BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!) 
Author Message
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

I have been working with Paradox since DOS version 3.5. Then came
along Paradox for Windows version 1.0. In my opionion, the version
5.0 is the flakiest yet. It has countless problems with the query
engine and the data model mechanism. Many wierd problems have been
solved just by moving the tables in the data model following no
logic (e.g. if a master table is linked to two, just change the
order of the detail tables--1st becomes 2nd and 2nd becomes 1st--
and the problem solved).

In our development team, we have something called bug of the day.

Reports also have problems. Lots of them.
Import has problems.
ObjectPAL sometimes does wierd things which are contrary to common
programming logic and you really have to scratch your head to find
out what's going on.

Anyway, version 5.0 was a fabulous upgrade with all the new tools, new
look and improved speed but it is also very BUG RICH. Dear Borland, when
are you going to release a major fix release.

What worries me is that soon the 32 bit version for Windows 95 will be
release and that will be a major rewrite as well (conversion from 16 bit
to 32 bit). And every upgrade, while fixing some old bugs, introduces
it's own--a lot!

--nasir



Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)


Quote:
>What worries me is that soon the 32 bit version for Windows 95 will be
>release and that will be a major rewrite as well (conversion from 16 bit
>to 32 bit). And every upgrade, while fixing some old bugs, introduces
>it's own--a lot!

That is true!  But seems this is common for all complex applications and
even OS.  We have our paradox crash almost every single day but
fortunately the crash seems occurs mostly during developing stage and the
running apps seems behave well (so far!).

One annoying fact is that Borland does releases fixes to PDOXWIN but you
have to order it from Borland.  Why don't they make a patch for that so
every user can get it from the net!!!  (JUST LIKE DELPHI)

aC
--
  Andy Hon Wai Chu from University of Manitoba, Canada

  URL:   http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umchu023/



Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

Quote:


>Subject: BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)
>Date: 2 Jun 1995 11:31:35 GMT
>I have been working with Paradox since DOS version 3.5. Then came
>along Paradox for Windows version 1.0. In my opionion, the version
>5.0 is the flakiest yet. It has countless problems with the query
>engine and the data model mechanism. Many wierd problems have been
>solved just by moving the tables in the data model following no
>logic (e.g. if a master table is linked to two, just change the
>order of the detail tables--1st becomes 2nd and 2nd becomes 1st--
>and the problem solved).

We have had many problems integrating new functionality with pdoxwin 5.0 with
existing dos paradox 4.0 tables. Much of the problem, I think, is that Borland
does not document this situation well enough. A recent discovery (which when
I think of it now makes sense) is that paradox 4.0 tables are non-idapi
compliant. When paradox was installed, accesses to the existing database would
not lock records, resulting in corrupt indexes and lost data.  Turning on the
localshare flag in IDAPI seems to have helped (too soon to tell).

I clued into the conflict by reading the BDE white paper on the Web. Also,
using NC HEX reader I could view IDAPI.CFG, where I saw the only reference
I've ever seen to DOS as being non-idapi compliant.

I must have missed documentation somewhere, since I'm sure it's common to have
windows and dos in the same environment. But the default installation does not
set the IDAPI flags correctly, and I never clued in on what to do in that
particular situation.



Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

Quote:
Noor) writes:

[reports of "many bugs" deleted]

Perhaps you could detail the problems you are having and others could
look at them and try to help you.

--
John Baker
"What the hell does that mean?  Huh?  'China is here.'?
 I don't even know what the hell that means!"
        - Jack Burton



Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

        The reason it's not documented well is because there shouldn't
be the slightest problem using any 4.x format table in either in a mixed
environment.

        The locking between the DOS and Windows product is different,
but functionally equivalent from a user/programmer stand point, and
there are no problems that I'm aware of.

        You might want to take a look at your environment or the
possibility that the tables are a bit corrupt.

        Remember- I'm not acting as a Borl representative at the moment-
just trying to be a helpful.

--
Paradox for Windows Consultant. Member: Borland Paradox Technical Support
     http://sapphire.cse.ucsc.edu/mb/people/Spring.95/mathew.eliot

Borland supplied disclaimer: The services I provide via this message
and all consulting services I may provide are in no way associated with
or sponsored by Borland International or any of its subsidiaries.



