Re: Oracle #1? Then why are these still missing...

From: David Cressey <dcressey_at_valinet.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 08:48:59 -0400
Message-ID: <ViCo3.61775$AU3.1621290@news2.giganews.com>

...And how do they compare, IYO, as far as providing concurrent users with isolation and performance?

Regards,

David

kevin moriarty wrote in message <7nt9eo$cd4$1_at_nnrp03.primenet.com>...
>I'm a newbie; been doing oracle for 3 months. After using access, paradox,
>and oracle I've com to this insight: Oracle is less user friendly, much
>slower to develope in, more difficult to get information on, more expensive
>to use, pays better, and handles large tables better.
Received on Sat Jul 31 1999 - 07:48:59 CDT