Re: Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- From: pdox42 <pdox42@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:36:57 -0700
as per the beginning of my reply to Mike, I have decided to reply to
posts individually. If this causes too much grief, pls tell me and
how to fix it for the rest of this discussion. thanks.
On Jul 7, 1:08 pm, "Steven Green" <gre...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
i should stress that we are of a mind that "if it ain't broke..."
agreed.. but your original statement was that runtime IS broken..
touché.
what i *meant* to convey was where we were at and ended up stating a
problem early on that was no longer a problem as we've lived w/o it
(pdoxrun) for years and are fine w/o it. (even if i take my time,
which sometimes i do, and even try to edit my posts, i still don't
explain things correctly. go figure)
(one *small* frustration was that limited length reports would print
one less LineFeed or something like that.)
can't say that I know of that problem, but without specifics it would be
hard to guess..
i gave more details in my reply to Mike. testing this would be
hard ... since we can't run pdoxrun. but, we do have a 486 still in
operation that *only* has DOS... so if anybody is interested, i could
test it out.
can't be much simpler than what I suggested.. anything else would be more
complex and less "normal"..
"normal"? are there any websites or whatehaveyou that go into more
detail about "normal" as it relates to database programming?
or how about creating an array called "bool" that would take 'T' and 'Y'
as indicies...
you're tring too hard (g).. K.I.S.S..
yes yes. this relates back to my lack of understanding about what
"normal" is (as it relates to db programming).
again.. K.I.S.S.. if you want to cancel what's in the dialog, just cancel or
reset the dialog and start again.. that's the simple, "normal" programming
approach..
in *this* case, I'm going for all the bells and whistles dialog box.
why? because it simply makes more sense to me. now implementing such
a thing might be too much and there may be the eventual "lightbulb"
moment when i finally understand what you're saying, but i'm not there
yet.
i have considered a picklist of "templates" that would fill in the 5
textboxes (Accepts) and related booleans (FYI, they are for Bold and
Caps). the way the info is filled in would change on the format the
customer desired. if i can get back to work on this particular dialog
box and approach your suggestion would work much more easily as the
user could "cancel" and then return to the picklist and choose a
different "templated" format.
a big fault to ourselves is that we've allowed our customers a lot of
free range. it worked fine when there were only 2 phone numbers, but
now ppl may have a phone, fax, cell, 800#, email and website and want
all of them including their name AND address ... all on a label 5
lines max at 6 pt type.
there's hardly any interest in PdoxWIN these days, let alone PdoxDOS..
you're about ten years too late..
tell me about it! ha! :oP still, thank Goodness for newsgroups, eh?
to expand on what Michael said, TurboPAL was an experiment that was never
completed, and essentially failed.. honestly, you might the only one in the
world still using it..
I'd be honored, but we're just using a compiled (.exe) app that access
a pdox 4 table. I don't have TurboPAL.
even w/o that, you're not doing yourself any favors by holding onto the old
DOS stuff like that.. even Mike and I struggle to find the time to help
people these days.. if you get hit by a bus, who takes over?.. if Vista or
the next version won't run your app, will you stick with outdated hardware
and software til it all breaks down?
thought provoking. depending on perspective the answer can be a
resounding "YES."
of course, there are other perspectives.
as for the part about getting hit by a bus... OUCH! Do you watch
Lost? Have you seen Stranger than Fiction?
I am not the one to paint a clear picture as I'd think I was doing
just that, but skipping key points along the way. so i ramble and
throw in a thought here or there like: remember the 486 we still have
online? well, we use it for accounting. another DOS based app.
anyway, part of it got confused after 2000. hee hee. yes, we
suffered from the Y2K bug. ha ha. anyway, I wrote a PAL script to
make up for the missing functionality. btw, the accounting app uses a
version of dbase III for it's database.
I'd like to thank you for your time and help, not just by replying to
this post, but for your help in these forums.
thank you.. but I hope you're realizing that I'm gonna tell you what you
need to hear, not what you want to hear.. you should re-think your future
before it's too late.. disaster WILL strike, sooner or later, and there's
nobody left to bail you out..
that's why I'm here now!!!!
I'm going to refrain from further rambling in this post and continue
in my reply to Larry.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- From: Jim Hargan
- Re: Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- References:
- Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- From: pdox42
- Re: Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- From: Steven Green
- Re: Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- From: pdox42
- Re: Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- From: Steven Green
- Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- Prev by Date: Re: Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- Next by Date: Re: Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- Previous by thread: Re: Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- Next by thread: Re: Paradox 4.0 (and PAL) Q's
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
