Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

From: Chris Georgiou - TZOTZIOY <tzot_at_iname.com.byebye.spam>
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:41:01 GMT
Message-ID: <3741bb29.37160699@194.177.210.211>


On Tue, 11 May 1999 09:48:14 -0700, rumours say that Greg Druian <gdruian_at_europa.com> might have written:

>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?

>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.

Greg, Abbott's statement is not so much of an overstatement, although this is not so obvious to people who usually don't participate in newsgroups specifically referring to Access (while he does). A95 was so full of bugs (which were more obvious to developpers than to users), that whenever a person posts a question mentioning A95 in cdmsa, the routine prefix of the answering posts is "Get A97. Now, if you can't..."

Perhaps you haven't experienced so many bugs as other people did (I was one of them, and thankfully for a very short period, cause I started playing[1] professionally with Access two months before A97 launched, and I upgraded quickly), but there are many, many others who had.

<g> But, to be fair, Abbot should say "comp.databases.ms-access"ally acknowledged disaster...

[1] forgive the verb selection, but over here it's used so heavily and with so many diverse meanings for computer relative affairs, I saw fit to use it as such. no further explanation. --
Greetings from Greece, I speak England very best, TZOTZIOY, just an earthbound misfit, I
ICQ# 13397953 (when e-mailing remove the obvious after the .com part) Received on Wed May 12 1999 - 12:41:01 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US