> Come on everyone lets help Tim out here. What would you leave out of the
> Lite version?

Funny old world this database gig. Most of us kicked off with dBase format
then Clipper still dBase then Win 3 most of us dipped our feet into Turbo
C++3.1
with a dBase lib. Some of us even looked at Pascal with Topaz the BDE was
even around in them days giving headaches.
Along comes Delphi in 1995 we all bought D1 then D2 came out with a free D1
I may add. The BDE was a pain but Topaz and Halcyon both under £100 was a
godsend. Then some of us wanted SQL there was an addon but Tim came up
with Dbisam with SQL built in and like Topaz/Halcyon no BDE.
I always thought the standard version was a lite version and the CS version
was
the easiest CS db ever to manage if by lite you mean cheap or even free then
Dbisam will join the other still around but unsupported and unknown future
databases.
Freebies...........
Firebird rocks and with some 3rd party tools u have a great database so even
free
database's cost MySql is very much the same.
Cheapos........
Halcyon is so cheap everyone should have it in their toolkit, and converts
to Dbisam
in notime.
So why should Tim go backwards ? he has elbowed the BDE and taken his
product
into the realms of the huge complicated CS database world that almost
anyones
customers can understand.
If u want DBISAM LITE buy the standard version  If you want a killer app
with a
full blown CS database then buy the CS version...........
If you wanna see a Delphi 32bit full blown Dbisam CS accounts system then
watch
this space.
Rita

<matthew@matthewdelme-jones.delme.com (Matthew Jones)> wrote:

Yes, except that you have to consider the competition.
NexusDB.
There, I said it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I considered the competition. Their product *sounds* much better than DBISAM. Then I
checked out the help files, or lack thereof. I also read hundreds of forum messages. I
*bought* DBISAM.  Ok, I'm not everyone.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<matthew@matthewdelme-jones.delme.com (Matthew Jones)> wrote:

Now, if you are someone looking for a solution, just some little database thing you want
to add to your app, which would you rather. A free database
or shelling out some money. You go free - you don't care.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And if I had a finished, working database to sell, I wouldn't care too much about people
who need free ..


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<matthew@matthewdelme-jones.delme.com (Matthew Jones)> wrote:
Now, months later, you need a more fully featured database. You'll pay,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Maybe you'll pay, or maybe not.  Unfortunately, there's always another "free" one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<matthew@matthewdelme-jones.delme.com (Matthew Jones)> wrote:
Where does that leave the one that didn't have a free entry level product?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe not having financial problems and unable to support payroll for all that support?


Dave M

Matthew


Don't take it to hard - after all most of the people on these newsgroups are the "mugs" who paid for their database

Roy Lambert

Perhaps then what we should do is give Tim some up to date and glowing
endorsements, saying how good the support, documentation, and product is,
and what we use it for?

/Matthew Jones/

Gawd... your sexy Rita

Allan
"R. Tipton" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:394DFA4D-22C0-477E-B051-F245EE2A0EDC@news.elevatesoft.com...
>
> > Come on everyone lets help Tim out here. What would you leave out of the
> > Lite version?
>
> Funny old world this database gig. Most of us kicked off with dBase format
> then Clipper still dBase then Win 3 most of us dipped our feet into Turbo
> C++3.1
> with a dBase lib. Some of us even looked at Pascal with Topaz the BDE was
> even around in them days giving headaches.
> Along comes Delphi in 1995 we all bought D1 then D2 came out with a free
D1
> I may add. The BDE was a pain but Topaz and Halcyon both under £100 was a
> godsend. Then some of us wanted SQL there was an addon but Tim came up
> with Dbisam with SQL built in and like Topaz/Halcyon no BDE.
> I always thought the standard version was a lite version and the CS
version
> was
> the easiest CS db ever to manage if by lite you mean cheap or even free
then
> Dbisam will join the other still around but unsupported and unknown future
> databases.
> Freebies...........
> Firebird rocks and with some 3rd party tools u have a great database so
even
> free
> database's cost MySql is very much the same.
> Cheapos........
> Halcyon is so cheap everyone should have it in their toolkit, and converts
> to Dbisam
> in notime.
> So why should Tim go backwards ? he has elbowed the BDE and taken his
> product
> into the realms of the huge complicated CS database world that almost
> anyones
> customers can understand.
> If u want DBISAM LITE buy the standard version  If you want a killer app
> with a
> full blown CS database then buy the CS version...........
> If you wanna see a Delphi 32bit full blown Dbisam CS accounts system then
> watch
> this space.
> Rita
>
>
>

Rita,
You were right on with every statement.
And not to give Tim any ideas, but DBISAM would still be a bargain at twice
the price, especially if you take into consideration the lack of support
calls from our customers.

