Re: A little knowldege . .

One alternative we're experimenting with is developing a GUI in Visual Basic. Then using only the keyboard and function keys to navigate the various screens (rather than a mouse). For us, we hope the a Visual Basic GUI will provide a good display of a variety of types of information from textual to graphical (we're converting from SQLWindows). There are alternatives out there, but it would be tough to explore without a good programmer on your side. At 08:04 PM 3/10/98 GMT, you wrote: >On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:42:15 -0500, Dennis Fletcher ><djf@entra-markham.com> wrote: > >>A series of qusetions from a complete neophyte, but first, some >>background. >> >>I have recently inherited an Informix-SE db and report/form suite >>written for Infomix-SQL, version 4.xx. I have it running on SCO-UNIX >>(version 3.something) on a Toshiba 220cs laptop. >> >>The original programmer avoided Windows because: NT wasnt widely >>available when he started, a mouse doesnt survive more than a few days >>in the hostile environments this system is intended for, UNIX is much >>more stable . . . >> >>In practice the system is run on a Wintel machine (actually a 486) >>running SCO-Unix with 3 Wyse-60 terminals. It is a simple system with a >>dozen-or-so tables, running to a max of about 300 meg of active data. It >>is intended to take input from 3-4 terminals, connected directly, though >>dial-up access would be nice. The DBA/manager uses the server for >>reports, management and db administration. >> >>I think the concept is marketable, the system as it exists now is quite >>elegant (within the limits of SQL), and has enjoyed the luxury of >>needing only to do what it was intended to do, without being asked by >>the front office to jump through hoops no one ever intended. As a result >>its users have high praise and others who have seen it are quite >>impressed. >> >> >>Problems: >> >>I think I need to make it prettier to be more marketable. Including a >>mouse on clients is not an option. >> >>We have encountered some resistance to its UNIX platform. >> >>I have learned just enough about UNIX and Informix on my own to >>understand how little I know. I want to stop now before my liitle >>knowledge grows slightly to a dangerous level. >> >> >>Questions: (the few I can think from many I cant) >> >>1. Should I be looking at 4GL? > >Perhaps. It limits you to a character (terminal) based user interface >though with no real option to go to a GUI. > >>2. Is question 1 trivial? > >The question may be, but going to 4GL requires serious programmer >knowhow as any other programming language does. (It's simpler than >Visual Basic, Delphi and similar GUI dev. tools though.) The I-SQL >solution you have now is probably somewhat simpler. It also have user >interface and other limitations that 4GL or another programming >language would easily solve for you. > >>3. Are more recent versions of SQL a viable option? or should I refer to >>question 2? > >I-SQL is a dead product. It still exist, but isn't something to use >for serious new developments. It's fine though if you can sell your >current application. > >>4. Should I keep the concept and start over with other dev. tools, or >>can I work from where I am? > >Depends on what you realy want to do. > >>5. Are UNIX-based systems readily portable to W-NT? > >No, not readily. Particularly not I-SQL. If you ever want to port to >NT Informix 4GL is also *not* an option. Porting to NT means going to >a GUI and a mouse might be required. > >>6. Is there a GUI or GUI-ish, that is reasonbly friendly, without a >>mouse? > >There are two low cost GUI's arround that are reasonably well >supported with development tools: MS Windows and Linux. On Linux you >now even get a Windows look alike if you want to. >You can create user interfaces inside an application that doesn't >require a mouse. It isn't always easy, but if you do it right you can >get keyboard driven applications that both look and perform better >than with character based (terminal) interfaces. However at least with >Windows 95 it's somwhat hard to run it with no mouse attached at all. >I haven't ever planned to do that so I don't realy know what I would >do. Perhaps you coud set up your application to start automatically >and have a function within your application to both stop the >application and stop Windows. I assume something similar would be an >idea for Linux. > >With all this said you should be sure you realy want a GUI for your >application. The only real reason to use a GUI for an application that >is going to be keyboard driven is to be able to display more >information or information of other types (graphics or perhaps sound >or other things). If all you need are characters and 80 by 24 or >whatever size your terminals are is enough your users may be better >off continuing to use that. > >What you can not do is develop one user interface that works both in >character and graphics mode. Sure there are tools who do it, but the >one and only reason I know for that is to make it look "nice". I don't >think a GUI translation of a basically character oriented user >interface looks nice at all, but others may have other opinions. For >pure sales purposes when you hit mangagers that don't know too much >you may however make the sale this way. That may be a good enough >reason by itself. > >>7. Have I made my point about how little I know? > >Yes. > >>If there are issues here appropriate for discussion please respond, >>otherwise, please reply to: >> >>djf@entra-markham.com >> >> >>Dennis Fletcher > >Nils Myklebust >NM Data AS >Norway >E-mail: Nils.Myklebust@nmdata.com >FAQ at: Primary with ODBC info: http://www.smooth1.demon.co.uk > Official site http://www.iiug.org/techinfo/faq/faq_top.html > -- Kathleen C. Zunino Database Administrator (510) 636-0300 x 2102