Re: ms-sql vs oracle on NT or UNIX?

In article <01bd408b$96700f00$461179c3_at_WorldAccess.wxs.nl>, Guus van de Sande <dyntas_at_wxs.nl> wrote:
>To contribute to the neverending discussion:
>
>Open VMS on Alpha is a very stable, fault tolerant system for Oracle indeed
>(in fact I love it). Nevertheless, so is SUN Solaris, Digital Unix, HP-UX.
>But I agree with you that these OS's are to be preferred above Win NT. It's
>not mature yet, it will be in about 3-5 yrs. (btw the designer of Win NT,
>is the designer of VMS !!!!)

Well, I used VMS from 1982, and I didn't have to reboot it periodically even then. This reflects pretty poorly on Cutler, IMO.

>
>regards,
>Guus van de Sande
>independent Oracle consultant
>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> NT and MS SQL Server can scale pretty quickly if you really need it to.
>>
>> If a box with a GB or so of RAM, 4 Pentium II 333Mhz processors and a
>> bucketful of SCSI controllers and drives is not enough for you, you can
>> always buy an alpha from DEC.
>>
>> I think NT is scalable but like all o/s's it has a preferred range,
>> certainly this config is at the top end of where it can go until you
>> start distributing it over a range of servers.
>>
>> Still I'd prefer to use VAX'es if I wanna put a distributed Oracle
>> network together.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Bob Johnson
>>
>>

-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest
jgarry@eiq.com                           http://www.informationquest.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry
"See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!