Regards,
Bill Miller

Dave,

<< I considered the competition. Their product *sounds* much better than
DBISAM. Then I checked out the help files, or lack thereof. I also read
hundreds of forum messages. >>

Since I'm responsible for a large portion of the forum messages, I feel the
need to elaborate on your comments:

NexusDB V2 implements a large portion of SQL:2003 and also conforms very
closely to the SQL:2003 standard, both in terms of syntax and processing
rules. The reason you've seen a lot of newsgroup messages is that myself and
other SQL users have tested V2 extensively since the release. We've also
chosen to report bugs and performance issues in the public newsgroups, such
that the documentation of the issues and any workarounds are available to
the user community. Btw, a large portion of the reported bugs are related to
SQL:2003 conformance.

Regarding your comment about the help files, did you check out the SQL
Reference ? The SQL help is a complete reference of the V2 SQL
implementation with lots of examples.

Regards
Ole Willy Tuv

"Ole Willy Tuv" <owtuv@online.no> wrote:

Dave,

<< I considered the competition. Their product *sounds* much better than
DBISAM. Then I checked out the help files, or lack thereof. I also read
hundreds of forum messages. >>

Since I'm responsible for a large portion of the forum messages, I feel the
need to elaborate on your comments:

NexusDB V2 implements a large portion of SQL:2003 and also conforms very
closely to the SQL:2003 standard, both in terms of syntax and processing
rules. The reason you've seen a lot of newsgroup messages is that myself and
other SQL users have tested V2 extensively since the release. We've also
chosen to report bugs and performance issues in the public newsgroups, such
that the documentation of the issues and any workarounds are available to
the user community. Btw, a large portion of the reported bugs are related to
SQL:2003 conformance.

Regarding your comment about the help files, did you check out the SQL
Reference ? The SQL help is a complete reference of the V2 SQL
implementation with lots of examples.

Regards
Ole Willy Tuv

------------------

The SQL documentation is decent. I was *not* referring to your work. The rest of the help
files are obviously unfinished and have been that way for some time. Too bad the rest of
the docs aren't of the quality of your work.

Was I was commenting on was looking around at what other people are doing and attempting
to imitate things which might not be as successful or as non problematic as one thinks.
It's the old "grass is greener on the other side."  Trying to support non paying users is
a huge drain and very frustrating. Yet not providing support makes for poor customer
relations.

As far as Nexus, they have made a claim of SQL 20003 support, but as far as I can tell,
they have not yet delivered it. (At least at the point I evaluated it.) A more
conservative approach makes for better customer relations.  

Who knows, I might yet purchase Nexus in the future.  Based on the Nexus *claims*, I would
have purchased Nexus.

Dave M

<matthew@matthewdelme-jones.delme.com (Matthew Jones)> wrote:

Perhaps then what we should do is give Tim some up to date and glowing
endorsements, saying how good the support, documentation, and product is,
and what we use it for?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew, you have raised a good issue.   

I have more than once thought about giving away free software.
The problem is that the customers procured this way may never pay and they cost a lot of
resources.
If the free products go unsupported, bad will is built.

BTW :  I hope I did not personally offend you in my first post. Rereading it, it was a bit
heavy handed.

Dave M

Matthew Jones wrote:
> Yes, except that you have to consider the competition.
> NexusDB.
> There, I said it.

If you had to As Rita wrote, Firebird is for free, same with MySQL and
many more. So what. I am currently in a project where we have to use
Firebird and Oracle. Firebird I hate because it does not even has a BOOL
type, and I hate Oracle because it's simply crabshit.

The only thing you maybe could rip out easily is the TDBISAMQuery class.
Make it invisible in some way, and you have something you could name "light
version". I'd say it is too thin.

Ralf