Wed, 19 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

Quote:

>I have been working with Paradox since DOS version 3.5. Then came
>along Paradox for Windows version 1.0. In my opionion, the version
>5.0 is the flakiest yet. It has countless problems with the query
>engine and the data model mechanism. Many wierd problems have been
>solved just by moving the tables in the data model following no
>logic (e.g. if a master table is linked to two, just change the
>order of the detail tables--1st becomes 2nd and 2nd becomes 1st--
>and the problem solved).

Hello Nasir....

As many people know, there are bugs in the early releases in Paradox
5.0 for Windows. After that were some inline releases, and the latest
release is very reliable.
You can check your release by opening the info-box, under the
help-menu. When it's opened, push Alt-I, and you get your release
number. It should be 6.136B, lego 2/3/95. If it is an earlier version
you have, call customer service and demand the latest inline release
for free, if you are a licensed user, you'll get it for free and with
no problems. many users got it without asking.

I wish you good luck
Bert Verhees



Thu, 20 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

Quote:
> It should be 6.136B, lego 2/3/95. If it is an earlier version
> you have, call customer service and demand the latest inline
> release for free, if you are a licensed user, you'll get it
> for free and with no problems. many users got it without
> asking.

        I'd like to comment on that for a second. The general policy
is to give it for free if you've been having a problem that a
maintenance release solves.

        If you're not having any problems associated with a maintenance
release, then the price is cost of disks and shipping, about $10.

        It's not just given out.

--
Paradox for Windows Consultant. Member: Borland Paradox Technical Support
     http://sapphire.cse.ucsc.edu/mb/people/Spring.95/mathew.eliot

Borland supplied disclaimer: The services I provide via this message
and all consulting services I may provide are in no way associated with
or sponsored by Borland International or any of its subsidiaries.



Thu, 20 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

Quote:

>Subject: Re: BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)
>Date: 3 Jun 1995 04:05:22 GMT
>        Remember- I'm not acting as a Borl representative at the moment-
>just trying to be a helpful.

Maybe you can pass back to Borland my observation that, the three areas where
Borland most seriously drops the ball are:  

(1) documentation -- particularly the _indexing and _cross-referencing thereof;

(2) error-message documentation and explanation -- make the Help button do
something useful!

(3) timely on-line availability of bug-reports and knowledge-base information.

In the third case it's clear that Borland's management intends to _sell its
bug reports and solutions by insisting that developers subscribe to a fairly
expensive "Solutions" program in order to get timely information -- which
subscribers I have talked to say they don't necessarily get even then.

The bottom line is that my experience with many Borland products is that you
run into "a snag," and there's not readily-available information to help you
analyze the problem and get on with your work, when you feel certain that
there *should* be.  Time is money, especially to a small development shop, and
you can burn up the cost of the product in one three-hour delay by one
developer.  What you really can't afford is ... three hours.

This experience is not easily forgotten, because it burns into your brain that
things do not *need* to be this way.

The company's products are _technically good, but more costly to use than they
need to be, and I think the company needs to look no farther than
"ftp.microsoft.com" or the MS-Access on-line help and KB files to see numerous
examples of how they could do things better.  

I _firmly believe that efforts in this direction would result in more sales of
Borland products, at less expense than would be incurred building more
technical improvements into those products.  It would be an immediately-
profitable, relatively inexpensive thing to do.

-Mike Robinson



Fri, 21 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

        Borl has been working on the first two for a while, tech supp
consistently pushes for more of both.

        As to bug reports, etc: novell, ms, etc, all have programs
similar to Connections that you have to pay for.

        In addition, due to the number of problems some easily
discoverable, some very, very esoteric, there'd have to be a whole
'nother department just to get this done. And the list changes every day.

        In my opinion, you could sift through a listing of thousands of
problems or you could wait until you run into it, if you can duplicate it,
call tech support or do the CPR Fax to report it.

        It's not like it's a simple listing of 20 problems. But borl
could definitely improve in its reporting of larger problems.

