>
> What are others on this list doing with Powerhouse versions?
PH 8.x has features to make Y2K compliance easier. We haven't determined
if we will make that move.

> Is going to PDL
> a big deal, or not?

Not as I recall. We changed when we went to 7.09 from 5.xx a number of
years ago, so I probably forgot something. We did have a number of 5 to
7 conversion problems.

We didn't use qddr, but straight qdd (compiled out of from a database I
developed).

The biggest trouble with qdd to pdl is getting a clean and complete
conversion of the source - I think we had to re-write all of our
security rules because they didn't convert correctly.

> Are there any problems with upgrading versions - such as features that
no
> longer work or code that
> does not act the same way?

Not that I recall. I think there is improved performance in the compile
of the dictionary. Qdd being a compatibility mode [I think] program.

>
> All of the manufacturing sites, that I have contact with are still
using QDDR,
> yet Cognos says that
> less than 1/2% of their customers use it.  Are we the only firm still
using
> QDDR?
>
> And as a sidebar, if Dictionary/3000 is not going to be Y2K compliant,
what is
> Transact/Inform going to
> use as a dictionary?

I suspect the Cognos issue is that they didn't want to invest in qddr
migration to y2k compliance with Dict/3000.
PDL gives much better cross-platform consistency. (Qdd, I think, and
qddr for sure are HP3000 only products.)

We also migrated from our in-house data dictionary database to
Architect. Architect has it's benefits, but it isn't anything great. We
missed our in-house application because we couldn't easily customize
data entry for the dictionary any more.

>
>
> Paul D. Christensen
> PC Enterprises Inc.
> Osakis MN
>
> [log in to unmask]    or [log in to unmask]
>

Richard Gambrell