Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Nuno Souto wrote in message <7hh3h7$om2$1_at_m2.c2.telstra-mm.net.au>...
>
>OK, here you have a number of good points. Thanx for a good argument.
>But I'd like to draw your attention to the following:
>
>Why did you have to upgrade to O97 for your 486? Is there anything that
>you're doing in it that SPECIFICALLY requires that your 486 run that
version?
>I'd more think that you upgraded because you thought that it would be
better
>to have all your systems running the same version of software. Ie, you
were
>sucked in to the upgrade spiral via the software avenue instead of the
>incompatible hardware avenue. Same thing, just a different approach.

Being a consultant, I need to stay ahead of my clients business practices. Every corporation I deal with is using MS software, some exclusively. In order to provide the solutions that they will accept, I must work with their existing systems. I upgrade software in late beta status. I upgrade machines yearly, and purchase new ones on a 2 to 3 year cycle. The machine purchases still leave me slightly behind the current client hardware market.

>Read on please, it will become clearer.
>
>Your point about your business growing and needing new machines is a very
>good one and IMHO a VERY GOOD reason for getting them. Provided you
>still make good use of the old ones. As for availability of hardware, I
dunno
>where you are but where I am, getting a new keyboard, monitor and a
>larger/additional disk for a 486 would probably cost me less than US$400
>in total. Much less than buying a new system to replace it. With full
warranty
>and easy to find too. No downtime to upgrade the software and 0 (zero) cost
>in software upgrades.

Not a good option. Investing $400 in a machine now worth less than $200, is like putting a new paint job on a $200 automobile. It may last, or it may not. The investment could be worthless the next day. But the real reason is that the newer technology available (CDR's, SCSI zip drives, etc.) is not only better, but more affordable. It also allows me to do my job better and faster, making me more efficient, and thus more profitable. I might point out that this is the same reason most companies upgrade.

>Keep reading, please.
>
>>
>> No, but reports (pure processing power) that tooks 50 seconds to run on
the
>> 486, run in 7 seconds on the P200, and 3 seconds on the PII400. That's by
>> themself on the 486, and with other things happening on the P200, and a
lot
>> of other things happening on the PII400.
>
>Good. EXCELLENT. Very good point. Now, do you think that there is ANY
>feature in O97 that has caused that improved performance? Because if not,
>your upgrade to O97 was wasted, wasn't it? See what I mean? You might
want
>to get better performance. You get a faster machine. VALID! Now, why on
>Earth do you have to also MANDATORILY get a software upgrade?
>
>But wait, there is more.
>
>> >recommending
>> >"addon hardware". Bingo...
>>
>> Survival is not the same as growth, is it?
>>
>Sorry, don't follow this. Having existing structures of business stay with
what
>works
>instead of spending unnecessary money to unnecessarily upgrade them is
survival?
>
>Of course new stuff will be needed in case of growth. Problem is: the way
MS
>has
>things now, you can't really get new PC's and software versions for your
growing
>business without looking into upgrading software that runs fine now.
>Like it or not, need it or not.

As I said survival is not the same as growth. A company does not grow by remaining in the same place. That may sound redunant, but the market is growing, so to remain in the same place marketshare wise, a company need to be MORE productive, not just as productive. To gain marketshare, a company needs to be even more productive. That can only be accomplished in 2 ways, by adding manpower, or by adding technology that makes the existing manpower structure more efficient.

>> I sure think so. The tools of other professions are far more expensive.
Even
>> a carpenter is likely to spend more per year on tools than a programmer.
And
>> far more, relative to the income produced.
>
>Completely wrong. Don't confuse amateur carpenters with professional ones.
>The ones that rely on their tools for their living buy them once and use
>them for years and years on end without the slightest need for an upgrade.
>They are the best examples of squeezing out value of a tool purchase
>you can find anywhere. Even I, an amateur woodworker, am using hand
>tools that were made more than 100 years ago. Quite successfully and
>without the slightest problem. Although I don't make a living out of it,
it's
>just a hobby.

Hand tools are one thing, machinery and new technology is another. If we assume that all construction technique remained the same over the last 100 years, you'd be correct. But it hasn't. New building systems and technology have changed carpentry from a hand tool technology to a very sophisticated machine technology. A 100 years ago, there was no Corian, no Oriented Strand Board, no plywood or particleboard, no pneumatic nail guns, or coil mounted deck screwing devices. Even 20 years ago no carpenter showed up on a job-site with any of the tools needed to do what is now routinely considered normal contruction methods.
---
Arvin Meyer
onsite_at_esinet.net Received on Fri May 14 1999 - 10:03:28 CDT