator
> > > HP Managed Services
> > > 139 Frome Street,
> > > Adelaide 5000
> > > Australia
> > >
> > > +61 8 8408 4273
> > > +61 417 268 665
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:17 AM
> > > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> > >
> > >
> > > Charles,
> > >
> > > Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK.
> > > This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in
it.
> > > Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards.
> > >
> > > Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test.
> > >
> > > RESULTS
> > >
> > > Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
> > > Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> > > Records: 20 Million
> > > Indexes: NO
> > > Search Time: 2 Seconds
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Ma

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Trevor Ockenden]

David

Yes, there are many threads that have bored me silly but I just delete them.

I suspect if Joe perseveres here we may actually assist him by speeding up
his UV application.

Also, other "quiet" bystanders (like myself at times) pick up valuable
pieces of information from observing these threads.

That is the real pity of it as this opportunity is about to cease. Thanks
again to Clif for making it available for so long.

Cheers

Trevor Ockenden
OSP

- Original Message - 
From: "Hona, David S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'U2 Users Discussion List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


>
> Is it just me or this getting really BORING! (and that's be REALLY nice
> about it)
>
> LOL.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Joe Eugene
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:07 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>
>
> This is what I meant ... TYPO
>
> RESULTS
>
> Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
> Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> Records: 20 Million
> Indexes: NO
> Search Column: First Name
> Search Type: Wild Card (*)
> Search Time: 2 Seconds
> --
> Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
> Database: UV Version 10.1
> Records: 500,000
> Indexes: YES
> Search Column: First Name
> Search Type: Wild Card
> Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds
>
> PICK = A FLAVOR of BASIC...Sometimes called PICK BASIC OR UV BASIC. Call
it
> whatever you want.
>
> JOE
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:55 PM
> > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > Perhaps you could share your actual searches, code and database
> > structure? Were you searching 20 million records in a single column
> > table? Multiple "fields (or columns if you insist)" in the Universe
> > database? What is this PICK you keep talking about? Universe doesn't
> > have a component named PICK, there is certainly a flavour. That is
> your
> > choice to use it, you are not compelled to.
> >
> > How do we know you are comparing apples with apples? How were your
> > indexes structured? I haven't seen "Universe Standards" for indexing.
> > Please elucidate on this as I am obviously ignorant in this area.
> > Unfortunately your claims are now starting to fluctuate between the
> > fantastic and the ludicrous. How can you expect to be taken seriously
> > when you don't provide a sound basis for your argument?
> >
> > I presume you meant the first database to be Universe? Obviously it
> must
> > be as it was the fast one 8-)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > David Logan
> > Database Administrator
> > HP Managed Services
> > 139 Frome Street,
> > Adelaide 5000
> > Australia
> >
> > +61 8 8408 4273
> > +61 417 268 665
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
> > Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:17 AM
> > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> >
> > Charles,
> >
> > Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK. This
> > FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it.
> > Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards.
> >
> > Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test.
> >
> > RESULTS
> >
> > Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
> > Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> > Records: 20 Million
> > Indexes: NO
> > Search Time: 2 Seconds
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
> > Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> > Records: 500,000
> > Indexes: YES
> > Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds
> >
> > I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support
> MR.SLOW
> > UV!
> >
> > How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe Eugene
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Results
> > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM
> > &g

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Dude... Why don't u find somewhere to TALK Rubbish!

IF you don't like the EMAILS... DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO DELETE...?


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Don Kibbey
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:13 PM
> To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Dude, your like the dog that just won't stop humping the guests leg.
Get
> over it already.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Joe Eugene
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:31 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> David,
> 
> > All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in
> > some areas of technology that cannot be replaced
> 
> I am very open minded to all Technologies and I think every software
> professional will benefit from being open to technologies.
> 
> I have been unable to convince myself that an UV Brings any kind of
value
> for the below in an OLTP Environment.
> 
> 1. Advanced Level Software Development.
> 2. Performance
> 3. Scalability etc
> 
> Nested tables (Big Feature for UV) is not something new, most
relational
> databases accommodate this feature at a much higher level.
> 
> IF BIG THREE Databases (DB2/ORACLE/MSSQL) was poor on ROI...
> Why would 75% of the worlds Corporations depend on such databases?
> 
> Can you Name One BIG Fortune 100 that totally relies on UV?
> 
> I have heard stories where several corporations migrated to RDBMS,
Never
> heard any LARGE Corp(Hershey, GE, BOfA etc) switch to UV/MVDBMS.
> 
> Never seen any Enterprise Software (SAP, PeopleSoft etc) mention UV on
> their
> Web Sites Never seen a book on UV OR PICK at Barnes & Nobles.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain where UV plays an Important Role.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe Eugene
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of djordan
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:43 PM
> > To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > Hi Joe
> >
> > I have worked with variety of databases and I think using one
> > performance statistic to evaluate the capabilities of one database
> > against another is meaningless.  As a professional I consider all
> > databases for any business requirement and select on their merits.
To
> > discount MV products from that list would be unproffesional and
> > negligent.  There are numerous cases where Universe has clobbered
> RDBMS
> > in the real world and a cost per transaction it is very strong.
> >
> > If you take an Oracle style application and run it on Universe,
Oracle
> > will probaly run better.  If you take a typical Universe Application
> and
> > run it on another RDBMS, Universe will most likely run better.  The
> > style of application can impact on speed, different databases are
> built
> > for different styles of applications and a number of applications
> built
> > in the PICK world do not transfer to RDBMS to the surprise of many a
> > sacked CEO.
> >
> > I have used Universe to integrate with a significant number of other
> > databases and applications and have generated award winning
software.
> > The most critical requirement for any is bussiness is to have a
> solution
> > that is reliable, creates an ROI and is on schedule in development
> which
> > is the norm in the Universe world.
> >
> > All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in
> > some areas of technology that cannot be replaced.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > David Jordan
> >
> >
> > --
> > u2-users mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
> 
> 
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
> 
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Trevor Ockenden]

Joe

Have you sized your UV file correctly? The 15-20 seconds suggests many
things are not as they should be.

Can you do an "ANALYZE.FILE" on this file and post the details. If it is a
dynamic hashed file include the option "STATS" please.

We may be able to help you after all.

Cheers

Trevor Ockenden
OSP

- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


> This is what I meant ... TYPO
>
> RESULTS
>
> Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
> Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> Records: 20 Million
> Indexes: NO
> Search Column: First Name
> Search Type: Wild Card (*)
> Search Time: 2 Seconds
> --
> Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
> Database: UV Version 10.1
> Records: 500,000
> Indexes: YES
> Search Column: First Name
> Search Type: Wild Card
> Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds
>
> PICK = A FLAVOR of BASIC...Sometimes called PICK BASIC OR UV BASIC.
> Call it whatever you want.
>
> JOE
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:55 PM
> > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > Perhaps you could share your actual searches, code and database
> > structure? Were you searching 20 million records in a single column
> > table? Multiple "fields (or columns if you insist)" in the Universe
> > database? What is this PICK you keep talking about? Universe doesn't
> > have a component named PICK, there is certainly a flavour. That is
> your
> > choice to use it, you are not compelled to.
> >
> > How do we know you are comparing apples with apples? How were your
> > indexes structured? I haven't seen "Universe Standards" for indexing.
> > Please elucidate on this as I am obviously ignorant in this area.
> > Unfortunately your claims are now starting to fluctuate between the
> > fantastic and the ludicrous. How can you expect to be taken seriously
> > when you don't provide a sound basis for your argument?
> >
> > I presume you meant the first database to be Universe? Obviously it
> must
> > be as it was the fast one 8-)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > David Logan
> > Database Administrator
> > HP Managed Services
> > 139 Frome Street,
> > Adelaide 5000
> > Australia
> >
> > +61 8 8408 4273
> > +61 417 268 665
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
> > Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:17 AM
> > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> >
> > Charles,
> >
> > Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK.
> > This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it.
> > Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards.
> >
> > Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test.
> >
> > RESULTS
> >
> > Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
> > Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> > Records: 20 Million
> > Indexes: NO
> > Search Time: 2 Seconds
> >
> > --
> >
> > Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
> > Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> > Records: 500,000
> > Indexes: YES
> > Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds
> >
> > I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support
> MR.SLOW
> > UV!
> >
> > How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe Eugene
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Results
> > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM
> > > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > > Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> > >
> > > Joe,
> > > Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including
> > > UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business
> rules
> > > more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix.
> > > Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as
> > > efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint mean

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Hona, David S]

Is it just me or this getting really BORING! (and that's be REALLY nice
about it)

LOL.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:07 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


This is what I meant ... TYPO

RESULTS

Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
Records: 20 Million
Indexes: NO
Search Column: First Name
Search Type: Wild Card (*)
Search Time: 2 Seconds
--
Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
Database: UV Version 10.1
Records: 500,000
Indexes: YES
Search Column: First Name
Search Type: Wild Card
Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds

PICK = A FLAVOR of BASIC...Sometimes called PICK BASIC OR UV BASIC. Call it
whatever you want.

JOE


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:55 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> Perhaps you could share your actual searches, code and database 
> structure? Were you searching 20 million records in a single column 
> table? Multiple "fields (or columns if you insist)" in the Universe 
> database? What is this PICK you keep talking about? Universe doesn't 
> have a component named PICK, there is certainly a flavour. That is
your
> choice to use it, you are not compelled to.
> 
> How do we know you are comparing apples with apples? How were your 
> indexes structured? I haven't seen "Universe Standards" for indexing. 
> Please elucidate on this as I am obviously ignorant in this area. 
> Unfortunately your claims are now starting to fluctuate between the 
> fantastic and the ludicrous. How can you expect to be taken seriously 
> when you don't provide a sound basis for your argument?
> 
> I presume you meant the first database to be Universe? Obviously it
must
> be as it was the fast one 8-)
> 
> Regards
> 
> David Logan
> Database Administrator
> HP Managed Services
> 139 Frome Street,
> Adelaide 5000
> Australia
> 
> +61 8 8408 4273
> +61 417 268 665
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:17 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> 
> Charles,
> 
> Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK. This 
> FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it. 
> Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards.
> 
> Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test.
> 
> RESULTS
> 
> Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
> Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> Records: 20 Million
> Indexes: NO
> Search Time: 2 Seconds
> 
> --
> 
> Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
> Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> Records: 500,000
> Indexes: YES
> Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds
> 
> I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support
MR.SLOW
> UV!
> 
> How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe Eugene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Results
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM
> > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > Joe,
> > Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including 
> > UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business
rules
> > more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix. 
> > Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as 
> > efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches - 
> > forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is
always
> a
> > premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as
efficient
> > on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an
MV
> > environment is triple the speed of a "Big Three" database even when
> you
> > ignore search speed.
> > Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing
systems
> in
> > the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you
can
> > be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data 
> > warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology 
> > just to get Datastage.
> >
> > --
> >
> >  Sincerely,
> >   Charles Barouch
> >

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Tony Wood]

Joe,

FYI, PICK is NOT a flavour of BASIC. Pick is a MVDB currently owned by
Raining Data. You do need to some more research - proper research of the
topic. You can refer to UV running with a PICK flavour but nothing else.
BASIC is the programming language used by most of the MVDB systems. PICK
BASIC is the specific version of BASIC used on PICK systems UV BASIC is the
BASIC used on UniVerse systems.

Rather than showing your ignorance how about showing us your brilliance and
answer some the more pertinent questions already asked by other member of
the list.

Regards,

T.


-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Don Kibbey]

Dude, your like the dog that just won't stop humping the guests leg.  Get
over it already. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Eugene
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:31 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

David,

> All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in 
> some areas of technology that cannot be replaced

I am very open minded to all Technologies and I think every software
professional will benefit from being open to technologies.

I have been unable to convince myself that an UV Brings any kind of value
for the below in an OLTP Environment.

1. Advanced Level Software Development.
2. Performance
3. Scalability etc

Nested tables (Big Feature for UV) is not something new, most relational
databases accommodate this feature at a much higher level.

IF BIG THREE Databases (DB2/ORACLE/MSSQL) was poor on ROI...
Why would 75% of the worlds Corporations depend on such databases?

Can you Name One BIG Fortune 100 that totally relies on UV?

I have heard stories where several corporations migrated to RDBMS, Never
heard any LARGE Corp(Hershey, GE, BOfA etc) switch to UV/MVDBMS.

Never seen any Enterprise Software (SAP, PeopleSoft etc) mention UV on their
Web Sites Never seen a book on UV OR PICK at Barnes & Nobles.

