RE: PC Oracle opinions?

amcb_at_sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Andrew McBurnie) wrote:
> Does anyone have an opinion on the PC version of Oracle? I remember
> when it first appeared, it was generally regarded as a not really a good
> product on the PC, and had many facilities omitted.
>
> Our choice for a major new product looks like being between products
> such as MS Access, Borland Paradox, <x>base, etc ... the usual PC
> database stuff ... and PC Oracle. This is for a not overly complex
> data model - say twenty entities, but with a fair bit of sub-typing.
> The actual data to be stored is not large, and could easily be handled
> by any of the major PC database products. But for our purposes, an
> Oracle development on a PC would be very convenient.

The latest PC version of Oracle (v7) will only run single user under OS/2 + Windows. The RDBMS runs under ordinary OS/2 and the tools run under Windows with a product called SQL*VDM to tie the two together. Alternatively you can run under NT using SQL*Net as if they were client/server on a network instead of on the same machine.

If you really have a small amount of data with a simple structure I would be more than amazed if you didn't find something easier, quicker and more convenient in the normal PC database market.

> How does the PC version of Oracle rate against the equivalent on a Unix
> box, assuming you have a top end, powerful PC? At least a 386DX with
> plenty of memory.

I use develop using version 6 RDBMS and tools (the recently superseded versions) on a 466DX. A small database is nice and fast on this configuration running in character mode under DOS (i.e. not Windows). The new versions apparently need more resources and are Windows vased.

> Will the PC version of Oracle run under MS Windows?

It is Windows based. You can compile a form to run in character mode but you can only develop under Windows. So, while under version 6 Windows support was grudging and perfunctory, now it seems to be the other way round. The only Windows product worth looking at in v6 was Oracle Card. On my machine this was just about OK performance-wise. It is soul-searingly slow on a 386.

FOLLOWING COPIED FROM A PREVIOUS UPLOAD TO THIS NEWSGROUP: I am developing a search-only front end for naive users using Oracle Card. Version 1 has a rich selection of bugs which were due to be fixed in version 2 which was due out last month. On the very brink of delivery with all their users praying for v2 to come *soon*!, _quick_!!, NOW!!! they suddenly announce they've had a better idea and they're going to call it Oracle Media Objects (OMO), give it lots of multi media functionality and DELAY THE BLOODY THING FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS. They are now thinking again about this timescale fortunately, and we should know next week.

The point is that a) it's difficult to know how suitable this new thing will be for any given type of application. Oracle Card is easy to assess because it's a clone of Hypercard and you can get a good idea of it from knowing that. OMO is obviously not a Hypercard clone or at least, it must be moving away from it.

Tony Scott
(asc_at_cix.compulink.co.uk) Received on Sat Feb 19 1994 - 19:35:47 CET