From daemon Mon Feb 12 12:54:12 1996 Received: from ccvm.sunysb.edu by alice.jcc.com; (5.65v3.0/1.1.8.2/01Aug94-0142PM) id AA03797; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:54:10 -0500 Message-Id: <9602121754.AA03797@alice.jcc.com> Received: from CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU by ccvm.sunysb.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 0949; Mon, 12 Feb 96 12:31:40 EST Received: from CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@SBCCVM) by CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6219; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:31:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:25:44 -0820 Reply-To: "ORACLE database mailing list." Sender: "ORACLE database mailing list." From: Patrick Housholder Subject: Personal Oracle Lite: No PL/SQL! X-To: ORACLE-L@CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L In-Reply-To: <20741F31014B54D9*@SMF> Ouch! In the Feb 5, Vol 30, issue of Computerworld, page 46, the article indicates that the first version of Personal Oracle Lite (POL) will NOT support PL/SQL. You can only use generic SQL statements. Also, POL lacks the rollback or recovery capabilites. Double Ouch! Wonder what happens when the POL crashes on your PC. Just wondering if anyone is using POL yet? What are you using to access the database ...Oracle Personal Object..forms 4.5..etc? Patrick _________________________________________________ Patrick Housholder United Airlines Flight Training Center TK-71 32nd and Quebec Street Denver, CO 80207 email: housholder@ualfltctr.com "My views not United's" ------------------------------------------------- ==========***Original Message Follows***================= > We are currently developing applications using Forms 4.5 in > a Windows 3.1 environment. We use Oracle 7.2.2 and 7.0.16 > databases. > We have been loading the forms on a central Novell server. > We're concerned about the time it takes for the initial Forms 4.5 > (Runform) (login) window to come up. It can take from 15 seconds > on a Pentium (75MHz & 32MB RAM) to 30 seconds on a 486 (50MHz & 16MB > RAM). The performance does not change dramatically when the forms > are placed on a local Novell server or even on the local hard drive. > > Is this performance to be expected? Is there anything we can do > to improve this? We've been told moving from SVGA to VGA will help, > but that's not always acceptable. > > Any suggestions would be appreciated. > > Linda > Montgomery > MONTGOM@CLEMSON.EDU ========== END Original Message =================