Perhaps you can explain where UV plays an Important Role.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of djordan
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:43 PM
> To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Hi Joe
> 
> I have worked with variety of databases and I think using one 
> performance statistic to evaluate the capabilities of one database 
> against another is meaningless.  As a professional I consider all 
> databases for any business requirement and select on their merits.  To 
> discount MV products from that list would be unproffesional and 
> negligent.  There are numerous cases where Universe has clobbered
RDBMS
> in the real world and a cost per transaction it is very strong.
> 
> If you take an Oracle style application and run it on Universe, Oracle 
> will probaly run better.  If you take a typical Universe Application
and
> run it on another RDBMS, Universe will most likely run better.  The 
> style of application can impact on speed, different databases are
built
> for different styles of applications and a number of applications
built
> in the PICK world do not transfer to RDBMS to the surprise of many a 
> sacked CEO.
> 
> I have used Universe to integrate with a significant number of other 
> databases and applications and have generated award winning software.
> The most critical requirement for any is bussiness is to have a
solution
> that is reliable, creates an ROI and is on schedule in development
which
> is the norm in the Universe world.
> 
> All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in 
> some areas of technology that cannot be replaced.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David Jordan
> 
> 
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Trevor Ockenden]

Joe

Have I missed something here. You refer to the QUAD as having MSSQL SERVER
2K as the database so where does the UV (or PICK) files fit into this
equation?

Also, when carrying out this performance test did you take into account as
to whether or not the file was in memory or not. The Athlon may have had
most of the table concerned in memory whilst the Quad may have had to load
the whole (Pick) file into memory.

Let's be fair here. If you want to do a fair comparison I suspect you will
need to go to a little more trouble.

I have run a similar test on my Pentium 2 366 laptop running UV and a
500,000 record file can be searched (wild card - ie no index used) in much
less than 15 seconds.

Have another try!

Cheers

Trevor Ockenden
OSP

- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:47 AM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


> Charles,
>
> Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK.
> This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it.
> Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards.
>
> Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test.
>
> RESULTS
>
> Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
> Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> Records: 20 Million
> Indexes: NO
> Search Time: 2 Seconds
>
> --
>
> Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
> Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> Records: 500,000
> Indexes: YES
> Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds
>
> I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support MR.SLOW
> UV!
>
> How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe Eugene
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Results
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM
> > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > Joe,
> > Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including
> > UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business rules
> > more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix.
> > Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as
> > efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches -
> > forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is always
> a
> > premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as efficient
> > on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an MV
> > environment is triple the speed of a "Big Three" database even when
> you
> > ignore search speed.
> > Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing systems
> in
> > the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you can
> > be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data
> > warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology
> > just to get Datastage.
> >
> > --
> >
> >  Sincerely,
> >   Charles Barouch
> >   www.KeyAlly.com
> >   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > u2-users mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>
>
> -- 
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

This is what I meant ... TYPO

RESULTS

Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
Records: 20 Million
Indexes: NO
Search Column: First Name
Search Type: Wild Card (*)
Search Time: 2 Seconds
--
Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
Database: UV Version 10.1
Records: 500,000
Indexes: YES
Search Column: First Name
Search Type: Wild Card
Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds

PICK = A FLAVOR of BASIC...Sometimes called PICK BASIC OR UV BASIC.
Call it whatever you want.

JOE


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:55 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> Perhaps you could share your actual searches, code and database
> structure? Were you searching 20 million records in a single column
> table? Multiple "fields (or columns if you insist)" in the Universe
> database? What is this PICK you keep talking about? Universe doesn't
> have a component named PICK, there is certainly a flavour. That is
your
> choice to use it, you are not compelled to.
> 
> How do we know you are comparing apples with apples? How were your
> indexes structured? I haven't seen "Universe Standards" for indexing.
> Please elucidate on this as I am obviously ignorant in this area.
> Unfortunately your claims are now starting to fluctuate between the
> fantastic and the ludicrous. How can you expect to be taken seriously
> when you don't provide a sound basis for your argument?
> 
> I presume you meant the first database to be Universe? Obviously it
must
> be as it was the fast one 8-)
> 
> Regards
> 
> David Logan
> Database Administrator
> HP Managed Services
> 139 Frome Street,
> Adelaide 5000
> Australia
> 
> +61 8 8408 4273
> +61 417 268 665
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:17 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> 
> Charles,
> 
> Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK.
> This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it.
> Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards.
> 
> Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test.
> 
> RESULTS
> 
> Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
> Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> Records: 20 Million
> Indexes: NO
> Search Time: 2 Seconds
> 
> --
> 
> Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
> Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
> Records: 500,000
> Indexes: YES
> Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds
> 
> I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support
MR.SLOW
> UV!
> 
> How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe Eugene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Results
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM
> > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > Joe,
> > Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including
> > UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business
rules
> > more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix.
> > Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as
> > efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches -
> > forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is
always
> a
> > premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as
efficient
> > on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an
MV
> > environment is triple the speed of a "Big Three" database even when
> you
> > ignore search speed.
> > Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing
systems
> in
> > the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you
can
> > be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data
> > warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology
> > just to get Datastage.
> >
> > --
> >
> >  Sincerely,
> >   Charles Barouch
> >   www.KeyAlly.com
> >   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > u2-users mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
> 
> 
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Results]

Joe,
   Have you checked the file sizes? Have you checked the index 
parameters? I'll make you a bet. You bring me in for a week (i'll 
probably need most of that week to prove my results, the fixes will take 
less than a day) and I bet you we can make a meaningful improvement in 
your response time. Just because UV doesn't require an Admin full time 
doesn't mean it won't benefit from occasional tune ups.

--
Sincerely,
 Charles "Give me a Week and I'll take down your Wait" Barouch
 www.KeyAlly.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Joe Eugene wrote:

Charles,

Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK.
This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it.
Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards.
Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test.

RESULTS

Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
Records: 20 Million
Indexes: NO
Search Time: 2 Seconds
--

Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
Records: 500,000
Indexes: YES
Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds
I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support MR.SLOW
UV!
How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Results]

Joe,
   The big corporate moves have more to do with marketing and sales 
than they do technical issues. Most of them have horrible ROI. I've been 
in companies of $500 Million and up which do not have any handle on 
their IT costs for non-MV work. Most companies work on a "% of gross" 
theory which says that as long as IT is under a particular "% of gross" 
in spending, we can ignore ROI.
   Also, you have to realize that most IT managers in the Fortune 1000 
don't have an incentive to go to any system which would promote a 
smaller staff in their area. I've had my bid for projects turned down 
for "not expensive enough, we can only assume that you are leaving 
things out."

--
Sincerely,
 Charles Barouch
 www.KeyAlly.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

Joe Eugene wrote:

I have been unable to convince myself that an UV Brings any kind of

value for the below in an OLTP Environment.

1. Advanced Level Software Development.
2. Performance
3. Scalability etc
IF BIG THREE Databases (DB2/ORACLE/MSSQL) was poor on ROI...
Why would 75% of the worlds Corporations depend on such databases?
Can you Name One BIG Fortune 100 that totally relies on UV?

I have heard stories where several corporations migrated to RDBMS, 
Never heard any LARGE Corp(Hershey, GE, BOfA etc) switch to UV/MVDBMS.
 



--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)]

Hi Joe,

Perhaps you could share your actual searches, code and database
structure? Were you searching 20 million records in a single column
table? Multiple "fields (or columns if you insist)" in the Universe
database? What is this PICK you keep talking about? Universe doesn't
have a component named PICK, there is certainly a flavour. That is your
choice to use it, you are not compelled to.

How do we know you are comparing apples with apples? How were your
indexes structured? I haven't seen "Universe Standards" for indexing.
Please elucidate on this as I am obviously ignorant in this area.
Unfortunately your claims are now starting to fluctuate between the
fantastic and the ludicrous. How can you expect to be taken seriously
when you don't provide a sound basis for your argument?

I presume you meant the first database to be Universe? Obviously it must
be as it was the fast one 8-)

Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4273
+61 417 268 665



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:17 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


Charles,

Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK.
This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it.
Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards.

Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test.

RESULTS

Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
Records: 20 Million
Indexes: NO
Search Time: 2 Seconds

--

Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
Records: 500,000
Indexes: YES
Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds

I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support MR.SLOW
UV!

How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene





> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Results
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Joe,
> Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including
> UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business rules
> more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix.
> Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as
> efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches -
> forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is always
a
> premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as efficient
> on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an MV
> environment is triple the speed of a "Big Three" database even when
you
> ignore search speed.
> Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing systems
in
> the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you can
> be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data
> warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology
> just to get Datastage.
> 
> --
> 
>  Sincerely,
>   Charles Barouch
>   www.KeyAlly.com
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Charles,

Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK.
This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it.
Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards.

Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test.

RESULTS

Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon
Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
Records: 20 Million
Indexes: NO
Search Time: 2 Seconds

--

Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ)
Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K
Records: 500,000
Indexes: YES
Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds

I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support MR.SLOW
UV!

How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene





> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Results
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Joe,
> Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including
> UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business rules
> more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix.
> Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as
> efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches -
> forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is always
a
> premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as efficient
> on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an MV
> environment is triple the speed of a "Big Three" database even when
you
> ignore search speed.
> Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing systems
in
> the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you can
> be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data
> warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology
> just to get Datastage.
> 
> --
> 
>  Sincerely,
>   Charles Barouch
>   www.KeyAlly.com
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

David,

> All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in
> some areas of technology that cannot be replaced

I am very open minded to all Technologies and I think every software
professional will benefit from being open to technologies.

I have been unable to convince myself that an UV Brings any kind of
value for the below in an OLTP Environment.

1. Advanced Level Software Development.
2. Performance
3. Scalability etc

Nested tables (Big Feature for UV) is not something new, most relational
databases accommodate this feature at a much higher level.

IF BIG THREE Databases (DB2/ORACLE/MSSQL) was poor on ROI...
Why would 75% of the worlds Corporations depend on such databases?

Can you Name One BIG Fortune 100 that totally relies on UV?

I have heard stories where several corporations migrated to RDBMS, 
Never heard any LARGE Corp(Hershey, GE, BOfA etc) switch to UV/MVDBMS.

Never seen any Enterprise Software (SAP, PeopleSoft etc) mention UV on
their Web Sites Never seen a book on UV OR PICK at Barnes & Nobles.

Perhaps you can explain where UV plays an Important Role.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of djordan
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:43 PM
> To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Hi Joe
> 
> I have worked with variety of databases and I think using one
> performance statistic to evaluate the capabilities of one database
> against another is meaningless.  As a professional I consider all
> databases for any business requirement and select on their merits.  To
> discount MV products from that list would be unproffesional and
> negligent.  There are numerous cases where Universe has clobbered
RDBMS
> in the real world and a cost per transaction it is very strong.
> 
> If you take an Oracle style application and run it on Universe, Oracle
> will probaly run better.  If you take a typical Universe Application
and
> run it on another RDBMS, Universe will most likely run better.  The
> style of application can impact on speed, different databases are
built
> for different styles of applications and a number of applications
built
> in the PICK world do not transfer to RDBMS to the surprise of many a
> sacked CEO.
> 
> I have used Universe to integrate with a significant number of other
> databases and applications and have generated award winning software.
> The most critical requirement for any is bussiness is to have a
solution
> that is reliable, creates an ROI and is on schedule in development
which
> is the norm in the Universe world.
> 
> All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in
> some areas of technology that cannot be replaced.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David Jordan
> 
> 
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Ross Ferris]

Michael,

1) You are right - you MIGHT need JavaScript skills if you want to do anything 
"special". If you copy/paste modify the following

VRE.doAction("CallU2");

substituting your own "action" as appropriate, you have mastered all the jScript you 
need ! Hopefully you would agree that this is not too taxing ?! Beyond this, 
JavaScript skills really are "optional extras"

2) All you have to do is ask for a price :-) There are a number of "options" 
available, ranging from straight "per seat" models, through portal licensing (similar 
to a Redback WebShare - no seat caps set) right through to enterprise licences (which 
is "appealing" to larger VARs like Reynolds & Reynolds).

We have also "entertained" (stolen?) some other licensing variants for VARs (like the 
Uniface "% of sale" model, even the "rent for life" model). We like to discuss needs 
with potential VARs and users - and licensing is only one aspect of the "real cost" of 
adoption with ANY product.

If you are serious about moving your applications into the 21st Century, Visage is the 
most complete, feature rich product you will find, and if you operate on multiple 
platforms then  you will appreciate innovations like "snippet technology", which is 
part of our overall drive to code reduction.

Give the guys at American Computer Technics a call for the full story, and to discuss 
how we can help you achieve you goals!

3) We have offered a Viságe test drive facility for around 3 years now so that you can 
"play" with the product. Give the guys @ ACTi a call for your test drive CD.

The test drive allows us to monitor what you are doing, and provide remote assistance 
- we've even used it to give Board presentations 1/2 way around the world. 

