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: Greg Druian <gdruian_at_europa.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 08:55:22 -0700
Message-ID: <373AF5EA.60846EBB@europa.com>


I admire your unerring knowledge of what users want and what they need. You must be a consultant: I can tell by your patience, tolerance and apparent empathy.

Nuno Souto wrote:

> 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 - 10:55:22 CDT

Original text of this message

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