Jeff, Well said. I have been saying the same thing for years.
Executives demand point-and-click, which is a great interface for some applications, but not rapid data entry. Perhaps it is telling more about their abilities then they would like to reveal. Oh well, they purchase the software. I look forward to post point-and-click so perhaps we can get to an interface that is functional, fast, and effective. Okay, I'm done. Thanks, Dave Schexnayder. :-) Cheetah Advanced Technologies, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lettau, Jeff Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 7:53 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net >From what we have experienced here, the addition of .NET applications on top of Unidata that replace existing green screen functions is not a benefit. Depending on how they are written. The users who have been using they older green screens, want them back. Clicking around .NET screens is not more productive or faster. The learning curve for new users is much lower and for the occasional user the interface is better, but when your dealing with how many orders a single person can process in one day, and how many phone calls one person can field in a day, the green screen is the fastest interface. The problem is that no one wants to buy a product that looks old. So software companies need to update to the latest technology to keep selling the product. For new installs I can say that there is a big advantage to having something that looks new and is easy to learn. I guess there is always a trade off when using new technology. But just because it's new doesn't mean it's better. Jeffrey Lettau ERP Systems Manager polkaudio -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Randall Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net I whole heartedly agree. The green screen is the crusher for our environment. As far as .Net and Visual Studio go, I don't think it takes even that much effort as having Pick Basic as .Net assemblies to modernize or help perception, although that would be terrific. What would be great is simply the ability to use U2 components in the .Net environment as easily as you can those of other databases. The biggest headache/difference is that of data awareness. The current Visual Studio and much more so in VS 2005 allow you to establish tables/procedures as predefined datasources that can be linked to controls. If we did that, our U2 environments could be used by the dotnet world same as any other database. That puts us on an equal or closer footing with the SQL guys. Then the other features of U2 (flexible dictionaries, variable lengths, etc.) are enhancements to be pitched as selling points. Seems like a couple of vendors started down that road (most notably RD's PDP). Maybe it one day it happens. Mike However my perception is to make PICK more acceptable to younger people and look more mainstream. U2 is hung more for the green screen than for anything else, it is perceived as archaic even though that is far from the fact. If a Blue Chip company was looking at U2, and the basic code was a .Net assembly and we could create tables, etc from the Microsoft Visual Studio it could be the difference between a sale win or loss. It could minimise management wanting to throw U2 out of sites for something more modern as the even older RDBMS. It is the perceptions, not the technicalities that have dropped U2 from mainstream. Regards David Jordan ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