Once you graduate from the "public sandbox", if you still aren't 'sold' you can have 
your own private area set up, loaded with your data OR you can get an eval loaded onto 
your own systems. 

Once more, our emphasis is on helping people to get the most out of Visage

BTW, we are SO CONFIDENT in Viságe that we also offer a 110% money back guarantee ! So 
you REALLY CAN NOT LOOSE !


4) Refer to 2. Certainly one of the options available is the "per seat" licence model, 
but perhaps the Portal is more appropriate for your needs ?

BTW, don't forget that even with the "per seat" models you can still be streets in 
front when you factor in the savings of Database seat costs for new sites, OR the 
ability to support higher user populations with existing sites


If you were impressed with the movies, they only tell part of the story!

The reason why Viságe LOOKED like an impressive product is because Viságe IS an 
impressive product - and EVERYTHING is there in a single, unified product offering : 
Full GUI screen designer with Drag'n'Drop dictionary integration, full use of existing 
file structures & application logic (with REAL record locking so Viságe applications 
can co-exist with your existing green screen applications), active dictionaries & code 
reduction technologies, WYSIWYG printed form & report designer - Viságe even offers a 
Data Warehouse/ Business Intelligence facility that puts dedicated, single purpose 
products to shame !

Michael, I don't recall if you actually activated your test drive account back in 
2002, but if you contact ACTi for a new one, you will see that we haven't been idle :-)




Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage - an Evolution in Software Development

>-----Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Michael Spencer
>Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 3:12 AM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>
>Last I looked at Visage, it:
>
>1) required javascript skills
>2) had no published price
>3) had no developer copy available
>4) had not only a developers cost but a "per seat" cost
>
>Apart from those 4 problems, however, the "movies" did make it look like
>an impressive product.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Behalf Of Will
>Sent: March 29, 2004 3:02 PM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>
>You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage!
>
>Patrick "Will" Williams, President
>American Computer Technics, Inc.
>919-567-0042  Raleigh, NC
>  - Original Message -
>  From: David T. Meeks
>  To: U2 Users Discussion List
>  Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM
>  Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>
>
>  While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging
>  technologies as 

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Results]

Joe,
   Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including 
UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business rules 
more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix. 
Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as 
efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches - 
forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is always a 
premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as efficient 
on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an MV 
environment is triple the speed of a "Big Three" database even when you 
ignore search speed.
   Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing systems in 
the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you can 
be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data 
warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology 
just to get Datastage.

--

Sincerely,
 Charles Barouch
 www.KeyAlly.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Results]

Michael,
   If you have VISAGE questions, Ross Ferris of STAMINA is a list 
member (we still have a few days in which we can call ourselves list 
members) and I'm sure he can answer your pricing and technology questions.

   - Charles "We'll miss Clif" Barouch

Michael Spencer wrote:

Last I looked at Visage, it:

1) required javascript skills
2) had no published price
3) had no developer copy available
4) had not only a developers cost but a "per seat" cost
Apart from those 4 problems, however, the "movies" did make it look like
an impressive product.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Will
Sent: March 29, 2004 3:02 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage!

Patrick "Will" Williams, President
American Computer Technics, Inc.
919-567-0042  Raleigh, NC
 - Original Message - 
 From: David T. Meeks 
 To: U2 Users Discussion List 
 Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM
 Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

 While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging
 technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so.
 U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe
they
 either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for
example, that
 the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).
 One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain
technologies, and
 the level of support currently within the products, but to say that
there is
 "little/no" support is a bit uninformed.
 The U2 products ARE supported in certain "Integration" software.  I
wouldn't
 typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft "integration" software.  They are
Enterprise
 Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'.
 However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets
 for both of their "integration" products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM,
 JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with
both U2
 products, this point is actually wrong.  People who have SAP or
PeopleSoft
 solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those
environments.
 As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different 
 dimensions.
  From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead
dimensions, the
 U2 database products are VERY efficient.

 Finally, as to being "slow", again this depends on the measurement
criteria
 being used.  From the perspective of concurrent user access and the
performance
 of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple
concurrent 
 users, etc..),
 the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys.  For
support of 
 VLDB,
 highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does
not.

 Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong.  They
are 
 not the
 panacea for every database requirement.  However, for certain
problems, 
 especially
 those for which it was designed (embedded database for application 
 development),
 it is very efficient.

 Dave

 At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote:
 >PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
 >level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy
DB2
 >that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now
UDB)
 >to a completly relational architecture.
 >
 >I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to
 >MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.
 >
 >1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging
Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc)
 >2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software 
 >(SAP/PeopleSoft)
 >3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved
databases(DB2/Oracle)
 >4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of
 >of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques.
 >5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
 > an OLTP Environment.
 >
 >It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
 >IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
 >all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled
Procedures.
 >I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate
 >systems easily.
 >
 >Joe Eugene
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker
 >Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM
 >To: U2 Users Discussion List
 >Subject: RE: The lists are closing
 >
 >
 >
 >David,
 >
 >As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will
comment.
 >
 >I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas
Oracle
 >and th

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[djordan]

Hi Joe

I have worked with variety of databases and I think using one
performance statistic to evaluate the capabilities of one database
against another is meaningless.  As a professional I consider all
databases for any business requirement and select on their merits.  To
discount MV products from that list would be unproffesional and
negligent.  There are numerous cases where Universe has clobbered RDBMS
in the real world and a cost per transaction it is very strong.  

If you take an Oracle style application and run it on Universe, Oracle
will probaly run better.  If you take a typical Universe Application and
run it on another RDBMS, Universe will most likely run better.  The
style of application can impact on speed, different databases are built
for different styles of applications and a number of applications built
in the PICK world do not transfer to RDBMS to the surprise of many a
sacked CEO.

I have used Universe to integrate with a significant number of other
databases and applications and have generated award winning software.
The most critical requirement for any is bussiness is to have a solution
that is reliable, creates an ROI and is on schedule in development which
is the norm in the Universe world.  

All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in
some areas of technology that cannot be replaced.

Regards

David Jordan


-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Will]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

- "Cool Hand Luke"


  "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

  - Clark Gable as "Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind"

  At 12:01 PM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote:
  >"With all due respects, Sir, you are beginning to bore the hell out of me!"
  >
  >-- Clint Eastwood as "Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Highway in Heartbreak Ridge"

  
  David T. Meeks || "All my life I'm taken by surprise
  Architect, Technology Office   ||  I'm someone's waste of time
  Ascential Software ||  Now I walk a balanced line
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ||  and step into tomorrow" - IQ
  
  -- 
  u2-users mailing list
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Will]

Michael,

Visage does not require Javascript skills, but if you have those skills Visage allows 
you to use them.

The published price for Visage Designer is $2,495 USD and comes with 3 Run-Time 
versions.  Additional Run-Time Visage versions are $265 each... but that amount is a 
one-time-only charge.  If you want support for any Visage item, it is 20% of the 
original cost per item, per annum.  

We are currently running a special purchase plan wherein you can get the Visage 
Designer for $1,000 down payment and terms for the balance.

Visage.BIT for data mining is $4,495 and requires at least one Visage Run-Time to 
view.  In order to build your own data cubes (extractions) Visage.BIT requires the 
Visage Designer.  However your clients may wish to retain you to do that for them.

Developer versions of Visage Designer are what we sell.  The Run-TIme costs are on par 
with the way most software is sold today.  An application for an MS machine must be 
purchased for every PC using it within an enterprise or at least a Server copy which 
is more expensive.

Visage Designer has many, many man years of R&D invested in it and would sell for a 
monster price if we tried to recoupe its true value.  As it is priced, everyone can 
enjoy the benefits according to their respective benefit which grows with the number 
of users.

Visage is extreemly impressive and can be used "right out of the box" for system 
development and GUI conversion.  And, we have people on two continents thus far, (AU 
and US) to assist you with your developments.

I would be pleased to speak with you and have you talk with one of the people who 
helped design Visage.  It really is a major breakthrough for the advancement of 
multi-value database systems, and the Visage.BIT is so impressive that you can easily 
gain new clients at the "board room" level.

Please let me know if you would be interested in taking a further look at this 
powerful tool for building new products or enhancing older ones.

Kind regards,

 Patrick

Patrick "Will" Williams, President
American Computer Technics, Inc.
919-567-0042  Raleigh, NC
  - Original Message - 
  From: Michael Spencer 
  To: U2 Users Discussion List 
  Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:12 AM
  Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


  Last I looked at Visage, it:

  1) required javascript skills
  2) had no published price
  3) had no developer copy available
  4) had not only a developers cost but a "per seat" cost

  Apart from those 4 problems, however, the "movies" did make it look like
  an impressive product.

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Will
  Sent: March 29, 2004 3:02 PM
  To: U2 Users Discussion List
  Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

  You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage!

  Patrick "Will" Williams, President
  American Computer Technics, Inc.
  919-567-0042  Raleigh, NC
- Original Message - 
From: David T. Meeks 
To: U2 Users Discussion List 
    Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging
technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so.

U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe
  they
either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for
  example, that
the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).

One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain
  technologies, and
the level of support currently within the products, but to say that
  there is
"little/no" support is a bit uninformed.

The U2 products ARE supported in certain "Integration" software.  I
  wouldn't
typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft "integration" software.  They are
  Enterprise
Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'.

However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets
for both of their "integration" products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM,
JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with
  both U2
products, this point is actually wrong.  People who have SAP or
  PeopleSoft
solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those
  environments.

As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different 
dimensions.
 From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead
  dimensions, the
U2 database products are VERY efficient.

Finally, as to being "slow", again this depends on the measurement
  criteria
being used.  From the perspective of concurrent user access and the
  performance
of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple
  concur

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Dave,

Thanks for the Interesting Conversation/Argument.

I did learn something from the Folks here who were willing to share
information while I was researching UV. Thanks to ALL.

Wish the Next Forum and UV all the Best.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of David T. Meeks
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:34 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> I doubt you'd find much disagreement on that point Joe...
> Unfortunately, I think you are missing the real point...
> 
> Ultimately, what's "best" for a company need varies from company
> to company, and from situation to situation.
> 
> For many people, being on 'top of technology' is not a benefit.  In
> fact, it can often introduce major downsides (instability, lack of
> funding for more pertinent issues, etc..).
> 
> For many companies, and many situations, having a high-performance
> data management engine that is geared for application development is
> best for the company.  Not having to have a large staff of Oracle DBAs
> on hand to manage the environment is often the best solution.
> 
> Understanding the role of various technologies is the beginning of
> understanding the value in those technologies.  For example, you
> use J2EE as an example.  J2EE is a remarkable technology.  However,
> it is absolutely the WRONG choice in any number of situations.
> 
> As you should be able to see from the wealth of very intelligent
> individuals
> that populate this board, your own companies usage, and millions of
> other people using the U2 technologies, it has a great deal of value
when
> used correctly and for the purposes it was intended.
> 
> It's why it makes perfect sense for a Fortune 100 company to use
> the U2 products as the foundation of their applications to service
> various aspects of their business, and why it makes perfect sense for
> those same companies to use Oracle/DB2 as the foundation of their
> terabyte-size enterprise DBMS systems.  Both decisions are correct,
> and neither would be the correct choice if switched.
> 
> It's why it makes perfect sense for the thousands of mid-size
companies
> to use U2 products, again, as the embedded DB engine to run their
> business applications.
> 
> Gotta compare apples-to-apples, oranges-to-oranges...
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> At 12:26 PM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> > > Why not ask the alternate question of why the SQL Server can't
handle
> >the > backend?
> >
> >Simple Reason... "Management Politics".
> >
> > > No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB.
> >
> >WE AGREE 100% NOW! I was just trying to say the above.
> >
> >Going MainStream and staying with BIG THREE is Better for the
> >future of the Company's Needs. BIG THREE has A LOT OF INVESTMENT
> >in R&D and they are constantly on TOP OF TECHNOLOGY!.
> >
> >E.G. Is ASP.NET similar to Java J2EE? YES... as a matter of fact
> >ASP.NET Copied a lot of the CORE Techniques... but why is ASP.NET
> >just a little more better than Java J2EE?
> >CAUSE:
> >MS Had more money to PUMP into R&D and were able to REFINE some of
> >the Techniques...e.g. Core improvement in RUNTIME ENVIROMENT AND
> >COMPILATION.
> >
> >I know you are one of the GURU's OF UV System, it nice to hear some
> >agreement on this argument.
> 
>

> David T. Meeks || "All my life I'm taken by
surprise
> Architect, Technology Office   || I'm someone's waste of time
> Ascential Software ||  Now I walk a balanced line
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ||  and step into tomorrow" - IQ
>

> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Tony Gravagno]

I think Joe may realize a couple things:
1) He doesn't know enough about the system to criticize it.
2) The IT people in his UV shop didn't know much either.

