> Rich,
 >  RG> I suspect it's a very volatile point, as it is very dependent on
 >  RG> changing technologies in  communications as well as database 
management
 >  RG> systems.  My sense is that there is a lot of misestimation of the 
point
 >  RG> and that people are going for client-server who will not be 
well-served
 >  RG> by it and avoiding it where it could do some good.
 > I tend to agree.  For yourself, if anyone asked, what sort of
 > issues
 > would you identify as being indicators of a good cross-over point
 > and
 > what sorts of things might make you hold back?
 > I'm asking from a professional and personal curiosity.  (I
 > understand
 > that many attendees of the seminar weren't that familiar with the
 > entire SQL world or the capabilities of SQL Link out of the box.
 > Since I know the person who worked on the technical side of that
 > presentation, I'm looking for thoughts to pass on for further
 > consider-
 > ation.
I don't know that I have the answers.  Knowing the lemming-nature of 
Corporate America, I suspect there are not a few client-server systems that 
have been written because of the "a la mode" factor.  How can management, 
even after the fact, look at a large and expensive effort like this and 
measure the improvement against the cost?  How can those elements of cost and 
benefit be anticipated and estimated?  Can we look at some case studies where 
client-server was chosen and distinguish between those found satisfactory by 
management and those that were not? Can we do anything comparable where the 
decision to stay in a file-server mode was elected?  Has there been any 
"downsizing" from client-server as there was from mainframe, and what has 
been the experience of that?
Don't know if these are the kinds of questions you wanted to look at, but 
these are the ones that puzzle me.
 > From a personal view, I'm pleased with the direction BI's material
 > is
 > taking.  If you saw last year's presentations along these same
 > lines,
 > I think you'll agree that this year's material shows some growth
 > and
 > awareness.  I just want to keep that ball rolling.
BI is doing some things right, and that needs to be acknowledged as readily 
as when they do other things wrong.  I received the OPAL training tape the 
other day and am trying to block out the time to work with it.  That they 
made the effort is to their credit, and sending it free to initial purchasers 
of 5.0 is a very smart move from my perspective.  The original tape on 
objects was very obscure, so I'm hoping that Borland has a better handle on 
what they've created and how to explain it.
I was at a BAPALS meeting today and one of the people was commenting on how 
much clearer the Paradox 5 documentation is than the Paradox 1 (for Windows), 
and perhaps Borland is in on this learning curve we're going through.
Rich
 > --- Maximus 2.02
---
(1:125/9)
---------------