 The Future of Q&ATom
Marcellus
LIKE MANY OTHERS, I started with Q&A because it promised
to let me find things using plain English. "Show me the invoices where
Past Due is greater than 30 days." To a clueless database novice in
1985, it sounded like the computing equivalent of The Rapture.
After a few weeks of playing around with Q&A (and
unhooking the Intelligent Assistant in favor of faster options) I showed the boss what I
could do. "Fine," he said. "Put the company on it." That's how I
learned Q&A. And that company is still running its operations—from order entry,
purchasing, and inventory control, to billing and direct mail—using databases,
documents, and macros initially designed more than 13 years ago.
Why haven't they "modernized"—moved
"up" to one of the latest and greatest Windows databases? You already know the
answer—What they've been using gets the job done. And so
well, in fact, that I haven't been called back to that company since I left it years ago,
except to plug in some new little gizmo here and there to further improve speed or ease of
use.
So it amuses me when people ask, "What's going to
happen to Q&A?"
My reply is always the same—It's up to you.
It's only natural that some disappointment should occur when
the maker of a program you've worked with long and successfully stops upgrading and
supporting it. You can't help feeling a bit betrayed, like when the automaker discontinues
that favorite model you bought just last year and a few years before that.
"But how's the one you have now running?"
"Well, fine, actually."
"So what's the problem, then?"
I don't avoid advances in computer and
software technology. I actually like having the latest and greatest when it delivers
what I need.
For example, I run everything in Windows.
But where do I store and manipulate my data?
Q&A for DOS (running in Windows, too).
I use a modern Windows word processor because I like the
powerful document formatting, WYSIWYG editing and graphics options.
But where does my mail-merge data come from?
You guessed it—Q&A.
If a client needs some showy output, like a customer invoice
with a logo, shading, and fancy fonts, I just design the container in whatever Windows
program they have, then add a "button" to their Q&A form that ports the data
to it for printing. No big deal.
Sure, I've worked in more "advanced database
products," but I've never had to move a Q&A client to one of them.
No question that they're well-endowed. But you look at the
time and know-how it takes to design even a modestly sophisticated application in them,
and compare it with what it takes to put the same functionality—the functionality you
actually need—into a Q&A 5.0 application, then tell me what's really
more advanced.
There are more powerful databases to be sure. But
to satisfy the vast majority of small-to-medium-sized business automation needs, they're
just wild overkill.
And man, can they cost you. People have no concept of the
pain until they're smack in the middle of a database migration to an altogether different
product. Lengthy development time (rule of thumb: triple what you were quoted). Major
money (same rule of thumb). Serious debugging. Delays and a new learning curve.
("Say, could you call the programmer. I need a list of who owes what.") Plus,
the not-so-simple matter of porting your live data to the new product
There are the day-to-day productivity issues, too. You've
got lots of important data there. You have to enter it, secure it, be able to get at it
quickly, run reports on it, update it, manipulate it, merge it, and so forth. How is that
"more powerful" database going to simplify it all?
Never lose sight of the fact that you're working with
data—letters and numbers. Entering your sales orders in 12-point Flagellant Bold
doesn't make it something else. It's still just data. So you'd like to spruce it up for
the output side. Well, okay—you just pass it to a prettier output container.
And beware of the know-it-alls who try to sell you a bill of
goods about modern Windows applications being so well integrated—the implication
being that you'll spend less time setting up and performing your data management tasks. Do
a little experimenting. Find out what it takes to create a working database and merge a
few selected records with a mailing label. You might not be so impressed. You'll compare
it with how easy it is in Q&A.
So the future of Q&A isn't in the
hands of the people who made it.
It's in yours.
Now there's a new Q&A replacement product in the works
from Lantica Software (www.lantica.com), scheduled to
be released in the first half of 2002. It's not a Q&A "upgrade," mind you,
but it will read and convert your Q&A databases, allow you to carry on with your
existing Q&A programming, give you reports, support automation, feature a menu and
command system that will be familiar to old Q&A diehards, and will otherwise, like
Q&A, be fun and easy to use. If you're looking for a full-blown 32-bit
relational-like database designed for today's Windows, this is the one to be serious
about.
In the meantime, Q&A will help you manage your data in
the new millenium as well as it has in the past. It runs like the dickens in Windows
95/98/2000/XP in full screen mode or in a window. And Q&A 5.0 has powerful features
that let you create applications that link to and smartly pass your Q&A data to
virtually any Windows application.
By all means, trade "up" to "the latest and
greatest" if you just can't stand being behind the times. Get your ZIP Codes and
purchase order numbers in those fancy fonts. Spend weeks or months overhauling the works.
It's your time.
Just don't worry yourself sick over "the future of
Q&A." It's still being sold and installed around the world. It's still being used
by hundreds of thousands to very productively manage vital data.
And take my word for it, it'll be around for years to come
in its various versions and incarnations, running smartly on lowly DOS machines and the
latest Windows PCs alike.
Tom Marcellus is the author of The Q&A Bible,
published by IDG Books, and has served as editor of The Quick Answer
monthly Q&A newsletter since 1990.
|