Many Pick guys get into Pick because they know their business market but not
much about technology, and Pick makes it easy to write software without
being a real programmers.  Once people do get into Pick, a high level of
technical proficiency can be attained quickly - not always the same
technical skills as in other areas but the job gets done nonetheless.  Many
people do branch out to understand how mainstream technologies integrate
with Pick, but not everyone.  As Dave says, when people don't extend beyond
the basic skills it doesn't mean the technology itself is deficient.

I think this will be my last comment on the topic.
Tony

Since people are posting quotes, the following came to mind:

"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be
ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it."
-Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784),

"I refuse to get into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed."
-Unknown

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

[OT] Joe Eugene was Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[FFT2001]

Please Speak LOUDER!!!
*throws you a raw steak*
Will "raw steak" Johnson

In a message dated 3/29/2004 12:26:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Going MainStream and staying with BIG THREE is Better for the
> future of the Company's Needs. BIG THREE has A LOT OF 
> INVESTMENT
> in R&D and they are constantly on TOP OF TECHNOLOGY!.
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 3/29/2004 11:27:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse
> through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either
> UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using 
> XPath/XQuery
> Techniques.

Joe there is a big difference between these two statements:
1) "Our UV programmers DONT KNOW how to handle XML" and
2) "UV cant handle XML"

Ever think maybe your company should spend a little money getting programmers who DO 
know how to make UV understand XML?
  Your being cheap is not our failure.
Will
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 3/29/2004 11:07:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records.
> 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it.
> 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users)
>   switching Databases within the same DB Machine.
> 
> You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance 
> Monitor.

That's an excellent suggestion JOE
Can you please tell me how to write an interface from Apache to Universe ? Or 
something similiar?  Because I'm too ignorant to know how to connect my Universe 9.4 
to the web
Thanks for your superior intellect that can solve issues like this PURELY in Universe 
BASIC (of course) since you're saying its Universe that is the problem here.
Will
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[David T. Meeks]

I doubt you'd find much disagreement on that point Joe...
Unfortunately, I think you are missing the real point...
Ultimately, what's "best" for a company need varies from company
to company, and from situation to situation.
For many people, being on 'top of technology' is not a benefit.  In
fact, it can often introduce major downsides (instability, lack of
funding for more pertinent issues, etc..).
For many companies, and many situations, having a high-performance
data management engine that is geared for application development is
best for the company.  Not having to have a large staff of Oracle DBAs
on hand to manage the environment is often the best solution.
Understanding the role of various technologies is the beginning of
understanding the value in those technologies.  For example, you
use J2EE as an example.  J2EE is a remarkable technology.  However,
it is absolutely the WRONG choice in any number of situations.
As you should be able to see from the wealth of very intelligent individuals
that populate this board, your own companies usage, and millions of
other people using the U2 technologies, it has a great deal of value when
used correctly and for the purposes it was intended.
It's why it makes perfect sense for a Fortune 100 company to use
the U2 products as the foundation of their applications to service
various aspects of their business, and why it makes perfect sense for
those same companies to use Oracle/DB2 as the foundation of their
terabyte-size enterprise DBMS systems.  Both decisions are correct,
and neither would be the correct choice if switched.
It's why it makes perfect sense for the thousands of mid-size companies
to use U2 products, again, as the embedded DB engine to run their
business applications.
Gotta compare apples-to-apples, oranges-to-oranges...

Dave

At 12:26 PM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote:

> Why not ask the alternate question of why the SQL Server can't handle
the > backend?
Simple Reason... "Management Politics".

> No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB.

WE AGREE 100% NOW! I was just trying to say the above.

Going MainStream and staying with BIG THREE is Better for the
future of the Company's Needs. BIG THREE has A LOT OF INVESTMENT
in R&D and they are constantly on TOP OF TECHNOLOGY!.
E.G. Is ASP.NET similar to Java J2EE? YES... as a matter of fact
ASP.NET Copied a lot of the CORE Techniques... but why is ASP.NET
just a little more better than Java J2EE?
CAUSE:
MS Had more money to PUMP into R&D and were able to REFINE some of
the Techniques...e.g. Core improvement in RUNTIME ENVIROMENT AND
COMPILATION.
I know you are one of the GURU's OF UV System, it nice to hear some
agreement on this argument.

David T. Meeks || "All my life I'm taken by surprise
Architect, Technology Office   || I'm someone's waste of time
Ascential Software ||  Now I walk a balanced line
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   ||  and step into tomorrow" - IQ

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

> Why not ask the alternate question of why the SQL Server can't handle
the > backend?

Simple Reason... "Management Politics".

> No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB.  

WE AGREE 100% NOW! I was just trying to say the above.

Going MainStream and staying with BIG THREE is Better for the
future of the Company's Needs. BIG THREE has A LOT OF INVESTMENT
in R&D and they are constantly on TOP OF TECHNOLOGY!.

E.G. Is ASP.NET similar to Java J2EE? YES... as a matter of fact
ASP.NET Copied a lot of the CORE Techniques... but why is ASP.NET
just a little more better than Java J2EE? 
CAUSE:
MS Had more money to PUMP into R&D and were able to REFINE some of
the Techniques...e.g. Core improvement in RUNTIME ENVIROMENT AND
COMPILATION.

I know you are one of the GURU's OF UV System, it nice to hear some
agreement on this argument.

Thanks,
Joe Eugene


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of David T. Meeks
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:56 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> So, UV does everything on the BackEnd, but SQL Server does your data
> warehousing.
> And you question why UV can't support the DW?  Why not ask the
alternate
> question
> of why the SQL Server can't handle the backend?
> 
> No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB.  It's not
marketed
> as
> such.  It's
> an extremely efficient, low-cost, high-performance, zero
administration DB
> primarily
> geared at being the backend (as you have now) for application usage.
It's
> primarily used
> as an embedded database shipped as part of a solution package.  It is
> seldom sold as a
> stand-alone DB.
> 
> Building actual "applications" that directly go at your Oracle/DB2's
of
> the
> world is
> a pain in the arse.  Administering said DBs is also a high-cost,
complex,
> cumbersome
> task as well.
> 
> Highlighting that the couple of UV people on your staff not knowing
XML is
> somehow
> a weakness in the product is ludicrous.  My wife is an Oracle
> expert/DBA/etc...  she
> can barely spell XML.  Does this imply Oracle's XML support sucks?  Of
> course not.
> 
> Again, you pick on UV, claiming you have to use DataStage to pull data
out
> of UV
> into SQL Server.
> 
> Why then:
> a)  Doesn't SQL Server sufficiently handle your back-end?
> b)  Can't SQL Server directly access the data?
> c)  Is DataStage, the tool being used to do this (and handles Web
> Services,
> XML,
>  XPath, XSLT, etc...), built on top of UniVerse?
> 
> Finally, don't fall into the mistake that performing well would mean
you
> would be
> in the top 3.
> 
> Why?  Simple... marketing wins over technology almost all the
> time.  Informix was
> a great example.  They had a wonderfully performant VLDB technology.
They
> did very well in OLTP benchmarks.  Yet, they weren't a top 3 DB (being
> #4/#5,
> depending on the timeframe).
> 
> The U2 products are great products.  They are not 'cutting edge', but
they
> are not
> way behind either.  Their target market is very different from the
> "BigThree", and
> many would argue they are much better at the job they are intended for
> than the
> Big Three.  They are NOT better at all things.   But, for low-cost,
> low-maintenance
> embedded data base support with high-performance, high-user
concurrency
> support,
> it's hard to beat it.
> 
> Dave
> 
> At 11:27 AM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> >We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server
to
> >Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems?
> >Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing?
> >Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems?
> >
> > > U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I
believe
> > > they either have or are working on Web Services support
> >
> >Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even
> >understand
> >the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies
> >are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc.
> >
> >e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse
> >through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause
either
> >UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using
XPath/XQuery
> >Techniques.
> >
> >Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For
> >what?
> >Why cant UV handle of the DB Job?
> >
> >As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Michael Spencer]

Last I looked at Visage, it:

1) required javascript skills
2) had no published price
3) had no developer copy available
4) had not only a developers cost but a "per seat" cost

Apart from those 4 problems, however, the "movies" did make it look like
an impressive product.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Will
Sent: March 29, 2004 3:02 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage!

Patrick "Will" Williams, President
American Computer Technics, Inc.
919-567-0042  Raleigh, NC
  - Original Message - 
  From: David T. Meeks 
  To: U2 Users Discussion List 
  Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM
  Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


  While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging
  technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so.

  U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe
they
  either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for
example, that
  the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).

  One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain
technologies, and
  the level of support currently within the products, but to say that
there is
  "little/no" support is a bit uninformed.

  The U2 products ARE supported in certain "Integration" software.  I
wouldn't
  typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft "integration" software.  They are
Enterprise
  Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'.

  However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets
  for both of their "integration" products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM,
  JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with
both U2
  products, this point is actually wrong.  People who have SAP or
PeopleSoft
  solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those
environments.

  As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different 
  dimensions.
   From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead
dimensions, the
  U2 database products are VERY efficient.

  Finally, as to being "slow", again this depends on the measurement
criteria
  being used.  From the perspective of concurrent user access and the
performance
  of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple
concurrent 
  users, etc..),
  the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys.  For
support of 
  VLDB,
  highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does
not.

  Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong.  They
are 
  not the
  panacea for every database requirement.  However, for certain
problems, 
  especially
  those for which it was designed (embedded database for application 
  development),
  it is very efficient.

  Dave

  At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote:
  >PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
  >level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy
DB2
  >that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now
UDB)
  >to a completly relational architecture.
  >
  >I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to
  >MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.
  >
  >1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging
Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc)
  >2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software 
  >(SAP/PeopleSoft)
  >3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved
databases(DB2/Oracle)
  >4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of
  >of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques.
  >5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
  > an OLTP Environment.
  >
  >It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
  >IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
  >all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled
Procedures.
  >I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate
  >systems easily.
  >
  >Joe Eugene
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker
  >Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM
  >To: U2 Users Discussion List
  >Subject: RE: The lists are closing
  >
  >
  >
  >David,
  >
  >As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will
comment.
  >
  >I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas
Oracle
  >and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late
1970's
  >early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc.
  >
  >I may be wrong.
  >
  >Phil Walker
  >+64 21 336294
  &g

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[David T. Meeks]

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

- Clark Gable as "Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind"

At 12:01 PM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote:
"With all due respects, Sir, you are beginning to bore the hell out of me!"

-- Clint Eastwood as "Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Highway in Heartbreak Ridge"

David T. Meeks || "All my life I'm taken by surprise
Architect, Technology Office   ||  I'm someone's waste of time
Ascential Software ||  Now I walk a balanced line
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   ||  and step into tomorrow" - IQ

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Brian,

Correct me if I am wrong... 
IBM Says "UV is an Extended relational database"
Well Some people call it MVDBMS. I wonder how this is different
from Nested Table Data Structure within any RDBMS.

Can you explain?

> Complex processing managed locally to
> the
> database, without having to add external business rule layers.
> Not as a dumb machine to return or update record sets.

I don't know how others are using UV... But I have only seen it being
used
as a DUMB FILE... with NO Rules Embedded in the DataBase.

No Relational Data... and No Business Rules..

All Rules are Embedded within Programs (PICK)... So basically taking
Data
out of its Container to do a bunch of Business Logic.

How is the above efficient?

