Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Abbot Cooper <cooper_NoSpam_ab_at_mediaone.net> wrote in message news:7hcf9b$ck6> Yup - you have completely hit the nail on the head. How many days would
> programmers in the past spend to scrunch 3K of code down into 2K because RAM
> was more costly than gold? Now this becomes entirely irrelevant (generally
> irrelevant -- I am sure someone will have some exception to my statement...)
> because RAM is now about as costly as dirt. Does it make sense to spend 3
> weeks tuning your code to get the last few bytes out of it when RAM is
> plentiful? Of course it does not make sense, unless you have an overly
> developed sense of aesthetics. From a strictly business standpoint it is not
> economically efficient, period.

Here we go again with the typical MS and "expert magazine" marketing DRIVEL!!!!!

Wrong! We are talking about picking an application that has maybe 500K lines of code and turning it into a 200Mb monster that does essentially the SAME! What is the VALUE to the user in that? Absolutely NONE!

WHATEVER the cost of memory may be. Don't use semantics or common place argumentation to try and confuse the issue, you can't do that with me, been around
for too long. NOBODY is questioning that memory is cheaper and therefore it is easier to code larger programs.

What is being questioned is WHAT IS THE VALUE TO USERS of that additional code if it achieves NOTHING but sell new versions of hardware and software?

Name ONE feature of Word97 that makes it absolutely IMPERATIVE and NECESSARY and VALUABLE for the majority of users to upgrade to it? What did you get for the
extra hardware requirement?

Essentially NOTHING!

And you think that makes a lot of sense and is "economically efficient, period"?

No wonder it is MS making the money, not you...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au
http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm Received on Thu May 13 1999 - 07:16:17 CDT