--
Paradox for Windows Consultant. Member: Borland Paradox Technical Support
     http://sapphire.cse.ucsc.edu/mb/people/Spring.95/mathew.eliot

Borland supplied disclaimer: The services I provide via this message
and all consulting services I may provide are in no way associated with
or sponsored by Borland International or any of its subsidiaries.



Fri, 21 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

Quote:

>Subject: Re: BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)
>Date: 4 Jun 1995 19:08:39 GMT
>> It should be 6.136B, lego 2/3/95. If it is an earlier version
>> you have, call customer service and demand the latest inline
>> release for free, if you are a licensed user, you'll get it
>> for free and with no problems. many users got it without
>> asking.
>        I'd like to comment on that for a second. The general policy
>is to give it for free if you've been having a problem that a
>maintenance release solves.
>        If you're not having any problems associated with a maintenance
>release, then the price is cost of disks and shipping, about $10.
>        It's not just given out.

If the data is too large to practically download, then why is not the
*availability* of the update, and the official list of *problems fixed* by the
update, not available on-line?  :-/

I have no problems paying $10 for 5 disks plus postage -- but how many people
know that the update exists or if they need to buy it?  How many people know
about the "lego" trick in the About-box?  

Does Borland's current management not _immediately see the _value of providing
this information? :-O

/mr/



Fri, 21 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

Quote:


[snip]
>You can check your release by opening the info-box, under the
>help-menu. When it's opened, push Alt-I, and you get your release
>number. It should be 6.136B, lego 2/3/95. If it is an earlier version

Is this 2/3/95 release data correct?  We just paid our $10 to Borland
for the latest release.  Last week it arrived, dated 11/18/94!  Did
Borland send us the old "latest" release?

We also just purchased Paradox Runtime directly from Borland.  It is
version 5.0, dated 11/18/94.  In a separate thread I saw a reference to
a Runtime version 5.0A.  Could this also be an old product from Borland?

--




Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

Quote:

>Subject: Re: BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)
>Date: 5 Jun 1995 19:55:38 GMT
>        Borl has been working on the first two for a while, tech supp
>consistently pushes for more of both.
>        As to bug reports, etc: novell, ms, etc, all have programs
>similar to Connections that you have to pay for.

And they also have ACCKB2.EXE on FTP.BORLAND.COM which doesn't cost a dime.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:
>        In addition, due to the number of problems some easily
>discoverable, some very, very esoteric, there'd have to be a whole
>'nother department just to get this done. And the list changes every day.
>        In my opinion, you could sift through a listing of thousands of
>problems or you could wait until you run into it, if you can duplicate it,
>call tech support or do the CPR Fax to report it.

You can identify the two hundred most commonly-encountered problems, build a
knowledge-base of those problems, make it available in help-file format, and
point customers to it.  Or set up a Gopher server.  The advantage is simply
that a lot of net-savvy customers would use this as their first line of
defense and the number of support-calls would decline.  Yet the quality of
support provided would increase.

Yes, it's going to take some high-level management commitment to the idea.  
Yes, it might take staff to run it.  Yes, the bean-pushers might say it adds
nothing to the bottom-line.

The bean-pushers are wrong.

'Nuff said...

/mr/



Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 BUGS BUGS BUGS (Disappointed with Borland!)

Quote:

>The bean-pushers are wrong.

Actually, the proper derogatory term for accountants is "bean-counter".

And as an accountant, I have to disagree that it adds nothing to the
bottom line. If a cost decreases or fails to increase as quickly, it
adds to the bottom line.

Now back to our regularly scheduled posts...

Geoff McInnes
Bean-Enumerator



Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 16 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. BUGS idapi BUGS idapi BUGS idapi BUGS

2. Bugs, Bugs, Bugs ...

3. BUG BUG BUG: VB5+DAO 3.51

4. WAS BUG, BUG, BUG

5. help, help ???? bug, bug

6. SQL Server Bug or Query Bug?

7. Bug or not bug? - Survey

8. Need patch for bug fix for bug#56085 ref:Q244548

9. Bug: BUG #: 18017 (6.5) Article Q187370 - Help

10. MSXML 3.0 encoding bug or bug in SQL2k XML support

11. Bug or not to Bug ?!

12. bug,bug ??? Help me please


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software