Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

David <desertfox_at_thegrid.net> wrote in message news:Kve%2.1753$i4.99263_at_alfalfa.thegrid.net...
> such as Straw Man.

Hey I didn't mention Straw Man, someone else did!

> which in turn allows them to prosper and make better products. The Commodore
> Amiga was a superior computer for its time but it has since faded from
> memory. In that sense, Microsoft will always be around to support its
> products.

So have the X86 and the 386! Both direct competitors of the Amiga. And much worse technology. What a silly argument!

Disapperance is NOT proof of importance of marketing over technology. Cripes, most of the hardware and software of 5 years ago in the PC world has almost disappeared.

According to your argument that makes them BADLY marketed and/or BAD technology as well! See how silly that one was?

BTW, MS may always be around to support their products but will they bother to? Try to get a fix for a problem with Word 2. It's only 5 years since it was replaced, yet MS will tell you to get lost. It's THEIR product! How come they ARE around and do NOT support it?

Of course they can't be expected to support old versions forever. But 5 years isn't such. Except for the 30 second TV attention span MS supporters, of which there are unfortunately so many. These people don't understand they are shooting themselves in the foot for letting the PC market be dominated by these hit-and-run short term product life tactics.

> And who is arguing database design and application? As a software developer
> I sure hope database design is still a priority!

Not according to the supporters of MS database products! They claim they are so easy to use clients now don't need DBA's, developers, analysts and such. Which ORACLE and so many others claim are necessary. One has to wonder why does MS bother with MSDN and MCSE training. After all if NT is SOOOO easy, why do we NEED these?

> Microsoft excels in this cheaper bracket of machines and it is only obvious
> to the casual observer that these inexpesive NT machines are going to slowly
> replace the need for the user unfriendly UNIX boxes.

NT may replace some UNIX servers as a server. Servers are NOT by definition "user" boxes. So they can't be "user unfriendly" boxes, OK? A casual observer with a 30 second TV attention span might overlook that detail...

Be careful with the quotations of MS marketing drivel... It's not possible to bend so much to cretin MS marketing arguments without exposing one's logic to easy shots...

And if you think NT is easier to handle than UNIX, you obviously have not done much front line work with BOTH of them!

> same while the computing needs of Word has gone up dramatically. Who gives a
> rats ass if Word takes up 100 megs of hard drive space when 18 Gig drives
> are becoming standard? Or who cares if Word takes more memory when most
> average systems ship with 128 Megs of RAM?

The IT manager who has to pay for the upgrade of thousands of PC's gives a rats ass and cares, THAT IS WHO! Particularly when he's just been through one of those 2 years ago from W3.1 to W95!

The market is not only made of startups who can afford the latest. In fact, those are a very small percentage...

> Being efficient is desirable but
> when reality says that our hardware is overbuilt by a factor of 10, Word's
> processing needs hardly ever come anywhere close to taxing most modern
> machines.

Your hardware may be. But the majority of the world's PC's in use for business are most definitely not in that class. And I've got news for you: in 1 year's time,
be prepared to sell your PC and get a new faster one. And keep doing it forever EVERY year. Now, do YOU still think efficiency is not important?

I challenge you and all those who think like you to come back here in 5 years time and tell us all that you still have the latest hw and sw and have done so for
EVERY SINGLE ONE of those 5 years. Last time I did this, I found out that none of those illuminati were left in the industry: they all had left. Talk about long term, eh?...

>
> Your idealistic 'silver bullet' drivel really gets us no where in trying to
> determine which solution will work best. Just look around and see how many
> companies are choosing the Microsoft solution and are actually achieving
> great success.
>

Here we go with the "how many" argument. Isn't it clear by now this line doesn't work with me? That is EXACTLY the 60's "buy IBM" argument. We all saw what that ended up in...

The drivel is NOT mine, buddy. MS blindfolded supporters ARE the ones saying NT and SQL Server IS the silver bullet, all you gotta do to scale it is ADD memory!

What a SAD JOKE...

> Netscape was king. MSFT marketing defeated Netscape, not its technical
> superiority.

NO. They did NOT use marketing to defeat N. They used predatory monopolistic tactics by flogging their product for free to create a demand for it. That is NOT marketing, buddy. It has a very specific name in places where those practices are illegal.

And even free, it took them nearly four years to get to a narrow majority. They also had to bundle it with the OS to get people to use the "free" product. Says a lot for the quality of the thing and people's willingness to use it, doesn't it?

> >And market share price was never a measure of any technical advantage.
>
> Wrong again. Market share and market dominance is a large aspect of
> technical superiority from a longevity standpoint. People choosing certain
> technologies are actually making an investment in that technology and if
> that particular technology is not advanced or supported down the road, then
> it was a really bad choice.

Cripes, you definitely are in lalaland, buddy... On one hand you claim that we all gotta buy forever the latest brightest and whitest because that is good, on the other you tells us we should look for longevity? That one doesn't even deserve a serious reply!

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au
http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm Received on Sat May 15 1999 - 12:28:02 CDT