Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

From: David W. Fenton <dXXXfenton_at_bway.net>
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 20:09:38 GMT
Message-ID: <680_2.624$G3.22506@news3.ispnews.com>

Greg Druian (gdruian_at_europa.com) wrote:

: Abbot Cooper wrote:

: > Like everything else under the sun, SQL Server can be very easily ground to
: > a halt be a poor design. The previous poster's "disaster" was undoubtedly of
: > his own making I would venture to say. That doesn't prove that SQL Server is
: > better, but it does refute the notion that SQL Server is a "disaster" in and
: > of itself. If it were a disaster people would not be using it in the numbers
: > which they do... Example: Access 95 is a universally acknowledged disaster.
: > I would venture to say that there are probably more people using Access 2.0
: > rather than 95. The point is that people do _not_ use horrible software if
: > they can avoid it.

: 
: A "universally acknowledged disaster?"  Not in my experience, not by any means.
: I guess I haven't heard Access 95 referred to in this way before; BTW, where do
: we go to find the most up-to-date list of what is universally acknowledged?

You are cross-posting to comp.databases.ms-access. Abbot is a regular participant there (as am I). Those of us in that group use Access full-time as our development platform.

It is UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED by anyone who has actually attempted to develop in Access95 that YOU CAN'T. If you don't know that, then you're not really using Access95, or you have extremely low standards for software reliability.

David W. Fenton                        http://www.bway.net/~dfenton

dfenton at bway dot net                http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Received on Tue May 11 1999 - 15:09:38 CDT