Re: MS Access usefulness and size restrictions

"Daniel A. Morgan" <Daniel.Morgan_at_attws.com> wrote in message news:<3B2665E5.2A7E05D5_at_attws.com>...
>
> Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Oracle Forms. But keep in mind that everything looks terrible
> compared to something you know better.

I am and you're right, Oracle Forms look terrible compared to Access Forms . . . to me, for now . . .
>
> I have done Access development. Also Paradox back when it was a contender. And I hated Oracle right up until I
> learned it. Now I wouldn't go back even for equal pay. And the pay is hardly equal.
>
> As I've said before, but some people don't understand, software is not a religion ... it is a tool. Like a
> hammer or a wrench. I use the best one for the job ... and remembering that it is a job ... the one the
> knowledge of which pays me the most money. You can easily earn twice the dollars per hour with Oracle Forms as
> with Access.

A great bit of information. However, SQL Server 2000 is (almost?) as powerful and capable as Oracle. You can develop an application using Access/SQL Server _at least_ as fast as Oracle Forms/Oracle. Given that I would pay more for the licenses, twice as much for forms development and more for the DBA's (assuming an Oracle DBA makes more than a SQL Server DBA), what motivation does a company have to choose Oracle? If your argument will be performance, is Oracle that much faster than SQL Server in the real world? Received on Wed Jun 13 2001 - 12:13:31 CDT