RE: Upgrade

Jesse wrote
> As far as "business requirements" go, we have a requirement
> for a certain amount of uptime and reliability. Oracle7 on
> Windohs could satisfy neither, and have no need to spend
> money to re-investigate this for newer versions of Oracle/Windohs.

What would that 'certain amount' be. Without trying especially hard our windows/oracle boxes have in excess of 99% availability. Or you could measure it in availability within working hours. It would be higher.

No we don't work 24/7. yes we have less than 5000 users and yes we turn over less than GBP150m per annum. For Oracle that makes us small - but then we do use std edition. For real life that makes us rather large and Windows/Oracle 8i will do fine. To be brutally honest windows/sql2000 will do fine as well.

Of course if you are still running Oracle 7 on Solaris 2 or whatever the equivalent was in 1998/9 then clearly my argument doesn't hold, but I bet you have investigated newer hardware/os and Oracle since then. If so why not windows other than the prejudice the misnaming suggests.

Niall

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Niall Litchfield
  INET: niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).