Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Not that anyone asked, but I'll throw my two cents in--

> > 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!

It seems to me that the superior technology argument is a moot point. It's unfortunate that superior technologies are so often backed by incompetent business leadership. Given two companies, one with an OK product but a strong financial standing, and another with a great product but a questionable questionable future, the choice becomes obvious. It's technological Darwinism.

>
> 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.

Ideally, you're right. Again, though, it's a slippery slope. If the business side of a company is not strong enough to support the technology, the technology will eventually suffer. The roadside is littered with the debris of companies with good products who had stupid leadership. A dumb company with a good product is no good to me.

> 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.

Five years is an eternity to support a product. I just left a position where one of my duties was to support a product whose history goes back to the mid-1980's and we had customers that were using releases from 1990. In order to continue supporting a product, you have to keep a development environment avavilable, as well as keep people trained on features that may no longer exist and are no longer relevant. It's not economically feasible to perpetually support a product that no longer provides a revenue stream.

>
> 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?
>

I don't think anyone (with the exception of the most naive) are claiming that there is no need for advanced expertise on Microsoft products. I don't care how user-friendly a product claims to be. If you don't have people available who understand the inner workings of a product, the product will fail. As someone who has chosen to make my living off of the Microsoft machine, I appreciate their level of disclosure about the wrinkles in their products in tools such as the MSDN. It is an essential part of my daily work. For better or worse, Microsoft has chosen to tackle a broad range of technologies. Just like the rest of us, their people are struggling to keep abreast of the technologies that we are. Imperfection is inevitable. It's not an excuse for them to produce crappy products, of which I think there are few. For every MS product that I don't like, there are generally several that are outstanding.

> 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...
>

Again, this argument is a moot point. They're damned if they do or don't. If they don't continue to enhance functionality, they will quickly be surpassed by the smaller, more nimble companies. However, they then have to put up with the complaints of techno-phobes who would still prefer to be working on a Smith-Corona and an abacus. Furthermore, you can't continue to attract talented developers if your technology is less than bleeding edge. I know of no real developer, including myself, who's going to be satisfied working for a company who's not innovating. I have a short attention span.

I sympathize with the IT folks who have to install Service Packs 1 through 10 just to get a stable product. I've been there, too. Innovation is not a straight line -- you sometimes take a few steps backward before taking the great leap forward. Hopefully there's more steps forward than back. Generally, I'm of the opinion that MS is going forward.

> > 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?...
>

I feel like a broken record, but that's the price of innovation. If anyone truly thinks that Microsoft is not a market-driven company and is simply creating complex products so that they can have a good laugh at all us idiots, then I've got a few other conspiracy theories for you. It's people like me who not only want the new stuff, but demand it. I might not be using every feature all the time, but it's nice to know it's there if I want it. And if it doesn't work perfectly, big deal. That's why I learned to program. If it doesn't work the way I want it to, I fix it.

> >
> > 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...
>

I know of few people outside of Microsoft who truly believe that Microsoft is building any silver bullets. For the most part, the truly effective folks should see what Microsoft builds as simply tools. If it's the right tool, you use it. If not, you find another one or you build it. I might make my living with Microsoft products, but I continue to investigate as many other options as possible. Take Linux, for example. I've played with Linux for a long time now, and am looking forward to the opportunity to recommend it for a project. I am not willing, however, to risk my professional reputation on technological religious wars. If it's the right tool, I will use it. That goes for NT, Linux, Mac OS, whatever. Anyone who does otherwise takes a huge risk. And you're right, the 'Buy IBM' argument' does not apply. There are too many other choices out there.

>
> > 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?
>

I refuse to condemn a company for making tools available for free. I also have no doubts as to their motivations - I don't look to Microsoft to be my role-model for charity. The make tools available for free because they can. Because of their high-profile, people will find every reason to doubt the motivation behind every move Microsoft makes, and rightly so. Don't look to them for altruism. That's not what business is about. Business is about building a product that people will use before they use your competitors. Microsoft has done that. That doesn't mean their stuff is the best -- sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

> > >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!

A technology's longevity is directly proportional to the strength of the company behind it. Superior technology is useless if there's no one around to support and enhance it. Linux, no matter how good it is, would have faded away a long time ago if companies like Red Hat and Caldera weren't there to take up the cause. Now they're getting the same accusations thrown at them that Microsoft does -- too commercial, too competitive, too pretty. You can't make everyone happy all the time.

Anyway, this discussion is good food for thought.

Rob Banker
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer
rob_banker_at_mindspring.com Received on Sat May 15 1999 - 17:34:40 CDT