Thanks,
Joe Eugene



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Brian Leach
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:53 AM
> To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> Joe,
> 
> I shouldn't even dignify this crap with a reply, but anyway ...
> 
> 
> "1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records.
> 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it.
> 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users)
>switching Databases within the same DB Machine."
> 
> We've written complex web applications against UniVerse with several
> hundred
> permanently active users for local government systems (not just simple
> e-commerce or dynamic web). And they perform excellently, thank you.
> 
> 
> "UV is used as a FLAT FILE...
> with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK  to read
through
> these UV Files."
> 
> Then you're not using it correctly are you? Which puts you in no
position
> to
> comment.
> Don't blame the technology for your incompetence in not making the
correct
> use of it.
> 
> MVDB is designed for embedded processing. Record level writes that
don't
> have the overhead of a SQL layer. Complex processing managed locally
to
> the
> database, without having to add external business rule layers.
> 
> Not as a dumb machine to return or update record sets.
> 
> In other words, comparing UV and an RDBMS are comparing chalk and
cheese.
> They do different jobs. Try to use UV in the same way as Oracle and
don't
> be
> surprised if it won't perform. Try to use Oracle in the same way as UV
and
> the same thing happens. It doesn't work.
> 
> Strangely if I tried to drive a formula 1 car around here it won't
perform
> either. It would just break under the conditions. You need a 4x4. Of
> course
> they do the same thing - both go from A to B loudly and guzzle fuel.
But I
> know which one will get me home. Without an array of engineers to
retune
> it
> every day.
> 
> 
> "but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS..."
> 
> If they are they should be shot. UV is NOT an RDBMS. It's an MVDBMS.
If
> you
> can't understand that, no wonder you're floundering. A hell of a lot
of
> local and central governments, defence forces, fortune 500 companies
use
> UV
> as an MVDBMS though - as does a lot of the SMI sector, that can't
afford
> Oracle.
> 
> 
> "I belive developers should appreciate technology for
> 
> 1. Performance
> 2. Scalability
> 3. Ease Of Integration.
> 4. Advanced Techniques.
> 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc."
> 
> I do. That's why I've developed with Borland products for 10 years and
> with
> Microsoft products for 15 years.
> And MV databases for even longer.
> 
> Working with primitive data stores like SQL Server and Oracle just
loses
> my
> will to live.
> 
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

> This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar
> malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan.
> 
> DISCLAIMER
> 
> This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be
> privileged.
> 
> If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender
> immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other
> person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information.
> 
> In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please
> contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Microgen Information Management Solutions
> http://www.microgen.co.uk
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Will]

You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage!

Patrick "Will" Williams, President
American Computer Technics, Inc.
919-567-0042  Raleigh, NC
  - Original Message - 
  From: David T. Meeks 
  To: U2 Users Discussion List 
  Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM
  Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


  While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging
  technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so.

  U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they
  either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that
  the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).

  One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and
  the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is
  "little/no" support is a bit uninformed.

  The U2 products ARE supported in certain "Integration" software.  I wouldn't
  typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft "integration" software.  They are Enterprise
  Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'.

  However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets
  for both of their "integration" products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM,
  JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2
  products, this point is actually wrong.  People who have SAP or PeopleSoft
  solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those environments.

  As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different 
  dimensions.
   From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead dimensions, the
  U2 database products are VERY efficient.

  Finally, as to being "slow", again this depends on the measurement criteria
  being used.  From the perspective of concurrent user access and the performance
  of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple concurrent 
  users, etc..),
  the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys.  For support of 
  VLDB,
  highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does not.

  Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong.  They are 
  not the
  panacea for every database requirement.  However, for certain problems, 
  especially
  those for which it was designed (embedded database for application 
  development),
  it is very efficient.

  Dave

  At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote:
  >PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
  >level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2
  >that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB)
  >to a completly relational architecture.
  >
  >I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to
  >MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.
  >
  >1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc)
  >2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software 
  >(SAP/PeopleSoft)
  >3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle)
  >4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of
  >of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques.
  >5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
  > an OLTP Environment.
  >
  >It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
  >IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
  >all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures.
  >I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate
  >systems easily.
  >
  >Joe Eugene
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker
  >Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM
  >To: U2 Users Discussion List
  >Subject: RE: The lists are closing
  >
  >
  >
  >David,
  >
  >As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment.
  >
  >I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle
  >and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's
  >early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc.
  >
  >I may be wrong.
  >
  >Phil Walker
  >+64 21 336294
  >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  >infocusp limited
  >\\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz
  >DISCLAIMER:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
  >confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose
  >or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that
  >you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is
  >not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any
  >

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Grant.Boice]

"With all due respects, Sir, you are beginning to bore the hell out of me!"  

-- Clint Eastwood as "Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Highway in Heartbreak Ridge"

-Original Message-
From: David T. Meeks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:56 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


So, UV does everything on the BackEnd, but SQL Server does your data 
warehousing.
And you question why UV can't support the DW?  Why not ask the alternate 
question
of why the SQL Server can't handle the backend?

No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB.  It's not marketed as 
such.  It's
an extremely efficient, low-cost, high-performance, zero administration DB 
primarily
geared at being the backend (as you have now) for application usage.  It's 
primarily used
as an embedded database shipped as part of a solution package.  It is 
seldom sold as a
stand-alone DB.

Building actual "applications" that directly go at your Oracle/DB2's of the 
world is
a pain in the arse.  Administering said DBs is also a high-cost, complex, 
cumbersome
task as well.

Highlighting that the couple of UV people on your staff not knowing XML is 
somehow
a weakness in the product is ludicrous.  My wife is an Oracle 
expert/DBA/etc...  she
can barely spell XML.  Does this imply Oracle's XML support sucks?  Of 
course not.

Again, you pick on UV, claiming you have to use DataStage to pull data out 
of UV
into SQL Server.

Why then:
a)  Doesn't SQL Server sufficiently handle your back-end?
b)  Can't SQL Server directly access the data?
c)  Is DataStage, the tool being used to do this (and handles Web Services, 
XML,
 XPath, XSLT, etc...), built on top of UniVerse?

Finally, don't fall into the mistake that performing well would mean you 
would be
in the top 3.

Why?  Simple... marketing wins over technology almost all the 
time.  Informix was
a great example.  They had a wonderfully performant VLDB technology.  They
did very well in OLTP benchmarks.  Yet, they weren't a top 3 DB (being #4/#5,
depending on the timeframe).

The U2 products are great products.  They are not 'cutting edge', but they 
are not
way behind either.  Their target market is very different from the 
"BigThree", and
many would argue they are much better at the job they are intended for than the
Big Three.  They are NOT better at all things.   But, for low-cost, 
low-maintenance
embedded data base support with high-performance, high-user concurrency 
support,
it's hard to beat it.

Dave

At 11:27 AM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote:

>We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to
>Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems?
>Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing?
>Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems?
>
> > U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe
> > they either have or are working on Web Services support
>
>Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even
>understand
>the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies
>are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc.
>
>e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse
>through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either
>UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery
>Techniques.
>
>Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For
>what?
>Why cant UV handle of the DB Job?
>
>As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment,
>SIMPLE:
>IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and
>UV/PICK
>would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases.
>
>Joe Eugene
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On
> > Behalf Of David T. Meeks
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM
> > To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging
> > technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so.
> >
> > U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe
> > they
> > either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for
>example,
> > that
> > the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).
> >
> > One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain
>technologies,
> > and
> > the level of support currently within the products, but to say that
>there
> > is
> > "little/no" support is a bit uninformed.
> >
> > The U2 produc

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[David T. Meeks]

So, UV does everything on the BackEnd, but SQL Server does your data 
warehousing.
And you question why UV can't support the DW?  Why not ask the alternate 
question
of why the SQL Server can't handle the backend?

No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB.  It's not marketed as 
such.  It's
an extremely efficient, low-cost, high-performance, zero administration DB 
primarily
geared at being the backend (as you have now) for application usage.  It's 
primarily used
as an embedded database shipped as part of a solution package.  It is 
seldom sold as a
stand-alone DB.

Building actual "applications" that directly go at your Oracle/DB2's of the 
world is
a pain in the arse.  Administering said DBs is also a high-cost, complex, 
cumbersome
task as well.

Highlighting that the couple of UV people on your staff not knowing XML is 
somehow
a weakness in the product is ludicrous.  My wife is an Oracle 
expert/DBA/etc...  she
can barely spell XML.  Does this imply Oracle's XML support sucks?  Of 
course not.

Again, you pick on UV, claiming you have to use DataStage to pull data out 
of UV
into SQL Server.

Why then:
a)  Doesn't SQL Server sufficiently handle your back-end?
b)  Can't SQL Server directly access the data?
c)  Is DataStage, the tool being used to do this (and handles Web Services, 
XML,
XPath, XSLT, etc...), built on top of UniVerse?

Finally, don't fall into the mistake that performing well would mean you 
would be
in the top 3.

Why?  Simple... marketing wins over technology almost all the 
time.  Informix was
a great example.  They had a wonderfully performant VLDB technology.  They
did very well in OLTP benchmarks.  Yet, they weren't a top 3 DB (being #4/#5,
depending on the timeframe).

The U2 products are great products.  They are not 'cutting edge', but they 
are not
way behind either.  Their target market is very different from the 
"BigThree", and
many would argue they are much better at the job they are intended for than the
Big Three.  They are NOT better at all things.   But, for low-cost, 
low-maintenance
embedded data base support with high-performance, high-user concurrency 
support,
it's hard to beat it.

Dave

At 11:27 AM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote:

We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to
Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems?
Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing?
Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems?
> U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe
> they either have or are working on Web Services support
Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even
understand
the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies
are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc.
e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse
through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either
UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery
Techniques.
Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For
what?
Why cant UV handle of the DB Job?
As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment,
SIMPLE:
IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and
UV/PICK
would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases.
Joe Eugene





> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of David T. Meeks
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
>
> While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging
> technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so.
>
> U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe
> they
> either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for
example,
> that
> the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).
>
> One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain
technologies,
> and
> the level of support currently within the products, but to say that
there
> is
> "little/no" support is a bit uninformed.
>
> The U2 products ARE supported in certain "Integration" software.  I
> wouldn't
> typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft "integration" software.  They are
> Enterprise
> Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'.
>
> However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets
> for both of their "integration" products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM,
> JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with
both U2
> products, this point is actually wrong.  People who have SAP or
PeopleSoft
> solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Sunny Matharoo]

Hi,

Having been part of this list for only a short period I have found the
discussions very useful and the answers to questions posed have always
worked, even though we use Universe as our database, most of the solutions
are universal across the MV community.

I for one will be sorry to see the membership closed down... Thanks to Cliff
for all his hard work over the years

R,

Sunny Matharoo

Development Team Leader 
Tristar Worldwide Chauffeur Services

Direct Line: +44 (0) 1753 771317
Fax: +44 (0) 1753 790101
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Brian Leach]

Joe,

I shouldn't even dignify this crap with a reply, but anyway ...


"1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records.
2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it.
3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) 
   switching Databases within the same DB Machine."

We've written complex web applications against UniVerse with several hundred
permanently active users for local government systems (not just simple
e-commerce or dynamic web). And they perform excellently, thank you.


"UV is used as a FLAT FILE...
with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK  to read through
these UV Files."

Then you're not using it correctly are you? Which puts you in no position to
comment.
Don't blame the technology for your incompetence in not making the correct
use of it.

MVDB is designed for embedded processing. Record level writes that don't
have the overhead of a SQL layer. Complex processing managed locally to the
database, without having to add external business rule layers. 

Not as a dumb machine to return or update record sets.

In other words, comparing UV and an RDBMS are comparing chalk and cheese.
They do different jobs. Try to use UV in the same way as Oracle and don't be
surprised if it won't perform. Try to use Oracle in the same way as UV and
the same thing happens. It doesn't work.

Strangely if I tried to drive a formula 1 car around here it won't perform
either. It would just break under the conditions. You need a 4x4. Of course
they do the same thing - both go from A to B loudly and guzzle fuel. But I
know which one will get me home. Without an array of engineers to retune it
every day.


"but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS..."

If they are they should be shot. UV is NOT an RDBMS. It's an MVDBMS. If you
can't understand that, no wonder you're floundering. A hell of a lot of
local and central governments, defence forces, fortune 500 companies use UV
as an MVDBMS though - as does a lot of the SMI sector, that can't afford
Oracle.


"I belive developers should appreciate technology for

1. Performance
2. Scalability
3. Ease Of Integration.
4. Advanced Techniques.
5. Resources for Development... RAD etc."

I do. That's why I've developed with Borland products for 10 years and with
Microsoft products for 15 years. 
And MV databases for even longer. 

Working with primitive data stores like SQL Server and Oracle just loses my
will to live.


Brian






This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar
malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan.

DISCLAIMER

This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be
privileged.

If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender
immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other
person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information.

In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please
contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Microgen Information Management Solutions
http://www.microgen.co.uk
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Donald Kibbey]

Funny, I find the fact that I don't have to deal with how long a string is to be a 
feature.  Same with floats, inegers etc.  You really do not understand anything about 
Pick or UniVerse.  You should put down the keyboard and read a bit.  No more replies 
on this please.


Don Kibbey
Financial Systems Manager
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP


>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:33AM >>>

Any Software that can do a TON of Stuff is MUCH More Complex!
Is SAP easy to Learn?

UV/PICK doesn't even use Strong Data Typing (Integer/Float/String)...
Half the complexity and Performance is Lost there...

