Talk:Pick operating system

message: I have worked with Pick since 1989. I also work with SQL Server, Oracle, and other programming languages like VB.NET, PASCAL, HTML/OS, Java etc. The idea that Pick is outmoded, 'clumsy' or useless is absurd. It is still powering many organizations around the world. It's still powerful, and it's still remarkably parsimonious with resources (less important today in an era of cheap RAM and disc storage). Some tasks are easier to this day in Pick than in a SQL Server type database, because the multivalue data model is, indeed, a closer approximation of the 'real world' needs for many types of data. Having a clumsy series of flat joined tables to represent, say, an invoice, versus a single data record that contains all of it in one place is often disadvantageous from a programming and maintenance standpoint, and in this way, Pick somewhat prefigured Object Orientated Databases like the Cache database (derived from the parallel-evolved MUMPS system). Quick aggregate calculations on 'columns' are incredibly slow in Pick versus a true column/row database like SQL Server, but many functions, most especially those involved with string handling, are still lightyears easier to implement and faster to process. Pick is no more a panacea than SQL Server or Oracle are, but, after many decades, it's still relevant, still powerful, still useful. In fact, I find development in Pick Basic to still be among the fastest languages I've ever used. Even faster is using VB.NET with the toolkits provided by Rocket Software and others to create Windows applications that use Pick for storage and retrieval functions. I create 'data objects' as exposed classes in VB.NET and then work in net to manipulate them. This is, by and large, MUCH faster AND more elegant than trying to do the same thing with SQL Sever.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.12.33 (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone else, upon reading sentences like the following,
"Pick is considered by many who use it to be years ahead of its competitors..."
...rather doubt the neutrality of the last few contributors to this article?
Such an assessment might have been true in 1985, but is rather hard to justify in 2005. I don't know why I get this impression, but the whole article reads as if written by some UK-residing Pick zealot who has little or no background in any other system. (And I speak as someone who's worked 25+ years in Pick.)
:The only remaining objection to the language of this article is the common one of unintelligibility, in this case to anyone outside the community of computer language/OS boffins. I'm reminded once again of Richard Feynman's complaint that the Encyclopedia Britannica no longer followed the format he observed in his youth: that you could start in on any article about anything you didn't really know, and be led, by degrees, to a reasonable introduction to the topic.
:Yes, it's an OS (except when someone argues that it isn't... actually...); I doubt if anyone looking to this article is so much of a layperson that they would not get that much; if they weren't aware of it already. But,
:Somebody please just wipe out the preamble of that mess and bring in somebody who is able to explain Pick to a bartender. JohndanR (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I used A CMC Reality system for several years in the mid 70s. Yes, it is idiosyncratic in its ways, and you don't have the mathematical rigour of a SQL database (which didn't exist at the time; Dr Codd was only just enunciating the principles of relational databases). But in terms of getting the job done, I think the comments in the article are perfectly justified. For some applications, I would still rather do it in PICK and Data/Basic than in the various modern solutions I use today. For me the most telling point is that we had a powerful mini-computer for the day - it had a 50MB disc and 80 kB of main memory. Using these minute resources (by today's standards), it supported multiple users - we often had a dozen or so at once, and operated a dial-up bureau service for some of our clients. --APRCooper (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: doubt the neutrality

message: PROCs seems to be viatl part of Pick/multivalued systems. Anyone would like to share some knowledge on that in the main article?--Aou 22:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PROC

message: Corrected a factual error: The Ultimate segment had this sentence: "This was the first implemenation to be done in software only, so upgrades were accomplished by a tape load, rather than a new chip." This is inaccurate, as the article reflects, Ultimate was a firmware port. A new section was added to provide a factual home for that sentence, as ADDS was the first of the software ports.
--Playabender 22:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: firmware vs. software implementations

message: Since this is such an old OS, that was used past 2000 -- what year 2000 issues did various versions of Pick have?  In what years will the various versions become unusable, for what reasons?  Can the older software be run on newer hardware, perhaps under some sort of VM?
-69.87.199.23 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Pick keeps track of the date by a count of days since Dec. 31, 1967 (Day 0).  Y2K would have only been an issue with programs that used a 2-digit year.  So, there could have been some problems from that standpoint.  But, as far as the operating system goes, no problems were introduced at the turn of the millenium. - Charleca (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no real problems with Y2K, but Pick had its own issues earlier - known at the time as "the day 10,000" problem, when those internal dates rolled from four digits to five.  There were a number of library routines and really old programs that assumed an internal date would always be four digits.  May 17th, 1995 was when dates rolled from 9999 to 10000.  It turned out to be a non-issue, despite attempts by some consultants to turn it into a bigger deal.  -- User:jianmcgowan  —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Year 2000

message: The article refers to the system as "Pick" but in people's comments I usually see it written as "PICK". Which is correct? From what I have seen it appears to be that "Pick" is correct and "PICK" is a mispelling used so often it becomes perceived as correct. (eg, SQL -> "sequel") Which is actually correct? Also, the name if after the founder, Mr. Richard Pick. 216.36.186.2 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's "Pick" and rarely "PICK" - found in documentation published by Pick Systems, Inc. <B>RW</B>ymant@lk 21:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization: Pick or PICK? 

message: Some (maybe most) of them need to to go. -charleca (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Pickguy claims that the Pick OS is not obsolete . But the link to togerlogic doesn't really help - that leads to a data base product, not an OS William M. Connolley (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And IT people cursed such implementations for slowness and lack of cohesive asset management plan. Pick may well be still relevant to some, but you'll never see it in a current server farm or large frame implementation. <B>RW</B>ymant@lk 21:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete? 

message: Those three should be merged here. They don't seem to have much notability or use outside this OS/DB. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language stubs 

message: I worked in Australia as a programmer exclusively on Pick systems from 1983-93, including WICAT. AFAIK it stood for World Institute for Computer Aided Training. The machines used a Motorola MC68000 processor, and the Pick port was done programmers at the Lionel Singer Group. Singer was a well known entrepeneur in Australia. Here are a couple of references which mention Singer and WICAT
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/74029/lionel_singer_larger_than_life_no_longer/
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19891010&id=B8soAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y5EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3899,7571101
--TrogWoolley (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WICAT 

message: It appears that the initial release date of GIRLS is actually the start of development date, rather than release date. The only original source I can find for real dates claims it was first delivered (released) to the US Army in 1969: https://books.google.com/books?id=6aHN6h4o3CoC&pg=PP20&lpg=PP20&dq=General+Information+Management+GIM+1969&source=bl&ots=OK64Cb384f&sig=gdsn27QAOcz72-Aaxr49hGEPwP8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja7Lil0KnUAhVR8WMKHSC2A3UQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=General%20Information%20Management%20GIM%201969&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danmcg.au (talk • contribs) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial release date incorrect? 

message: I used this for many years, and seldom see it mentioned belows is the link to the site, it was previously maintained BY EDP Pl in the UK and worth a mention here.
http://www.intl-spectrum.com/database/16/UniVision  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.119.15 (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  UniVision is also a PICK MV DB and seldom mentioned