At 11:09 PM 07/01/1998 +0200, Adriaan Linters wrote:
>A couple of weeks ago I asked if someone was familiar with Visual dBase
>(the successor of the good old dBaseIII+ as I was told), but I only
>received e-mails from colleagues asking me to forward to them the answers I
>should receive.
>Unfortunately apparently nobody seems to have any experiences of Visual
>dBase...
>Maybe this is the place to ask again if anyone is using this software and
>what they think about it.
Oh dear, I must have missed that post. I am the LAN administrator and
database guru for the Texas Memorial Museum at the University of Texas in
Austin, and one of our labs has been using various versions of dBASE for
going on 20 years (we're now on Visual dBASE v. 7.01 and still happy).
Here is a brief summary; feel free to e-mail me if you want to know more.
The company that owns the dBASE line has recently expressed a renewed
commitment to continue its support for this product, which is a plus. The
dBASE design team has gone to a good deal of trouble through the years to
provide for reasonably smooth upward compatibility (a major gripe of mine
with respect to some other products). Older databases and queries can be
made to function under the new version with virtually no modification.
Procedures, reports, and data-entry screens require more work; the
originals can be made to function with minor to moderate modification, but
the phasing out of some of the most antique commands and formats can cause
problems. Fortunately, however, the tools for designing new forms and
reports are very impressive.
A few basics: dBASE tables are ODBC-compatible, allowing them to be read
by other ODBC-capable programs. The newest Visual dBASE also can read (and
usually write) any other ODBC-compatible format for which you have a
driver. All of the standard fields (character, numeric, date, logical,
variable-length text) are available, as well as OLE-linking, a wide variety
of binary data (such as sounds, images, movies), and newly introduced time
stamp (date and time in a single field) and autoincrementing number fields.
Field lengths can be explicitly set (a space saver), and a variety of
options exist for setting entry formats in the table itself, and attaching
lookup tables. Unlike Access, which keeps all tables of a database
together in a single file, dBASE stores each table separately (a plus under
some circumstances). The software is fairly easy to set up for multi-user
access to the same across a network. Its security features are fairly
good, but to my disappointment) still do not provide for authorizing users
based on their system logon ID's and access privileges; this means that a
separate set of user profiles must be constructed within dBASE (just one
more extra chore).
Both of the currently available versions (5.6, 16-bit, but will work under
Win 95 and Win NT; and 7.01, the first 32-bit version) have an impressive
array of capabilities. Their design tools make it fairly easy to set up
simple forms and reports. However, complex applications (such as extensive
validity checking of entered data) require some programming experience and
time - but this tends to be true of most build-your-own database software.
Programmers who have worked with previous versions of dBASE will find the
version 5.6 language to be very familiar, but should be warned that
learning all the nuances of the new features will take time, a good how-to
book (of which there are several), and a subscription to the excellent set
of newsgroups maintained by Borland (where pros, neophytes, and in-betweens
congregate to swap information and advice). I came to version 5.6 after
using dBASE IV for about 5 years; I found that I was able to create simple
forms right away, but it was at least a year before I felt that I
understood some of the more complex features well (and I'm still learning).
Version 7.01 is a more radical departure. Tables, forms, queries, and
reports created using version 5.6 will work under version 7.01 with fairly
minor alterations (the most annoying of which is that data-entry forms may
have to be resized due to changes in the system that is used to describe
the sizes of windows, buttons, etc.). One major change is the phasing out
of the old "query" method of setting up relationships between data tables
for a new SQL-based design tool. It is fairly easy to learn to use, but
the differences in terminology can be disconcerting at first.
Would I buy it again if I had it to do all over? Yes. Is it inherently
better/worse than Access, FileMaker, or your favorite software? Hard to
say. All of these higher-order database packages can be used to produce
some amazing results; which is best for you depends on what you are
familiar with (it's usually easier to learn a new version of a program you
know than a brand new one) and which one is the best fit for your personal
way of working.
One final note: Several people have commented that the most important
consideration is not what the software can do, but what your needs are.
This can't be said often enough. Visual dBASE is a very good package for
those who expect to be producing a complex data entry and retrieval system
with lots of extra features; but it may be more than an institution with
modest needs really requires. The first question that any institution that
is considering computerizing their records should ask and answer is "what
is the nature of our data, and what do we want to do with it?)". The
answer to this question should go a long way toward defining what type of
software is needed.
**********************************************************************
Melissa C. Winans, Senior LAN Administrator ([log in to unmask])
Texas Memorial Museum Phone: 512-232-4263, 471-1604
V.P. Lab, J.J. Pickle Research Campus Fax: 512-471-5973
University of Texas, 10100 Burnet Road, Austin, TX 78758-4445
|