Joe 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On
> Behalf Of Donald Kibbey
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> So, what's your point?  Use C# against the UV database if that's what
you
> want to do (I and others have been doing this for a couple of years
now).
> If your so dead set against UV, then switch your site to Oracle or
DB2.
> Send us another note in 6 months and let us know what you spent on
> consultants and extra hardware to do this.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> Don Kibbey
> Financial Systems Manager
> Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
> 
> 
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:07AM >>>
> > I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> > compared to various relational DBMS environments.
> 
> I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than
other
> advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test...
> 
> 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records.
> 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it.
> 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users)
>switching Databases within the same DB Machine.
> 
> You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor.
> 
> > Stating that UV people "use PICK" and
> > that
> > UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
> familiar
> > with this technology
> 
> I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in
> learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT
FILE...
> with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK  to read
through
> these UV Files.
> 
> Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP
> Integrates
> with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a
RDBMS...
> but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case
> why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of
> resources out there to depend on.
> 
> > with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
> translation
> > to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either
> 
> I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with
> UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java!
> 
> I belive developers should appreciate technology for
> 
> 1. Performance
> 2. Scalability
> 3. Ease Of Integration.
> 4. Advanced Techniques.
> 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc.
> 
> I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of
> some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff.
> 
> Joe Eugene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> On
> > Behalf Of Tony Gravagno
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM
> > To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> > compared to various relational DBMS environments.  Since the tests
> > themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined
> based
> > on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers
that
> we
> > can
> > all agree on.
> >
> > Aside from that you're way off.  Stating that UV people "use PICK"
and
> > that
> > UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
> familiar
> > with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
> translation
> > to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either.  Saying
> Pick
> > doesn't support "advanced level computing" is simply wrong, and so
are
> a
> > couple of your other claims.  But I think we understand and can
agree
> with
> > your point that MV isn'

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Donald Kibbey]

I can't speak for your in house guys, but here, we do warehousing on the UniVerse 
machine.  It does support it quite well.  We Use the UniVerse machine to feed data to 
a couple of SQL server based solutions (they are third party vertical apps).  How does 
the data get from UniVerse to SQL Server?  By way of an xml data packet, in real time. 
 I've found over the years that if you want/need to do it with UniVerse, it can be 
done.  You might have to perform an upgrade to the latest version, but it's a well 
supported product.  Read your manuals and see for yourself.


Don Kibbey
Financial Systems Manager
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP


>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:27AM >>>

We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to
Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems? 
Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing?
Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems? 

> U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe
> they either have or are working on Web Services support

Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even
understand
the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies
are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc.

e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse
through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either
UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery
Techniques.

Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For
what?
Why cant UV handle of the DB Job? 

As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment,
SIMPLE:
IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and
UV/PICK
would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases.

Joe Eugene





> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On
> Behalf Of David T. Meeks
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging
> technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so.
> 
> U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe
> they
> either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for
example,
> that
> the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).
> 
> One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain
technologies,
> and
> the level of support currently within the products, but to say that
there
> is
> "little/no" support is a bit uninformed.
> 
> The U2 products ARE supported in certain "Integration" software.  I
> wouldn't
> typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft "integration" software.  They are
> Enterprise
> Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'.
> 
> However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets
> for both of their "integration" products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM,
> JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with
both U2
> products, this point is actually wrong.  People who have SAP or
PeopleSoft
> solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those
> environments.
> 
> As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different
> dimensions.
>  From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead
dimensions,
> the
> U2 database products are VERY efficient.
> 
> Finally, as to being "slow", again this depends on the measurement
> criteria
> being used.  From the perspective of concurrent user access and the
> performance
> of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple
concurrent
> users, etc..),
> the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys.  For
support of
> VLDB,
> highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does
not.
> 
> Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong.  They
are
> not the
> panacea for every database requirement.  However, for certain
problems,
> especially
> those for which it was designed (embedded database for application
> development),
> it is very efficient.
> 
> Dave
> 
> At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
> >level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy
DB2
> >that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now
UDB)
> >to a completly relational architecture.
> >
> >I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to
> >MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.
> >
> >1. UV

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

This is a Constructive Argument... Don't you have an argument to prove
that UV is efficient rather than getting to Personal Stuff.!

I have done my homework on Stress Testing Applications...
If you can prove UV is efficient... DO IT!

Joe Eugene

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Jeff Schasny
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:20 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> At the risk of being rude (which I don't really mind all that much).
Your
> comments simply verify my initial suspicion that you are quite
ignorant of
> the structure and usage of the Universe environment.  Anyone who would
> characterize the Universe database as "flat file" is either A) an
idiot or
> B) clueless.
> 
> "And the use PICK to read through it"???  What?
> 
> I also suspect that you suffer fronm a common malady: If all you know
how
> to
> use is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail.
> 
> Your arguments are nonsensical, your logic is missing and in general
the
> internet has a term for those who post irritating comments about a
subject
> on that subject's newsgroup which this list certainly resembles.  We
call
> them trolls
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:07 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> 
> > I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> > compared to various relational DBMS environments.
> 
> I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than
other
> advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test...
> 
> 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records.
> 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it.
> 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users)
>switching Databases within the same DB Machine.
> 
> You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor.
> 
> > Stating that UV people "use PICK" and
> > that
> > UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
> familiar
> > with this technology
> 
> I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in
> learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT
FILE...
> with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK  to read
through
> these UV Files.
> 
> Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP
> Integrates
> with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a
RDBMS...
> but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case
> why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of
> resources out there to depend on.
> 
> > with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
> translation
> > to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either
> 
> I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with
> UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java!
> 
> I belive developers should appreciate technology for
> 
> 1. Performance
> 2. Scalability
> 3. Ease Of Integration.
> 4. Advanced Techniques.
> 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc.
> 
> I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of
> some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff.
> 
> Joe Eugene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Tony Gravagno
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM
> > To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> > compared to various relational DBMS environments.  Since the tests
> > themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined
> based
> > on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers
that
> we
> > can
> > all agree on.
> >
> > Aside from that you're way off.  Stating that UV people "use PICK"
and
> > that
> > UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
> familiar
> > with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
> translation
> > to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either.  Saying
> Pick
> > doesn't support "advanced level computing" is simply wrong, and so
are
> a
> > couple of your other claims.  But I 

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

Any Software that can do a TON of Stuff is MUCH More Complex!
Is SAP easy to Learn?

UV/PICK doesn't even use Strong Data Typing (Integer/Float/String)...
Half the complexity and Performance is Lost there...

Joe 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Donald Kibbey
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> So, what's your point?  Use C# against the UV database if that's what
you
> want to do (I and others have been doing this for a couple of years
now).
> If your so dead set against UV, then switch your site to Oracle or
DB2.
> Send us another note in 6 months and let us know what you spent on
> consultants and extra hardware to do this.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> Don Kibbey
> Financial Systems Manager
> Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
> 
> 
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:07AM >>>
> > I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> > compared to various relational DBMS environments.
> 
> I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than
other
> advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test...
> 
> 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records.
> 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it.
> 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users)
>switching Databases within the same DB Machine.
> 
> You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor.
> 
> > Stating that UV people "use PICK" and
> > that
> > UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
> familiar
> > with this technology
> 
> I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in
> learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT
FILE...
> with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK  to read
through
> these UV Files.
> 
> Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP
> Integrates
> with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a
RDBMS...
> but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case
> why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of
> resources out there to depend on.
> 
> > with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
> translation
> > to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either
> 
> I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with
> UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java!
> 
> I belive developers should appreciate technology for
> 
> 1. Performance
> 2. Scalability
> 3. Ease Of Integration.
> 4. Advanced Techniques.
> 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc.
> 
> I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of
> some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff.
> 
> Joe Eugene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Tony Gravagno
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM
> > To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> >
> > I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> > compared to various relational DBMS environments.  Since the tests
> > themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined
> based
> > on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers
that
> we
> > can
> > all agree on.
> >
> > Aside from that you're way off.  Stating that UV people "use PICK"
and
> > that
> > UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
> familiar
> > with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
> translation
> > to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either.  Saying
> Pick
> > doesn't support "advanced level computing" is simply wrong, and so
are
> a
> > couple of your other claims.  But I think we understand and can
agree
> with
> > your point that MV isn't "mainstream".
> >
> > Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to
> communications.
> > We
> > can connect an MV app to anything.  Connectivity methods aren't
always
> > mainstream but the claims of "little/NO support" and "not
compatible"
> are
> > incorrect.  Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just
as
> > easily.  Remember that 

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to
Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems? 
Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing?
Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems? 

> U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe
> they either have or are working on Web Services support

Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even
understand
the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies
are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc.

e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse
through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either
UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery
Techniques.

Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For
what?
Why cant UV handle of the DB Job? 

As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment,
SIMPLE:
IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and
UV/PICK
would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases.

Joe Eugene





> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of David T. Meeks
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging
> technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so.
> 
> U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe
> they
> either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for
example,
> that
> the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).
> 
> One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain
technologies,
> and
> the level of support currently within the products, but to say that
there
> is
> "little/no" support is a bit uninformed.
> 
> The U2 products ARE supported in certain "Integration" software.  I
> wouldn't
> typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft "integration" software.  They are
> Enterprise
> Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'.
> 
> However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets
> for both of their "integration" products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM,
> JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with
both U2
> products, this point is actually wrong.  People who have SAP or
PeopleSoft
> solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those
> environments.
> 
> As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different
> dimensions.
>  From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead
dimensions,
> the
> U2 database products are VERY efficient.
> 
> Finally, as to being "slow", again this depends on the measurement
> criteria
> being used.  From the perspective of concurrent user access and the
> performance
> of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple
concurrent
> users, etc..),
> the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys.  For
support of
> VLDB,
> highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does
not.
> 
> Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong.  They
are
> not the
> panacea for every database requirement.  However, for certain
problems,
> especially
> those for which it was designed (embedded database for application
> development),
> it is very efficient.
> 
> Dave
> 
> At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
> >level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy
DB2
> >that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now
UDB)
> >to a completly relational architecture.
> >
> >I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to
> >MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.
> >
> >1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging
Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML
> etc)
> >2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software
> >(SAP/PeopleSoft)
> >3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved
databases(DB2/Oracle)
> >4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of
> >of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques.
> >5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
> > an OLTP Environment.
> >
> >It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
> >IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
> >all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled
Procedures.
>

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Jeff Schasny]

At the risk of being rude (which I don't really mind all that much).  Your
comments simply verify my initial suspicion that you are quite ignorant of
the structure and usage of the Universe environment.  Anyone who would
characterize the Universe database as "flat file" is either A) an idiot or
B) clueless. 

"And the use PICK to read through it"???  What?

I also suspect that you suffer fronm a common malady: If all you know how to
use is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail.

Your arguments are nonsensical, your logic is missing and in general the
internet has a term for those who post irritating comments about a subject
on that subject's newsgroup which this list certainly resembles.  We call
them trolls

-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:07 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


> I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> compared to various relational DBMS environments.  

I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other
advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test...

1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records.
2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it.
3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) 
   switching Databases within the same DB Machine.

You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor.

> Stating that UV people "use PICK" and
> that
> UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
familiar
> with this technology

I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in
learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE...
with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK  to read through
these UV Files.

Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP
Integrates
with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS...
but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case
why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of
resources out there to depend on.

> with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
translation
> to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either

I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with
UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java!

I belive developers should appreciate technology for

1. Performance
2. Scalability
3. Ease Of Integration.
4. Advanced Techniques.
5. Resources for Development... RAD etc.

I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of
some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff.

Joe Eugene




> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Tony Gravagno
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM
> To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> compared to various relational DBMS environments.  Since the tests
> themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined
based
> on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that
we
> can
> all agree on.
> 
> Aside from that you're way off.  Stating that UV people "use PICK" and
> that
> UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
familiar
> with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
translation
> to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either.  Saying
Pick
> doesn't support "advanced level computing" is simply wrong, and so are
a
> couple of your other claims.  But I think we understand and can agree
with
> your point that MV isn't "mainstream".
> 
> Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to
communications.
> We
> can connect an MV app to anything.  Connectivity methods aren't always
> mainstream but the claims of "little/NO support" and "not compatible"
are
> incorrect.  Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as
> easily.  Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively
done
> within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect
> into
> a DBMS too.  So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside
of
> our
> environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is,
> BASIC
> can be considered a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies
of
> stored procedures.
> 
> It's counter-productive to get into one-upmanship against relational
> products and other staples of the IT world, so I'll just close 

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Donald Kibbey]

So, what's your point?  Use C# against the UV database if that's what you want to do 
(I and others have been doing this for a couple of years now).  If your so dead set 
against UV, then switch your site to Oracle or DB2.  Send us another note in 6 months 
and let us know what you spent on consultants and extra hardware to do this.

Thanks,



Don Kibbey
Financial Systems Manager
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP


>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:07AM >>>
> I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> compared to various relational DBMS environments.  

I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other
advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test...

