Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Nuno Souto wrote in message <7hbs95$m8i$1_at_m2.c2.telstra-mm.net.au>...
>David <desertfox_at_thegrid.net> wrote in message
>news:Zxc_2.721$i4.66305_at_alfalfa.thegrid.net...
>> <Lots of market vs. product semantic drivel deleted>
>
>Semantic is an essential part of the Queen's language. Omit it and you
>get MS marketing.

I have no problems with a rich vocabulary. It's only when it's used to confuse the issue and not provide any real discussion. Lawyers LOVE semantic games.

>> So lets ask ourselves what exactly makes a market? Possibly several
products
>> used by the majority of a targeted audience? So lets take the Word
Processor
>> market which is made up of several major PRODUCTS that are exclusively
used
>> by 95% of a target audience. Many years ago this market was comprised of
>> Word, Word Perfect, and a few others.
>
>Wrong. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Mentioning MS success in
>a field such as word processing, limited by definition to the desktop
>and using that to explain why they will take over the world of databases
>is in IMO the summit of semantic drivel, using your own terminology.

But proving their success in this 'limited' desktop market was the point I was making, in that every market they compete in, given enough time, they will win. Do you for a moment think that the 'limited' desktop market is insignificant?

>> >Oh puh-leaze. Stop confusing products with market. That is the most
>> childish
>> >argimentation I've heard from MS. Try to replace a market with a
product,
>> then
>> >claim the market when the product is down. CRAP!
>> Other than your childish semantic word game of Market vs. Product it
would
>> be nice if you would actually participate in some intelligent discussion.
>
>Hang on a minute. Anything that demonstrates to the EVIDENCE the
>childish arguments used by MS to promote their products to technically
>challenged users is "childish semantic word game"? So what exactly is
>a line of argumentation that is sustainable in your view? One that agrees
>with the pure marketing drivel that MS puts out? One that accepts at face
>value that a MSCE is a competent IT professional? And other such little
>"pearls of wisdom"?

You seem to be mistakingly attributing MS marketing as something I have actually said. I do not work for MS and could care less about their marketing. Is your hatred of MS so deep that you have to use it as a Straw Man and not discuss issues that are actually a part of this discussion?

As a side point, you are aware that marketing is more important from a business standpoint than technological advantages?

>> .... and you're making what point here? Adding hardware in this day and
age
>> is actually a very cost effective solution. Maybe 10 years ago when 512k
was
>> $150 it might have been a bad idea but in many cases adding more hardware
to
>> increase scalability is the best way in this era of super-cheap hardware.
>
>Here we go again with the "add-on cheap hardware" argument. For Pete's
sake!
>It's about time this gets put to rest. This game was invented by IBM with
their
>System3x series back in the late 60's. It has NEVER been proven to be
correct.

The Devil is always in the details. And in the comptuer world everything is contingent on details. Times have changed and using wholesale generalizations across a 30 year span in the computer world is absurd. How many 'rules of thumbs' have evaporated into thin air as technology has marched forward thus eliminating these things we take for granted.

How do you think MS is able to run their entire site using IIS? They have a massive server farm to make up for NT's scalability weakness. So in their case, using more hardware WAS the solution!

>Adding hardware to an overloaded system because the design is utter crap is
>only going to make it run flat out a lot faster. No matter what product is
>causing
>the problem: SQL Server, ORACLE, Ingres, Informix, DB2, whatever.
>
>If that was a solution, why is it that my 450MHz PII PC does run Word97
>much, much slower than my 486-66 PC running Word2? You will NEVER
>reap the benefits of faster hardware because it will ALWAYS require
>a version of software that is bloated enough to grind it to a halt. 'Nuff
said?

Interesting how your logic tells you that your 450 MHz PII runs Word slower because its design is 'utter crap'. Once again, try substantiating your arguments with some proof rather than making these sweeping generalizations. I would imagine Word97 has a hell of a lot more features than Word2.

It sounds like Word has more features than you seem to need. You might think about using Wordpad or even Notepad if speed is an issue.

>Look at the history of this industry for the last 20 years! Have you EVER
>seen an hardware improvment that wasn't immediately matched by more
>complex software? This then grinds it to a halt and makes a yet faster
version
>of the hardware needed.

And what is so diabolical about this? Faster hardware and more software to match it... that actually sounds like a good deal! Progress.. you gotta love it.

>Argument closed, OK?

Does that mean you are done playing a semantic word game? Great.

>> And remember, I said MSFT was behind in this MARKET but they will catch
up
>> and overtake their competitors soon.
>>
>
>Depends on what you think "catch up" and "overtake" means. If you mean
>that the UNIX servers of this world are all soon gonna be NT boxes running
>SQL Server, you are fooling yourself as much as the UNIX guys fooled us
>15 years ago when they said the same about the mainframes.
>
>Fact is there are still a lot of mainframes out there running "monster"
systems,
>despite what you may have heard. And it's only now, nearly 15 years later,
>that some big companies are STARTING to move their mainframe business
>to UNIX. Mostly because they were FORCED to do so due to Y2K problems.
>How many more Y2K's do you think there is gonna be? Do you think for a
>split second it won't take another eon before they will even look at the
>PC/NT side of the world? MS can invoke whatever market numbers they
>may want, fact is their place right now is as a replacement for Netware
>in the WAN/LAN and very little else.

Old crappy systems are always going to be around in one form or another. If you want to live in a world of fantasy where MS will never dominate the market it chooses to compete in, then go right ahead. For the rest of us, we will continue to watch MSFT stock double and split year in and year out and simultanouesly watch their market share grow and grow.

Ein Volk, Ein Bill, Ein Microsoft

David Received on Wed May 12 1999 - 11:44:49 CDT