we are running forms 6i Patch18 on Windows2003 SP2 terminal servers and
periodaclly we get the reports background engine failures. The event view
has this

Faulting application RWRBE60.EXE, version 3.0.0.0, faulting module
UTL60.DLL, version 6.0.8.25, fault address 0x000015fc.

Faulting application RWRBE60.EXE, version 3.0.0.0, faulting module
winspool.drv, version 5.2.3790.3959, fault address 0x0000afed.

any ideas ?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:01:51 GMT, "Jerry Alan Braga"
<jerry.braga (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Question: has Forms 6i ever been certified against Win 2003?
When was Forms 6i released? When Win2003?
When was Forms 6i desupported?
So why do you ask?
YOYO!!!!

--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

no it was not certified for win2003 !

but In oracle's infinate wisdom they removed client/server support for forms
(BIG MISTAKE) after 6i.
We are a terminal server shop not Oracle application server with that
terrible jinitiator stuff and others.

I was just wondering if anyone has seend this and can assist in any way.

By the way 6i was supported for WinXP and Win2003 share over 90% of the same
binaries so you take a guess.


<sybrandb (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:25:50 GMT, "Jerry Alan Braga"
<jerry.braga (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

That was not a mistake. The world moves on. Mickeysoft doesn't support
client/server anymore, doesn't it?
Please realise how terrible old Forms 6i is, and please realise Oracle
has many other development tools.
Why stay in the dark and stick to client/server?

--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

sybrandb (AT) hccnet (DOT) nl wrote:

Because things in the 'real world' often don't match your view of how
things should work. E.g. we sell a suite of applications which include
a couple of hundred 6i reports. Upgrading to Reports 10g would mean
we'd have to charge our clients more to cover the increased licensing
costs of the reports elements of application server, with no obvious
benefit to themselves.

We'd also have to visit every single one of our clients to install
application server (which would cost us a small fortune) as most of
them don't even have an IT department, never mind anyone familiar with
Oracle. Some of them would also need to buy new servers. Then of course
we'd need to change our application as it currently calls the reports
executable to run the reports, and change all the reports themselves.

You can call that 'staying in the dark' if you like - we call it the
reality of a small software house competing in a very competitive
market. The extra licensing costs & complexity of Reports 10 makes it a
non-starter for us & our clients, hence we'll be sticking with 6i until
we have time to implement a (non-Oracle) alternative.

--
Preston.

Preston wrote:
It would also mean your clients would be using supported technology.
Is that a benefit?

It would mean they could meet their legal requirements with respect
to auditing and compliance. Is that a benefit?

Given that Oracle has made clear, for years, its intention what you
are really saying is that your firm chose to ignore Oracle and the
needs of its customers making so appropriate this quote from Shakespeare:

"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne
petar"

You being the engineer in this case. <g>

If you don't do it now when do you plan to do it? With version 11? 12?
20? You should have been making this investment on an on-going basis.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org

DA Morgan wrote:

No. I know it would be a 'perceived' benefit with some CDOS posters who
rate the use of unsupported versions at a similar level to child
murder, but the reality is we've never hit an Oracle bug with 6i in the
several years we've been using it. In the highly unlikely event we do
in the future, we'll worry about it then.

As long as our system & reports meet FSA guidelines, which they do,
there is no legal issue.

There ya go, making accusations without knowing anything about our firm
or our customers. It's due to *not* ignoring the needs of our customers
that we haven't delayed other enhancements purely to upgrade something
that doesn't need upgrading, & which would make our software more
expensive for those same customers had we upgraded.

Had we hit regular bugs with 6i (or indeed any bugs), we would
obviously had prioritised things differently.

We don't plan to do it with any specific version. When we have a window
in the development cycle to look at alternatives, we'll do so - but
that won't be this year for certain. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
- as Shakespeare probably would've said had he thought of it.

--
Preston.

Preston wrote:

Your attitude speaks loudly and clearly with respect to your value system.

That window will never come. You will spend more and more of your energy
doing stupid stuff like trying to figure out how to connect a
paleolithic forms tool to the currently supported database. In fact
right now I've got a smile on my face trying to figure out just how you
plan on supporting Oracle 11g.

By the time you decide your customers are more important than whatever
you've currently prioritized you will not have the revenue stream to do
anything other than hire a bankruptcy attorney.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org

DA Morgan wrote:

Careful Daniel, you're getting dangerously close to Sybrand levels of
arrogance with that post.

You know absolutely nothing about our customers, nor what's important
to them. If you think they'd rather we spent time giving them a version
of reports supported by a company they know nothing about & have no
dealings with, & which would cost them more money, than to spend time
developing the enhancements & extra functionality that *they* are
screaming for, then you're so far off the mark it's laughable.

I can only presume you've never worked for a tiny software house (as in
a handful of developers) selling a specialised application that's
almost entirely driven by the needs of a small number of high-value
customers. If you had, you'd know how ridiculous your statements sound
when applied to that type of organisation.

Oh, & we won't be spending any time figuring out how to connect a
'paleolithic forms tood to the currently supported database' as we
don't use forms. If Reports 6i doesn't work with 11g, then obviously
we'll switch to a reporting tool that does work when the time comes.
That tool will most likely be an open source Java based product rather
than Oracle though.

--
Preston.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 06:12:55 GMT, "Preston"
<dontwantany (AT) nowhere (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Doesn't the label 'arrogant' equally apply to someone calling himself
'Preston' . After all it is 'Preston' who decides his customers should
remain in the dark.
What is important to your customers is a supported version of the
database, a supported version of the O/S and a supported version of
the hardware.
Otherwise they will, when theire servers fall apart, because someone
called 'Preston' advised them not to upgrade, not only pay big bucks
to replace their servers, but they will be also be forced to upgrade
their O/S (as their current crap isn't certified against the new
hardware), and their software, including Oracle, etc, etc, etc,

Maybe some customers don't understand this, as they have never been
informed by someone called 'Preston', but then someone called
'Preston' 's software policy is full of 'Pennywise, pound foolish'
Likely this will put him out of business someday.
I can't say I will regret this.

--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA