Re: Best OS for the following...

On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:41:16 +1100, "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_www.com> wrote:

>your statement. But I really can't see the need to change to SQL Server,
>and if I wait a mere three months, I think I will have disproved your claim
>that 24x7x365 is not possible on NT-ish systems.

Now, now, Howard. We all know that in another 6 months, MS will have released XP and SSXP (it's beginning to sound like an old teapot...).

Then, we'll have the usual flood here of wild claims about:

. "MS beating the crap out of ORACLE".

. "ORACLE going under in 3 months because MS is gonna take over the world".

. "XP now being a true enterprise-ready OS and SSXP being a true enterprise-ready database".

. "Win2K will be "old technology, bug-ridden" and to be ignored".

(I wonder how all the bozos investing in MCSE certification for W2K are gonna be feeling? Probably like all the bozos that spent a fortune "certifying" for NT to see it down the drain when MS proclaimed NT as bug-ridden old-hat technology after W2K came out?)

. SSXP being capable of 1000000 transactions per second at the cost of $0.00001 per transaction (with 999999 totally separate databases and systems), 24x7x365x(1000-1)operation (except for the reboots everytime you click on OK instead of Cancel in the config dialogues). You'll need SP1 to go past year 999, BTW.

All that without a single DBA or SysAdmin in sight. Of course, you'll need an army of MCSE people. But then again they are not DBAs or SysAdmins. So point proven, case closed!

Get ready, people. It's gonna be here more certain than the Mir garbage can falling down!

<sigh>...

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Thu Mar 22 2001 - 04:14:52 CST