1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records.
2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it.
3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) 
   switching Databases within the same DB Machine.

You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor.

> Stating that UV people "use PICK" and
> that
> UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
familiar
> with this technology

I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in
learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE...
with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK  to read through
these UV Files.

Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP
Integrates
with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS...
but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case
why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of
resources out there to depend on.

> with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
translation
> to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either

I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with
UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java!

I belive developers should appreciate technology for

1. Performance
2. Scalability
3. Ease Of Integration.
4. Advanced Techniques.
5. Resources for Development... RAD etc.

I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of
some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff.

Joe Eugene




> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On
> Behalf Of Tony Gravagno
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM
> To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> compared to various relational DBMS environments.  Since the tests
> themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined
based
> on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that
we
> can
> all agree on.
> 
> Aside from that you're way off.  Stating that UV people "use PICK" and
> that
> UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
familiar
> with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
translation
> to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either.  Saying
Pick
> doesn't support "advanced level computing" is simply wrong, and so are
a
> couple of your other claims.  But I think we understand and can agree
with
> your point that MV isn't "mainstream".
> 
> Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to
communications.
> We
> can connect an MV app to anything.  Connectivity methods aren't always
> mainstream but the claims of "little/NO support" and "not compatible"
are
> incorrect.  Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as
> easily.  Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively
done
> within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect
> into
> a DBMS too.  So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside
of
> our
> environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is,
> BASIC
> can be considered a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies
of
> stored procedures.
> 
> It's counter-productive to get into one-upmanship against relational
> products and other staples of the IT world, so I'll just close by
saying
> all
> of these products are as good as the skills of the people using them.
> Here
> at Nebula R&D we'll be happy to help you connect your app to anything
you
> want, including SAP, Peoplesoft, DB2, or whatever else you or your
trading
> partners use.
> 
> Tony
> 
> Joe Eugene wrote:
> >PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of
> >advanced level computing

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Marlene Yokoyama]

Joe

1) Check again... one of IBM's partners is Epicore
http://www.epicor.com/www/  which is using a Unidata database and XML
technology in several of their products.

3) Our company has two divisions one on Oracle and one on Unidata.  The
Unidata side has two programmers compared to the 8 on the Oracle side to
do the same thing.and we create great stuff and THEY have to try to
follow us!!  Total cost of an Oracle update cost more that our whole
system cost from start to finish!!

Just a few comments
Marlene

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/28/2004 7:24:04 PM >>>
PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2
that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now
UDB)
to a completly relational architecture.
 
I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to 
MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.
 
1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging
Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc)
2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software
(SAP/PeopleSoft)
3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved
databases(DB2/Oracle)
4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of
   of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 
5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
an OLTP Environment.
 
It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures.
I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate
systems easily.
 
Joe Eugene
 

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker
Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing



David,

As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will
comment.

I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas
Oracle
and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late
1970's
early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc.

I may be wrong.

Phil Walker
+64 21 336294
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
infocusp limited
\\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz 
DISCLAIMER:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy,
disclose
or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail
that
you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited
is
not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any
attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning
software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in
this
email or any attachment

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing

Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your
definition of modern? I would have thought the good old "relational
databases" have been around since before pick anyway? 8-)

Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4273
+61 417 268 665



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Behalf Of Jeff Ritchie
Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing


Thanks for the memories Cliff :)

Sorry to hear the lists are closing, but what the heck time and tide,
work committments etc.

As some one who is shortly to be ex mv, and moving into the more
modern
technologies l will decline the offer to join, but wish the site all
the
best.

Cheers,
Jeff

-Original Message-
From: Moderator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 7:14 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: The lists are closing


Dear Friends:

After 10+ years of either hosting or supporting the info-prime,
info-unidata, info-vmark, info-informix, and u2-users etc lists, I
have
decided to shut down the list server.

u2-users and u2-community will cease to exist as of 1 April 2004. IBM
is

officially supporting the efforts of the new U2UG.org group. (Yes. I
am
a member of the establishing Board of that group. So this is not a
"coup" or Sour Grapes!) If you check out the forums that have been set
up, I think you will will see that they cover everything anyone has
asked for over the years in this group.

I *really* want to encourage ALL of you to come over the the
www.u2ug.org site and support this effort. This is *exactly* what many
of you on this list have wanted over the years. If Not Now, When?

Almost ten years on my Watch. How many years before that on Mike
O'Rear's Watch? In the Net World, this has been a Hell of a good run.
(I

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

> I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> compared to various relational DBMS environments.  

I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other
advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test...

1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records.
2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it.
3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) 
   switching Databases within the same DB Machine.

You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor.

> Stating that UV people "use PICK" and
> that
> UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
familiar
> with this technology

I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in
learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE...
with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK  to read through
these UV Files.

Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP
Integrates
with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS...
but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case
why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of
resources out there to depend on.

> with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
translation
> to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either

I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with
UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java!

I belive developers should appreciate technology for

1. Performance
2. Scalability
3. Ease Of Integration.
4. Advanced Techniques.
5. Resources for Development... RAD etc.

I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of
some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff.

Joe Eugene




> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Tony Gravagno
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM
> To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> 
> I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
> compared to various relational DBMS environments.  Since the tests
> themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined
based
> on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that
we
> can
> all agree on.
> 
> Aside from that you're way off.  Stating that UV people "use PICK" and
> that
> UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very
familiar
> with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a
translation
> to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either.  Saying
Pick
> doesn't support "advanced level computing" is simply wrong, and so are
a
> couple of your other claims.  But I think we understand and can agree
with
> your point that MV isn't "mainstream".
> 
> Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to
communications.
> We
> can connect an MV app to anything.  Connectivity methods aren't always
> mainstream but the claims of "little/NO support" and "not compatible"
are
> incorrect.  Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as
> easily.  Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively
done
> within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect
> into
> a DBMS too.  So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside
of
> our
> environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is,
> BASIC
> can be considered a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies
of
> stored procedures.
> 
> It's counter-productive to get into one-upmanship against relational
> products and other staples of the IT world, so I'll just close by
saying
> all
> of these products are as good as the skills of the people using them.
> Here
> at Nebula R&D we'll be happy to help you connect your app to anything
you
> want, including SAP, Peoplesoft, DB2, or whatever else you or your
trading
> partners use.
> 
> Tony
> 
> Joe Eugene wrote:
> >PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of
> >advanced level computing we have today.
> >
> >1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging
> >Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported
> >in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV
> >is Not efficient compared to highly evolved
> >databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is
> >Not Compatible with many of
> >   of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques.
> >5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
> >

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[David T. Meeks]

While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging
technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so.
U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they
either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that
the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services).
One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and
the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is
"little/no" support is a bit uninformed.
The U2 products ARE supported in certain "Integration" software.  I wouldn't
typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft "integration" software.  They are Enterprise
Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'.
However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets
for both of their "integration" products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM,
JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2
products, this point is actually wrong.  People who have SAP or PeopleSoft
solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those environments.
As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different 
dimensions.
From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead dimensions, the
U2 database products are VERY efficient.

Finally, as to being "slow", again this depends on the measurement criteria
being used.  From the perspective of concurrent user access and the performance
of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple concurrent 
users, etc..),
the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys.  For support of 
VLDB,
highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does not.

Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong.  They are 
not the
panacea for every database requirement.  However, for certain problems, 
especially
those for which it was designed (embedded database for application 
development),
it is very efficient.

Dave

At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote:
PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2
that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB)
to a completly relational architecture.
I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to
MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.
1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc)
2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software 
(SAP/PeopleSoft)
3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle)
4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of
   of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques.
5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
an OLTP Environment.

It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures.
I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate
systems easily.
Joe Eugene





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker
Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing


David,

As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment.

I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle
and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's
early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc.
I may be wrong.

Phil Walker
+64 21 336294
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
infocusp limited
\\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz
DISCLAIMER:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose
or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that
you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is
not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any
attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning
software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this
email or any attachment
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing
Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your
definition of modern? I would have thought the good old "relational
databases" have been around since before pick anyway? 8-)
Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia
+61 8 8408 4273
+61 417 268 665


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jeff Ritchie
Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion 

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Tony Gravagno]

I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling
compared to various relational DBMS environments.  Since the tests
themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined based
on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that we can
all agree on.

Aside from that you're way off.  Stating that UV people "use PICK" and that
UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar
with this technology.  Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation
to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either.  Saying Pick
doesn't support "advanced level computing" is simply wrong, and so are a
couple of your other claims.  But I think we understand and can agree with
your point that MV isn't "mainstream".

Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to communications.  We
can connect an MV app to anything.  Connectivity methods aren't always
mainstream but the claims of "little/NO support" and "not compatible" are
incorrect.  Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as
easily.  Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively done
within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect into
a DBMS too.  So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside of our
environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is, BASIC
can be considered a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies of
stored procedures.

It's counter-productive to get into one-upmanship against relational
products and other staples of the IT world, so I'll just close by saying all
of these products are as good as the skills of the people using them.  Here
at Nebula R&D we'll be happy to help you connect your app to anything you
want, including SAP, Peoplesoft, DB2, or whatever else you or your trading
partners use.

Tony

Joe Eugene wrote:
>PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of 
>advanced level computing we have today.
> 
>1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging 
>Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported 
>in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV 
>is Not efficient compared to highly evolved 
>databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is 
>Not Compatible with many of
>   of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 
>5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
>an OLTP Environment.
> 
>It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV 
>Stuff to IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter 
>to convert all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native 
>Compiled Procedures. I belive this would be ideal and would 
>help corportations intergrate systems easily.

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Will]

Does "Highly Evolved" mean "Highly Complicated" as well as "Highly Priced" and "High 
Maintenance Cost"?  

Patrick "Will" Williams, President
American Computer Technics, Inc.
919-567-0042  Raleigh, NC
  - Original Message - 
  From: Joe Eugene 
  To: U2 Users Discussion List 
  Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 7:24 PM
  Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


  PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
  level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2
  that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB)
  to a completly relational architecture.
   
  I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to 
  MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.
   
  1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc)
  2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft)
  3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle)
  4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of
 of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 
  5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
  an OLTP Environment.
   
  It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
  IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
  all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures.
  I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate
  systems easily.
   
  Joe Eugene
   

   
  

  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker
  Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM
  To: U2 Users Discussion List
  Subject: RE: The lists are closing



  David,

  As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment.

  I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle
  and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's
  early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc.

  I may be wrong.

  Phil Walker
  +64 21 336294
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  infocusp limited
  \\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz
  DISCLAIMER:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
  confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose
  or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that
  you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is
  not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any
  attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning
  software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this
  email or any attachment

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
  Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM
  To: U2 Users Discussion List
  Subject: RE: The lists are closing

  Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your
  definition of modern? I would have thought the good old "relational
  databases" have been around since before pick anyway? 8-)

  Regards

  David Logan
  Database Administrator
  HP Managed Services
  139 Frome Street,
  Adelaide 5000
  Australia

  +61 8 8408 4273
  +61 417 268 665



  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Jeff Ritchie
  Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM
  To: U2 Users Discussion List
  Subject: RE: The lists are closing


  Thanks for the memories Cliff :)

  Sorry to hear the lists are closing, but what the heck time and tide,
  work committments etc.

  As some one who is shortly to be ex mv, and moving into the more modern
  technologies l will decline the offer to join, but wish the site all the
  best.

  Cheers,
  Jeff

  -Original Message-
  From: Moderator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 7:14 PM
  To: U2 Users Discussion List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: The lists are closing


  Dear Friends:

  After 10+ years of either hosting or supporting the info-prime,
  info-unidata, info-vmark, info-informix, and u2-users etc lists, I have
  decided to shut down the list server.

  u2-users and u2-community will cease to exist as of 1 April 2004. IBM is

  officially supporting the efforts of the new U2UG.org group. (Yes. I am
  a member of the establishing Board of that group. So this is not a
  "coup" or Sour Grapes!) If you check out the forums that have been set
  up, I think you will will see that they cover everything anyone has
  asked for over the years in this group.

  I *really* want to encourage ALL of you to come over the the
  www.u2ug.org site and support this effort. This is *exactly* what many
  of you on this list have wanted over the years. If Not Now, When?

  Almost ten years on my Watch. How many ye

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Phil Walker]

Way to go Trevor.

All right a flame war before this list disappears ;-). Maybe in this war the
ANZACS will stick together unlike Herr Clarke and her band of lefties.

I agree with Trevor. I have seen a number of companies spend tens of
millions of dollars moving from a legacy system on UV to systems such as JDE
on oracle, SAP on oracle, and the business was no better off.  In one case
they never even went live with the other system. Oxford Health in the US was
another case but I do not know the details of it.

