Re: PB 4.0 vs Oracle Forms

From: Richard A. Wark <warkr_at_vanadium.brooks.af.mil>
Date: 24 Mar 1995 16:27:22 GMT
Message-ID: <3kurta$1gj_at_xenon.brooks.af.mil>


>
>




> Subject: Re: PB 4.0 vs Oracle Forms
> Date: 23 Mar 1995 14:34:43 GMT
> From: Steve Downs <downs_at_oehl.brooks.af.mil>
> Organization: 648th CCSS/SC - Brooks AFB
> Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.powerbuilder, comp.databases.oracle
> References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4
>
>


>
> fcasas_at_ix.netcom.com (Francisco Casas) wrote:
>
> > I don't see anything wrong with an Oracle employee getting
 excited over
> > their own products. I imagine that PowerSoft employees are
 just as
> > excited over their product.
 

> Also, I have yet to see any Powersoft people advertising here.
:-)
> I believe the original post was looking for suggestions from
> experienced, reasonably unbiased peers.
>
> Steve
 

I've worked with PowerBuilder 3.0a and Oracle Forms 4.0/4.5 and find both to good products. However, I find the Forms 4.5 (CDE2 now developer 2000) a more stable (e.g. fewer GPFs) and much more closely suited environment when working with the Oracle RDBMS. The jump between Forms 4.0 and Forms 4.5 was a MAJOR one, I only hope the same can be said of the PowerBuilder 3.0 - 4.0 upgrade.  

One observation: not only do I see no PowerBuilder people advertising here, I see no PowerBuilder folks providing any insight/answers to the more involved questions posted to this newsgroup. This is one of the areas where I think Oracle has an edge, their employees (and their powerswitch "ambassadors") seem very willing to aide other developers who are interested in pushing their products to the limits. With the past postings about problems with PowerBuilder's WWW sight, I wonder if they have internet connectivity?!? (can compuserve be all their interested in??)  

Richard Wark
Computer Science Corp warkr_at_vanadium.brooks.af.mil Brooks AFB, San Antonio, TEXAS    

---There is no winning the holy war .. PB vs Oracle .. The winners will be those who are non-denomiational Received on Fri Mar 24 1995 - 17:27:22 CET

Original text of this message