Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

David <desertfox_at_thegrid.net> wrote in message news:Iu003.2242$i4.123736_at_alfalfa.thegrid.net...
> >> 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!!!!!
>snip
> What exactly does MS marketing have to do with his summary on how the
> industry has changed. This has nothing to do with marketing. Are you so
> mindless that you have to parrot your broken record phrase of "MS Marketing
> is behind it!" over and over and over without really responding to the
> point?

If you had read the ENTIRE message instead of concentrating in one single point, you would understand. Let me clarify.

The discussion is NOT about code that should be 3K when it is now 5K! Nor is it about 100Mb of product.
The discussion is about what VALUE are we DERIVING from such sizes!

So quoting the usual crappy arguments from the press about the lack of develoment efficiency in reducing code memory sizes to 3K is totally USELESS as an argument IN THE CONTEXT of this discussion!

Easy to understand now?

>
> He is absolutely correct when he says that times have changed in regards to
> development due to cheaper RAM. I remember when coding for the PDP (only
> 16-64k depending on how much money you had) you had to take the uttmost care
> in writing for efficiency due to the memory limitations.

Sure he is correct. If I now reply that some days are sunny and some days are rainy, am I incorrect? NO! But what the heck has that got to do with the price of fish?

>
> Nuno, you really need a lesson in manners. Here in the US it isn't necessary
> that you agree with the other person, but what is required is courtesy and
> politeness, not upper-case screaming and rudeness.
>

Sure. I understand courtesy and politeness. But I don't consider courteous or polite the reading of my messages so lightly and with such lack of attention that the replies come out of context, distorting and plainly invoking argument lines that I have not made. Better not reply. I can relate to that.

>What kinds of manners do they teach you in Australia?

Probably the same as anywhere else where there is an anglo-saxon cultural background.

>Maybe it was because
> Australia was originally populated with English felons... I don't know.

Me neither. Probably because these religious arguments and fanatical defences come out from the US who was originally colonised by religious fanatics.

What can I say? Cultural backgrounds...

>
> As to your comment on the size of the application, do you have any clue as
> to the size and complexity of the application? Or are you just pulling these
> numbers out of your bung-hole?

Depends. Do you call disk drives bung-holes?

>
> Actually I find that the latest versions of Word do offer quite a bit more.
> I am now able to link URLS and edit HTML directly in Word.

Oh, let me see. You use Word to make web pages? One would think that a word processor would be the LAST tool anybody doing web code would use... Word processors are useful for the printed page or documents. You want to do web pages, I suggest the use of things like Frontpage, since you like MS stuff so much. Quite useful for that, does that job and does it darn well and that's it.

Or maybe you want to create a "dynamic document" that "interfaces with the web and its multimedia content"? One would think that just plucking a URL and some HTML in an e-mail message would achieve the same result ten times faster. And if you insist on the written document, bang it in as an attachment.

Much simpler, no need for a PIII-450 and 256Mb of memory to run a word processor BLOATED with stuff that has NOTHING to do with word processing.

Or do you want to discuss the value of integrated software that understands cross-application communication and development?

Now, that is something. Great promises from MS here too.

O97 fails there. Miserably. After telling us the advantages of VBA in integrating Office 97 into a homogeneous whole, we are left with VBA-for-Excel, VBA-for-Word, VBA-for-Access, VBA-for-OLE-on-each-one-of-the-previous, and whatever else may show up next (VBA-for-Frontpage?).

So exactly how is this different/better from what we had in O95? Change the flies?

Value, David. Value. There ain't ANY. Just marketing hype.

> you can always choose not to install them. As far as the size of Word, it
> hasnt really gotten any bigger in size in proportion to the average hard
> drive size. Hard drives being shipped with new machines have gone from 1 Gig
> a few years ago to 18 Gigs today. If Word is still only around 100 megs to
> install, that isnt too bad.

Once again, David. The total size of O97 is miles bigger than O95 or previous versions. Totally out of context with any gains in productivity in using it. But needing an upgrade from the 1Gb drive to one of these 18Gb things you talk about (why not 9Gb?).

And because the old M/B and BIOS can't connect to an 18Gb U-EIDE drive, we're updating the M/B too.

And of course, the new M/B doesn't accept neither the old video card nor the old memory chips (remember your recently "added memory? Worth NOTHING, now!).

So your "great" solution of $200 is now a lousy solution needing $2000. IF you're lucky.

The apparent "simplicity" and "convenience" and "reduced bang for buck" and "Moore's law" that you continually argue is such a "great advantage" in delivering value, is simply what I've been saying: hype.

The problem is that you keep looking at each individual area by itself, without even realising that what you invoke as great "advancements" cannot be taken piece by piece. Has to be taken in FULL. Like it or not.

Ergo, TCO goes up. Ergo, VALUE goes down.

See the big picture. You are being conned into this spiral of upgrades like everybody else.

Some have said no already. Many more will in future. Or do you really think Joe6pack is gonna keep upgrading (read: replacing!) his PC just so that he can put URL's into his kid's birthday invitations? Joe 6pack may be many things, but don't make the mistake of thinking he's stupid...

And the corporates are slowing down on the rate of upgrades as well. The only ones that are upgrading regularly are the 3rd party developers, because they have to. Until someone gives them one hint of an alternative. Then they will stop.

Sooner or later, this rate of change will have to slow down. When it does, be prepared. It won't be nice on your MS shares...

That is my point, simple!

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au
http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm Received on Tue May 18 1999 - 11:41:01 CDT