Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

David wrote in message <_bi_2.780$i4.68153_at_alfalfa.thegrid.net>...
>
>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!

I agree with everything but the NT scalability weakness part. In my view that's the strength. The same strength that lets an army of ants overcome almost any obstacle. Distributed computing, in my view, has far more potential than the largest O/S.

>>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?

That's funny, Word 97 runs almost as fast as Word 2 did on my 486DX33 with 16 Mb. It's almost instant on my PII400.

>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.

Amen

>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.

I don't think it's the app, I think that he has a lack of knowledge on how to configure it. You don't load it up with macros and expect it to run fast.

>>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.

Really, do I want to return to Visicalc, or do I want Excel? Not much of a choice is there? Excuse me, but I'll take the features and the hardware. My PII400 with 256 Mb and multiple SCSI drives, 19" monitor, and top of the line everything, cost less than my 486DX33 16Mb, with 14" monitor with a single 130 Mb drive and 3.5floppy. Where am I worse off?

>>Argument closed, OK?

You bet it is <g>

>>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.

35 years ago, runtime on an IBM 360 was $75 an hour (or more) and didn't accomplish 10% of what I can do on my PC today. $150K worth of hardware and an $80K a year VB programmer can do more today than 10 programmers and $10 million in hardware could then, and do it better. Business uses most of the computing power, and business is about cost/benefit analysis (the bottom line). I won't say that SQL-Server will take over the world, it won't. But it will run the majority of businesses. ---
Arvin Meyer
onsite_at_esinet.net Received on Wed May 12 1999 - 12:43:12 CDT