That is exactly the same situation I am in.

My customers, way back in the early 90's, paid 10's of thousands for 
their setups. Main software alone cost ~$7K. And that was DOS! Vast 
majority happily upgraded to Windows and continued to do so, some have 
stayed with Win XP, a few have stayed with DOS to this day.

It has been hammered home to everyone (by everyone) about risks in 
security, failed hardware yada yada yada. They know!

Why do they stay with old stuff? As Kevin mentioned, many are planning 
on retirement soon, some just don't want to learn a new software. The 
biggest reason is because the DOS software does everything they need & 
is already paid for. Some stay with it because it is keyboard driven 
making it faster than mousing.

New software have tons and tons of features, that they will not use. 
Then there is the never-ending monthly subscriptions. Lots of people 
still don't like the idea of their data being on the 'cloud', some 
because of paranoia of security, some fear loss of access due to 
instable internet.

Then there are the customers I do programming for. I've built 
specialised software for their particular needs that is not available in 
new software. There are not that many anymore and they are all aware 
that Paradox is a discontinued product.

Paradox is pretty cool, I am still learning as I try to do thngs a 
different way -still no answer to my sql question- and that is why I 
still frequent this newsgroup - others too.


On 12/09/2023 08:53 a.m., Kevin Zawicki wrote:
>>
> why waste so much time on a corpse? Or are you suggesting we all load up
> individual dumps? Some folks would, but I personally wouldn’t bother even
> if I were still using Paradox.
> <
> 
> “if I were still using Paradox”
> Understand you are not using it. You have said that often.
> 
> I am using it. Others are using it. I have clients that are using it. We
> all know what Paradox’s future is… but when a business is close to retiring
> and needs a few more years, etc., they have no benefit to changing. They
> know the risks and history and want to keep it running. I support it, keep
> it running.
> 
> One was told 4-5 years ago that their Paradox system would fail soon. The
> cost to replace was enormous (to them). They recently remarked how they saved
> so much money by not replacing it 4-5 years ago. Will it eventually fail,
> sure. They will likely be retired / sell the business before then. And if/when
> the business is sold, I will tell the new owner (as I did the current owner)
> the honest risk of not replacing and the cost of replacing. Then they can
> decide the future path.
> 
> For those that are using it I am just stating that the articles are not “gone.”
> The code samples are not gone. If someone really needed something from that
> stuff, I could likely find it. Also, most of the topics have been covered
> in various forms in the posts over the years.
> 
> 
>>
> Then you'd have to build a website in a similar format to thedb. Then work
> out the mySQL structures and transfer all the articles across from Mambo
> to the new CMS. Good luck with that.
> <
> 
> Not true. The articles and most of it is basic html, looks like one HTML
> doc per article and if you keep the folder structure the links (mostly) work
> to the code files. I do not know if it is ALL there, but there is a lot.
> An archive could be just a list of html docs. Which basically what I have
> locally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Krieg <tomkIGNORE@CAPSsdassociates.com.au> wrote:
>> Well, you'd have to have a hosted web server running some form of CMS
>> such as Joomla. I doubt any service provider would let you run Mambo.
>> Then you'd have to build a website in a similar format to thedb. Then
>> work out the mySQL structures and transfer all the articles across from
> 
>> Mambo to the new CMS. Good luck with that. Of course it can be done. But
> 
>> why waste so much time on a corpse? Or are you suggesting we all load up
> 
>> individual dumps? Some folks would, but I personally wouln't bother even
> 
>> if I were still using Paradox.
>>
>> On 9/12/2023 4:20 pm, Kevin Zawicki wrote:
>>>
>>> Chances are looking better...
>>>
>>> I have a dump of the DBcommunity.com site.
>>> It seems mostly usable, has all the articles, code, links, I can open
> it
>>> locally (mostly) and browse the contents.
>>>
>>> I thought a few others here had a web dump like this?
>