My 2 cents worth...

Phil Walker
+64 21 336294
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
infocusp limited
\\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz
DISCLAIMER:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose
or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that
you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is
not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any
attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning
software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this
email or any attachment

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Trevor Ockenden
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:22 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

Joe

One bigot to another. Horses for courses - of course!

You'll never catch me alive messing with "mainstream" databases. Our users
have baulked at the price tag on 'mainstream' database solutions for
decades.

If the MV databases are so 'behind the times' then how come they were the
first in Australia to go live with ATM banking then Internet Banking.
'Mainstream' is not always best. I say 'viva la difference' (French
spelling?).

Cheers

Trevor Ockenden
OSP


- Original Message -
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2
that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB)
to a completly relational architecture.

I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to
MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.

1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML
etc)
2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software
(SAP/PeopleSoft)
3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle)
4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of
   of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques.
5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
an OLTP Environment.

It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures.
I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate
systems easily.

Joe Eugene





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker
Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing



David,

As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment.

I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle
and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's
early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc.

I may be wrong.

Phil Walker
+64 21 336294
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
infocusp limited
\\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz
DISCLAIMER:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose
or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that
you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is
not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any
attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning
software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this
email or any attachment

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing

Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your
definition of modern? I would have thought the good old "relational
databases" have been around since before pick anyway? 8-)

Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Trevor Ockenden]

Joe

One bigot to another. Horses for courses - of course!

You'll never catch me alive messing with "mainstream" databases. Our users
have baulked at the price tag on 'mainstream' database solutions for
decades.

If the MV databases are so 'behind the times' then how come they were the
first in Australia to go live with ATM banking then Internet Banking.
'Mainstream' is not always best. I say 'viva la difference' (French
spelling?).

Cheers

Trevor Ockenden
OSP


- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2
that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB)
to a completly relational architecture.

I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to
MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.

1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML
etc)
2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software
(SAP/PeopleSoft)
3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle)
4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of
   of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques.
5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
an OLTP Environment.

It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures.
I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate
systems easily.

Joe Eugene





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker
Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing



David,

As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment.

I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle
and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's
early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc.

I may be wrong.

Phil Walker
+64 21 336294
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
infocusp limited
\\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz
DISCLAIMER:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose
or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that
you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is
not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any
attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning
software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this
email or any attachment

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing

Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your
definition of modern? I would have thought the good old "relational
databases" have been around since before pick anyway? 8-)

Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4273
+61 417 268 665



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jeff Ritchie
Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing


Thanks for the memories Cliff :)

Sorry to hear the lists are closing, but what the heck time and tide,
work committments etc.

As some one who is shortly to be ex mv, and moving into the more modern
technologies l will decline the offer to join, but wish the site all the
best.

Cheers,
Jeff

-Original Message-
From: Moderator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 7:14 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The lists are closing


Dear Friends:

After 10+ years of either hosting or supporting the info-prime,
info-unidata, info-vmark, info-informix, and u2-users etc lists, I have
decided to shut down the list server.

u2-users and u2-community will cease to exist as of 1 April 2004. IBM is

officially supporting the efforts of the new U2UG.org group. (Yes. I am
a member of the establishing Board of that group. So this is not a
"coup" or Sour Grapes!) If you check out the forums that have been set
up, I think you will will see that they cover everything anyone has
asked for over the years in this group.

I *really* want to encourage ALL of you to come over the the
www.u2ug.org site and support this effort. This is *ex

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)]

Hi Joe,

1.Please refer to the IBM manuals
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/u2/pubs/library/100univ/univ_101.ht
ml You make it sound as though the extensions for XML, SOAP, Websphere
and other emerging technologies have not been put inplace.

2.  It is supported by Masterpack amongst others. Is it really bad
that SAP don't have a version? Not everybody has the budget or need for
SAP/Peoplesoft. There is no current corporate edict that states, thou
must use SAP or else! Imagine a 20 user site trying to put in SAP, just
doesn't wash with me.

3.  UV has substantially less administrative requirement. I do not
spend my days checking on tables sizes, adding extents, chunks and
dbspaces etc. Yes it is slower because it uses cooked files but it has
less administrative overhead because of this.

4.  Can't dispute that. It is a personal choice, I can't see how you
can blame Universe for this one.

5.  Different strokes etc. Each of the above points is very much a
personal viewpoint. Facts? ;-), slow? that depends on who wrote the
software and what that software is doing. Total cost of ownership is
probably less with U2 than with the behemoths like DB2, Oracle and
MSSQL.

Just because it doesn't look like the rest doesn't mean it doesn't have
merit. DB2, Oracle and MSSQL have their places and their product
champions as do the u2 technologies.

Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4273
+61 417 268 665



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 12:54 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2
that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now
UDB)
to a completly relational architecture.
 
I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to 
MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.
 
1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging
Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc)

2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software
(SAP/PeopleSoft)

3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle)

4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of of
the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 

5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for an OLTP
Environment.

It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures.
I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate
systems easily.
 
Joe Eugene
 

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker
Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing



David,

As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will
comment.

I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas
Oracle
and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late
1970's
early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc.

I may be wrong.

Phil Walker
+64 21 336294
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
infocusp limited
\\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz
DISCLAIMER:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy,
disclose
or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail
that
you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited
is
not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any
attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning
software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in
this
email or any attachment

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing

Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your
definition of modern? I would have thought the good old "relational
databases" have been around since before pick anyway? 8-)

Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4273
+61 417 268 665



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jeff Ritchie
Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing


Thanks for the memories Cliff :)

Sorry to hear the lists are closing, but what the heck time and tide,
work committments etc.

As some one who is shortly to be ex mv,

Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Craig Bennett]

Well the list is certainly going to go out with a bang then :)

- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing


PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2
that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB)
to a completly relational architecture.

I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to
MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.

1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML
etc)
2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software
(SAP/PeopleSoft)
3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle)
4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of
   of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques.
5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
an OLTP Environment.

It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures.
I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate
systems easily.

Joe Eugene





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker
Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing



David,

As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment.

I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle
and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's
early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc.

I may be wrong.

Phil Walker
+64 21 336294
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
infocusp limited
\\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz
DISCLAIMER:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose
or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that
you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is
not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any
attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning
software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this
email or any attachment

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing

Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your
definition of modern? I would have thought the good old "relational
databases" have been around since before pick anyway? 8-)

Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4273
+61 417 268 665



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jeff Ritchie
Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing


Thanks for the memories Cliff :)

Sorry to hear the lists are closing, but what the heck time and tide,
work committments etc.

As some one who is shortly to be ex mv, and moving into the more modern
technologies l will decline the offer to join, but wish the site all the
best.

Cheers,
Jeff

-Original Message-
From: Moderator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 7:14 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The lists are closing


Dear Friends:

After 10+ years of either hosting or supporting the info-prime,
info-unidata, info-vmark, info-informix, and u2-users etc lists, I have
decided to shut down the list server.

u2-users and u2-community will cease to exist as of 1 April 2004. IBM is

officially supporting the efforts of the new U2UG.org group. (Yes. I am
a member of the establishing Board of that group. So this is not a
"coup" or Sour Grapes!) If you check out the forums that have been set
up, I think you will will see that they cover everything anyone has
asked for over the years in this group.

I *really* want to encourage ALL of you to come over the the
www.u2ug.org site and support this effort. This is *exactly* what many
of you on this list have wanted over the years. If Not Now, When?

Almost ten years on my Watch. How many years before that on Mike
O'Rear's Watch? In the Net World, this has been a Hell of a good run. (I

just couldn't resist tripping the Net Nanny filters one last time )

I'll see all of you on the other media, ok?

--

Regards,

Clif

~~~
W. Clif

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Joe Eugene]

PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced
level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2
that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB)
to a completly relational architecture.
 
I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to 
MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases.
 
1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc)
2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft)
3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle)
4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of
   of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 
5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for
an OLTP Environment.
 
It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to
IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert
all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures.
I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate
systems easily.
 
Joe Eugene
 

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker
Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing



David,

As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment.

I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle
and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's
early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc.

I may be wrong.

Phil Walker
+64 21 336294
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
infocusp limited
\\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz
DISCLAIMER:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose
or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that
you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is
not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any
attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning
software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this
email or any attachment

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing

Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your
definition of modern? I would have thought the good old "relational
databases" have been around since before pick anyway? 8-)

Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4273
+61 417 268 665



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jeff Ritchie
Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing


Thanks for the memories Cliff :)

Sorry to hear the lists are closing, but what the heck time and tide,
work committments etc.

As some one who is shortly to be ex mv, and moving into the more modern
technologies l will decline the offer to join, but wish the site all the
best.

Cheers,
Jeff

-Original Message-
From: Moderator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 7:14 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The lists are closing


Dear Friends:

After 10+ years of either hosting or supporting the info-prime,
info-unidata, info-vmark, info-informix, and u2-users etc lists, I have
decided to shut down the list server.

u2-users and u2-community will cease to exist as of 1 April 2004. IBM is

officially supporting the efforts of the new U2UG.org group. (Yes. I am
a member of the establishing Board of that group. So this is not a
"coup" or Sour Grapes!) If you check out the forums that have been set
up, I think you will will see that they cover everything anyone has
asked for over the years in this group.

I *really* want to encourage ALL of you to come over the the
www.u2ug.org site and support this effort. This is *exactly* what many
of you on this list have wanted over the years. If Not Now, When?

Almost ten years on my Watch. How many years before that on Mike
O'Rear's Watch? In the Net World, this has been a Hell of a good run. (I

just couldn't resist tripping the Net Nanny filters one last time )

I'll see all of you on the other media, ok?

--

Regards,

Clif

~~~
W. Clifton Oliver, CCP
CLIFTON OLIVER & ASSOCIATES
Tel: +1 619 460 5678Web: www.oliver.com
~~~

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listin

RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing

[Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)]

Hi Phil,

The predecessors to the "relational models" have been around since the
60's as well (earlier in some cases). My main point is that u2 databases
are very much as "modern" as any other technology. DEC RDB was around
(certainly in the late 70's), the older hierarchical DBM's such as IMS
etc. have been around since long before this.

I am currently having a fair bit to do with Informix and I can assure
you, universe is a lot easier to administer and understand how it works.
The only thing that we do not really have in u2 is raw disk access as
all u2 technologies tend to rely on cooked files. I am sure, if u2 came
up with an appropriate solution offering raw disk access, the
performance would probably increase substantially along with the
administrative overheads.

I have donned my flameproof underpants as I am sure there are proponents
of the other technologies who will disagree.

Only 2 days left for the list so may as well make it interesting 8-)

Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4273
+61 417 268 665



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Phil Walker
Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 10:29 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing


David,

As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will
comment.

I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas
Oracle
and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late
1970's
early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc.

I may be wrong.

Phil Walker
+64 21 336294
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
infocusp limited
\\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz
DISCLAIMER:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy,
disclose
or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail
that
you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited
is
not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any
attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning
software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in
this
email or any attachment

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing

Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your
definition of modern? I would have thought the good old "relational
databases" have been around since before pick anyway? 8-)

Regards

David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
139 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4273
+61 417 268 665



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jeff Ritchie
Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: The lists are closing


Thanks for the memories Cliff :)

Sorry to hear the lists are closing, but what the heck time and tide,
work committments etc.

As some one who is shortly to be ex mv, and moving into the more modern
technologies l will decline the offer to join, but wish the site all the
best.

Cheers,
Jeff

-Original Message-
From: Moderator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 7:14 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The lists are closing


Dear Friends:

After 10+ years of either hosting or supporting the info-prime,
info-unidata, info-vmark, info-informix, and u2-users etc lists, I have
decided to shut down the list server.

u2-users and u2-community will cease to exist as of 1 April 2004. IBM is

officially supporting the efforts of the new U2UG.org group. (Yes. I am
a member of the establishing Board of that group. So this is not a
"coup" or Sour Grapes!) If you check out the forums that have been set
up, I think you will will see that they cover everything anyone has
asked for over the years in this group.

I *really* want to encourage ALL of you to come over the the
www.u2ug.org site and support this effort. This is *exactly* what many
of you on this list have wanted over the years. If Not Now, When?

Almost ten years on my Watch. How many years before that on Mike
O'Rear's Watch? In the Net World, this has been a Hell of a good run. (I

just couldn't resist tripping the Net Nanny filters one last time )

I'll see all of you on the other media, ok?

--

Regards,

Clif

~~~
W. Clifton Oliver, CCP
CLIFTON OLIVER & ASSOCIATES
Tel: +1 619 460 5678Web: www.oliver.com
~~~

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliv